Uttarakhand High Court
Dharmendra Kumar And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 3 June, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:4437-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 479 of 2021
Dharmendra Kumar and others --Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents
With
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 498 of 2021
Prema and others --Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. B.D. Pande and Mr. Kaushal Pandey, Advocates for the petitioners
in WPSB No. 479 of 2021
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Nailwal, Standing Counsel for the State
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, Advocate for private respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
1. Since these two writ petitions involve common
questions of law and fact, they were heard together
and are being decided by this common judgment.
However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition
(S/B) No. 479 of 2021 alone, are being considered and
discussed.
2. Petitioners are graduates in different subjects and
also possess B.Ed. degrees. According to them, on the
strength of B.Ed. degree, they are eligible for
appointment as Assistant Teacher (Primary) in different
Elementary Schools run by State Government.
3. In this writ petition, they have challenged validity
of Rule 9(A)(two) of Uttarakhand Government
2025:UHC:4437-DB
Elementary Education (Teachers) (Amendment) Service
Rules, 2019, which provides that anyone who do not
possess bachelor's degree with minimum 50 percent
marks shall not be eligible to be considered for
appointment as primary school teacher.
4. Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel appearing for
NCTE and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Nailwal, learned State
Counsel, however, submit that even if the requirement
of 50 percent marks in graduation is ignored, as prayed
by petitioners, then also, they are not eligible for
appointment in view of law declared by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Devesh Sharma Vs.
Union of India and Others, Civil Appeal No. 5068
of 2023, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 985.
Relevant Para Nos. 32 to 42, 49 and 61 to 63 of the
said judgment are reproduced below:-
"32. A person who has a BEd qualification has been trained to impart
teaching to secondary and higher secondary level of students. He is not
expected to impart training to primary level students.
33. In order to appreciate the difference between Diploma in
Elementary Education (it is called by different names in each State), and
Bachelor of Education (BEd), we look no further than the notifications
issued by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) itself from
time to time.
34. The Appendix 2 to the NCTE Regulations, 2009 spells out as to
what is the aim of Elementary Education. It is stated to be as follows:
"1. Preamble
1.1. The Diploma in Elementary Education (DElEd) is a two year
professional programme of teacher education. It aims to prepare teachers
for the elementary stage of education i.e. Classes I to VIII. The aim of
elementary education is to fulfil the basic learning needs of all children
in an inclusive school environment bridging social and gender gaps with
the active participation of the community.
1.2. The elementary teacher education programme carries different
nomenclatures such as BTC, JBT, DEd and (Diploma in Education).
Henceforth, the nomenclature of the programme shall be the same across
all States and it shall be referred to as the "Diploma in Elementary
Education" (DElEd)."
35. The same Regulation in its Appendix 4 describes BEd as follows:
"1. Preamble
The Bachelor of Education programme, generally known as BEd, is a
professional course that prepares teachers for upper primary or middle
2025:UHC:4437-DB
level (Classes VI-VIII), secondary level (Classes IX-X) and senior
secondary level (Classes XI-XII). The programme shall be offered in
composite institutions as defined in clause (b) of Regulation 2."
36. It is therefore clear that a BEd course is not designed for teaching
at primary level.
37. Moreover, the inclusion of BEd candidates for primary classes is
in the teeth of several decisions of this Court, as this Court has
consistently held that Diploma in Elementary Education (DElEd) and not
BEd, is the proper qualification in Primary Schools.
38. In Dilip Kumar Ghosh v. District Primary School Council [Dilip
Kumar Ghosh v. District Primary School Council, (2005) 7 SCC 567 :
2005 SCC (L&S) 986] , this Court had to decide on the question whether
BEd degree candidate can be equated with a candidate who holds
training in Primary School teaching or in other words who is trained
specifically for Primary Schools. The contention of the appellants (in the
aforesaid case) who were BEd candidates was that, their course (BEd),
equips them to teach Primary Classes. Their contention was rejected by
this Court. In para 9, it stated as under : (SCC p. 573)
"9. In BEd curriculum such subjects like child psychology are not
found. On the other hand, the curriculum is of a generic nature and deals
with subjects like the principle of educational-curriculum studies,
educational psychology, development of education in modern India,
social organisation and instructional methods, etc."
Then again in para 10 it was stated as under : (Dilip Kumar Ghosh
case [Dilip Kumar Ghosh v. District Primary School Council, (2005) 7
SCC 567 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 986] , SCC p. 573)
"10. ... For teaching in the primary school, therefore, one must know
the child psychology and development of a child at a tender age. As
already noticed, the candidates like the appellants who are trained in BEd
degree are not necessarily to be equipped to teach the students of primary
class. They are not trained and equipped to understand the psychology of
a child of tender age."
39. In P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala [P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala,
(2003) 3 SCC 541 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 339] the argument that BEd
qualification is a higher qualification than Diploma in Elementary
Education (DElEd) was rejected. Again, it was a case before the
Supreme Court where BEd candidates, were claiming appointment as
Primary School teachers on the basis of the claim that their educational
qualification (i.e. BEd) was even higher than the Diploma in Elementary
Education (DElEd) which was held by the other candidates. In para 10 of
the said case, it was stated as under : (SCC p. 546)
"10. We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced by the
respondents that BEd qualification is a higher qualification than TTC and
therefore, the BEd candidates should be held to be eligible to compete
for the post."
