AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in as much as she has been disqualified from appearing in the process of selection for appointment on the post of Primary Teacher in the Primary Teacher Selection Examination 2025 by Annexure P/1.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a graduate and thereafter has completed her B.Ed in the year of 2018.
The petitioner passed the Primary Teacher Eligibility Test Examination 2020. As such, she is having the eligibility test qualification for recruitment on the post of Primary Teacher. The respondent issued advertisement for recruitment on the post of Primary Teacher by holding Primary Teacher Selection Examination 2025. The petitioner appeared in the said examination with application No. 3403250736207 and cleared the said examination. She was declared eligible for the post. Thereafter, revised list was published on 14.07.2026. The petitioner was then asked to remain present on 21.07.2026 for verification of her documents.
The petitioner in the meanwhile was working as Guest Teacher for different period and took admission for D.El.Ed course.
After completion of verification of documents and other formalities, the respondent No.6 has uploaded the final selection list on its portal. However, in this final selection list, the name of the petitioner has been placed at Sl. No. 105 of the list of ineligible candidates. It has been remarked against the name of the petitioner that she is not having the professional qualification for recruitment on the said post. The petitioner being aggrieved by this, has filed the present petition. Before filing the petition, petitioner represented before the authority on 06.08.2026 however, when the same was not adverted to, she again submitted an application on 07.09.2026 but as the respondents did not pay any heed to the same, petitioner has come before this Court by way of present petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although in the Madhya Pradesh School Education Service (Teaching Cadre) Service Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018, the requisite qualification for Primary Teacher has been changed by amending Schedule III w.e.f. 27.12.2024 however, in the Madhya Pradesh Tribes and Scheduled Castes Teaching Cadre (Service and Recruitment) Rules, 2018 still the qualification is not changed. He points out that for Primary Teacher in the Rules of Education Department, the requirement is Higher Secondary with atleast 50% marks and 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education / Diploma in Elementary Education (Special Education) or its equivalent. Whereas, in the Rules of the Tribal Welfare Department, the requirement is still Graduation in the concerned subject and 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education (or its equivalent) or Graduation with 50% minimum marks in concerned subject along with B.Ed degree. He thus submits that petitioner having the B.Ed degree with Graduation with more than 50% marks is eligible for appointment. He points out that the recruitment in question is being held for both Education as well as Tribal Welfare Department. He thus submits that in view of the clear discrepancy between the two Rules, the petitioner deserves to be permitted to participate in the process of recruitment by treating her as eligible candidate. The learned counsel also points out that the petitioner has taken admission in D.El.Ed course. He also submits that there are several vacancies and all of them will not be filled even in the present recruitment drive. He thus submits that the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered sympathetically.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the issue in hand is no more res integra. She submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Devesh Sharma vs. Union of India & others, (2023) 18 SCC 339 has already considered this issue and has held that the D.El.Ed qualification for Teachers at primary level is unique and candidate having diploma in the said course have specific training for imparting education to the students of primary level and the candidates possessing B.Ed qualification are trained to impart teaching to secondary and higher secondary level of students. Thus, they cannot be expected to impart education to primary level students. Thus, the Court held that inclusion of B.Ed qualification to teach primary level students amounts to lowering of quality of education at primary level. Thus, the law has clearly been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that those candidates who are not having Diploma in Elementary Education i.e. D.El.Ed are not eligible for recruitment on the post of Primary Teacher. She also points out that this case of Devesh Sharma (supra) has been positively referred and reiterated in the case of Navin Kumar & others vs. Union of India & others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2360. She thus submits the petition in view of the above settled position of law deserves to be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for parties. Perused the case file.
A perusal of Annexure P/1 would show that the petitioner has been held ineligible for recruitment on the post of Primary Teacher for want of essential qualification. A perusal of the pleadings and the documents available on record would show that the petitioner is a Graduate along with B.Ed degree. Thus, undisputably she is not having the qualification of D.El.Ed or D.Ed (Special Education). It is also clear from perusal of the documents that the recruitment in question is being held for Primary Teacher for which the petitioner has applied.
Now, the question before this Court is whether petitioner having B.Ed degree and not D.El.Ed degree can be held to be eligible for appointment on the post of Primary Teacher. For this, reference has to be made to the Madhya Pradesh School Education Service (Teaching Cadre) Service Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018 which in Schedule III provides at Sl. No. 3 that the essential qualification for appointment as Primary Teacher is Higher Secondary (or equivalent) with atleast 50% marks and 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education / Diploma in Elementary Education (Special Education) (or its equivalent). In the alternate, Higher Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education or B.El.Ed along with Higher Secondary having at least 50% or Graduation with 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education (or its equivalent). Clearly, B.Ed is not one of the essential qualifications.
