Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/433/2020 on 14 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:6088-DB
Office Notes,
reports, orders
SL. or proceedings
Date COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No. or directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSB/433/2020
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for State.
Mr. Saurabh Budhori, Advocate holding brief
of Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, Advocate for
respondent No. 3.
2. By means of this writ petitioner, petitioners
have sought the following reliefs:-
"I. Declare Rule 9(Ka) (2) of Uttarakhand
Government Primary Education (Teachers) Service Rules,
2012 as amended in 2019 so far as it prescribes minimum
50% marks in Graduation as educational eligibility
condition for Assistant Teacher (Primary Education) as
arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal and unconstitutional and set
aside the same (contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ
petition).
II. Issue a writ, of certiorari quashing the impugned
condition for having minimum 50% marks in Graduation for
the applicants as prescribed in recruitment advertisement for
Assistant Teacher (Primary) Recruitment 2020 has issued by
respondents (contained as Annexure No. 3 to the writ
petition).
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to permit the
petitioners to participate and consider the application forms
of the petitioners in the selection process for Assistant
Teacher (Primary) as per the advertisement issued for the
recruitment 2020."
3. Learned State Counsel submits that petitioners
possessed B.Ed qualification and not D.El.Ed.
which is necessary for appointment as teacher in
Government Primary/Elementary School. He refers
to judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Devesh Sharma Vs. Union of India
2025:UHC:6088-DB
and Others, Civil Appeal No. 5068 of 2023,
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 985.
4. Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for
petitioners had made a statement before this Court
on 23.06.2025 that all the petitioners have passed
six months' certificate course in Professional
Development Programme for Elementary Teachers
(PDPET) from National Institute of Open
Schooling, which is recognised by National Council
for Teacher Education. On his request, he was
granted ten days time for bringing on record the
certificate of passing bridge course by filing
supplementary affidavit. Thereafter, the case was
listed on 08.07.2025 and on his request the matter
was adjourned for another week.
5. Today, Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for
petitioners submits that even though information
regarding order passed by this Court was given to
petitioners and they were asked for come forward
for filing supplementary affidavit, however, none of
the petitioners have come forward, therefore he is
not in a position to make any definite statement as
to whether petitioners have passed six months
bridge course or not.
6. The manner in which petitioners are
procrastinating in filing supplementary affidavit
indicates that they do not have six months bridge
course.
7. In such view of the matter, we have no other
2025:UHC:6088-DB
option but to treat their qualification as B.Ed.
Therefore, in view of the law declared in the case of
Devesh Sharma Vs. Union of India (supra), we
decline to entertain the challenge thrown by
petitioners to the relevant provision of Recruitment
Rules as they are not eligible for appointment as
Primary Teachers for want of necessary
qualification.
8. Thus, there is no scope for interference. Writ
petition fails and is dismissed.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
14.07.2025
Mahinder/
MAHINDER
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a
SINGH
92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D
305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH
Date: 2025.07.17 10:18:26 +05'30'