40. These findings were reiterated by the Supreme Court in Yogesh
Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2003) 3 SCC 548 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 346] , holding that though BEd is a
well-recognised qualification in the field of teaching, yet it is a training
which equips a candidate to teach higher classes, not classes at primary
level.
41. BEd is not a qualification for teachers at Primary level of
schooling. The pedagogical skills and training required from a teacher at
Primary level is not expected from a BEd trained teacher. They are
trained to teach classes at higher level, post primary, secondary and
above. For Primary level i.e. Class I to Class V the training is DElEd or
what is known as Diploma in Elementary Education. It is a DElEd
2025:UHC:4437-DB
training course which is designed and structured to impart skills in a
teacher who is to teach Primary level of students.
42. Therefore, by implication the inclusion of BEd as a qualification
amounts to lowering down of the "quality" of education at Primary level.
"Quality" of education which was such an important component of the
entire elementary education movement in this country, which we have
discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this order.
49. The pedagogical skills of a teacher must be given a very high
priority. But our priority seems to be different. It is not to impart
"quality" education, but to provide more job avenues to BEd trained
candidates, as this seems to be the only reason for their inclusion, in
presence of overwhelming evidence that BEd course is not a suitable
course for primary classes.
61. Unlike Diploma in Elementary Education (DElEd), BEd does not
equip a teacher to teach at primary level. This fact is implicitly
recognised in the Notification as well (Notification dated 28-6-2018),
which still requires a person, who is appointed as a teacher with BEd
qualification to "mandatorily undergo a six-month Bridge Course in
Elementary Education". This defeats the very logic of including BEd as a
qualification, as the very notification which pushes for the inclusion of
BEd, also recognises its inherent pedagogical weakness in its relation to
primary classes. It is to cover this defect, that all such candidates, must
undergo a mandatory six months' Bridge Course in Elementary
Education! The irony here is that all this is being done when the State of
Rajasthan already has more than the required number of Diploma
qualified candidates available. This is besides the fact that there is
presently no such "bridge course" available; at least there was none till
the disposal of the petition by the Rajasthan High Court.
62. Under these circumstances, we are unable to comprehend as to
what was the pressing need to include BEd candidates, who are
admittedly not fully trained to take up Primary Classes! Consequently,
the decision of NCTE to include BEd as a qualification for teachers in a
primary school seems arbitrary, unreasonable and in fact has no nexus
with the object sought to be achieved by the Act i.e. the Right to
Education Act, which is to give to children not only free and compulsory
but also "quality" education.
63. In our considered opinion, therefore, NCTE was not justified in
including BEd as a qualification for appointment to the post of primary
school teacher (Level 1), a qualification it had so far consciously kept out
of the eligibility requirement. The Rajasthan High Court by way of the
impugned judgment [Rajendra Singh Chotiya v. NCTE, 2021 SCC
OnLine Raj 4372] had rightly struck down the Notification dated 28-6-
2018, on the following grounds : (Rajendra Singh Chotiya
case [Rajendra Singh Chotiya v. NCTE, 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 4372] ,
SCC OnLine Raj para 49)
"49. ... (i) The impugned Notification dated 28-6-2018 is unlawful
because:
(a) it is under the direction of the Central Government, which power
the Central Government under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE
Act did not have; and
(b) it is not in exercise of power of the Central Government under
sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the RTE Act relaxing the eligibility
criteria prescribed by NCTE, nor there has been any exercise for
ascertaining existence of the conditions precedent for exercising such
power.
(ii) The petitioners have locus standi to challenge the Notification
dated 28-6-2018. Merely because an additional qualification is
2025:UHC:4437-DB
recognised as one of the eligibility criteria, the petitioners cannot be
prevented from challenging it.
(iii) Accepting a candidate with BEd degree as eligible for
appointment and thereafter subjecting him to complete the bridge course
within two years of appointment is in the nature of relaxing the existing
eligibility criteria, which the Central Government could have done only
within sub-section (2) of Section 23 and subject to existence of
circumstances necessary for exercise of such power.
(iv) The State Government could not have ignored the Notification of
NCTE dated 28-6-2018 while issuing advertisement for REET. However,
when we have declared that this notification is illegal and are in the
process of setting aside, the issue becomes one of academic value."
5. We find substance in the submission made by
learned counsel for the respondents. In the said
judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that B.Ed is
not a valid qualification for appointment as primary
/elementary school teacher.
6. Law is well settled that every employer has
inherent right to decide the eligibility condition for
appointment to a particular post. Merely because
petitioners do not meet the eligibility requirement
mentioned in the Rules for appointment as primary
school teacher, is not sufficient for the petitioners to
question validity of the applicable rules.
7. There is presumption regarding validity of a
statutory provision including service rules. Thus, there
is no scope for interference. The writ petition fails and
is dismissed. However, it is made clear that any of the
petitioners who have been appointed on merit, shall not
be disturbed on account of this order.
_______________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
____________________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 3rd June, 2025
Mahinder
MAHINDER SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c
, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BA
BA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH
Date: 2025.06.05 20:24:55 +05'30'
2025:UHC:4437-DB