Now, these Rules if seen in light of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devesh Sharma (supra), an inescapable conclusion will come that B.Ed cannot be termed as a qualification essential for appointment on the post of Primary Teacher. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case has held in para 58, 62, 63, 77 and 82 as under :
"58.We have already examined this aspect in great detail. B.Ed. is not a qualification for teaching at Primary level of classes, much less a better or higher qualification, in context of Primary classes. This finding is self-evident in the very admission of NCTE which mandates that all B.Ed. qualified teachers who are appointed to teach Primary level classes must mandatorily undergo a pedagogical course for elementary classes within two years of their appointment.
62.Under these circumstances, we are unable to comprehend as to what was the pressing need to include B.Ed. candidates, who are admittedly not fully trained to take up Primary Classes! Consequently, the decision of the NCTE to include B.Ed. 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. 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 B.Ed. 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 Judgement had rightly struck down the notification dated 28.06.2018, on the following grounds:-
“49.....(i) The impugned notification dated 28.06.2018 is unlawful because: -
(a)it is under the direction of the Central Government, which power the Central Government under Subsection (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 RTE Act relaxing the eligibility criteria prescribed by the 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 28.06.2018. Merely because an additional qualification is recognized as one of the eligibility criteria, the petitioners cannot be prevented from challenging it.
(iii)Accepting a candidate with B.Ed. 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 28.06.2018 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.
77.In the present case and in the larger context of the matter, we cannot even see this as a policy decision. But without getting into this argument, even presuming for the sake of argument that the decision taken at the Government level to include B.Ed. as a qualification for teachers at primary level is a policy decision, we must say that this decision is not correct as it is contrary to the purpose of the Act. In fact, it goes against the letter and spirit of the Fundamental Right enshrined in the Constitution under Article 21A. It is against the specific mandate of the Act, which calls for a free, compulsory and meaningful primary education to children. By including B.Ed. as a qualification for teachers for primary school, the Central Government has acted against the provisions of the Constitution and the laws. The only logic given by the Central Government to include B.Ed. as a qualification is that it is a ‘higher qualification’. This we have already seen is not correct. Under these circumstances, we have no hesitation to say that the notification has rightly been quashed and the decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has to be upheld.
82.Consequently, the Appeals are dismissed and the judgement dated 25.11.2021 (Rajendra Singh Chotiya vs. NCTE, 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 4372) of the Rajasthan High Court is upheld. The notification dated 28.06.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside."
The Hon'ble Apex Court reiterating the law as laid down in the case of Devesh Kumar (supra) has further held in the case of Navin Kumar (supra) in para 11 and 12 as under:
"11.We have also gone through the 2019 Rules of Chhattisgarh. In Rule 8(II), the qualification of an Assistant Teacher reads as under:—
“Rule 8(II): Educational qualifications and experience – The candidate must possess the educational qualifications and experience as prescribed for the service as shown in column (5) of Schedule III. For Preliminary education, the prescribed qualification will be applicable as per provisions of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.” Column 5 of Schedule III provides that the minimum educational qualifications required for the post of teachers shall be as per Annexure I of the Rules. This Annexure prescribes the minimum qualification for Assistant Teacher as follows:
“a)Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education by whatever name known)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2002
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.EL.Ed.)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 5o% marks and 2-year Diploma in Education (Special Education)
OR
Graduation and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
OR
Graduation with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification (graduate from the institution recognised from NCTE) shall also be eligible for appointment as teacher for classes 1 to 5. Provided he/she undergoes, after appointment, a NCTE recognised 6-month special programme in Elementary Education. And
(b)Passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government, in accordance with the guidelines framed by NCTE for this purpose.”
(emphasis supplied)
The entire reliance of the petitioner is on the above provisions. We have already seen that Rule 8(II) while prescribing the qualifications of Assistant Teacher makes a reference to the qualifications as given under the Right to Education Act, 2009. Not only this, the aforesaid provision placing B.Ed. as a qualification is again subsequent to the Notification of NCTE dated 28.06.2018, which has already been quashed and set aside by our judgement in Devesh Sharma (supra). Therefore, by implication, qualification given in the Chhattisgarh Rules to the extent it makes B.Ed. a qualification also cannot be implemented, following the law laid down in Devesh Sharma (supra).
12.In fact, we have been shown today an order of NCTE dated 04.09.2023 whereby the judgement in Devesh Sharma (supra) was communicated to Chief Secretaries of all State Governments for further appropriate action. In spite of this, appointments were given to B.Ed. candidates which was illegal and has now rightly been quashed, by the Chhattisgarh High Court."
It is thus clear that if a candidate having B.Ed qualification and not having D.El.Ed qualification is permitted to participate for the recruitment on the post of Primary Teacher, then it will amount to lowering the criteria of essential education qualification and thus lowering the quality of education at primary level as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred cases.
As far as the discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner between the Rules of Education Department and Tribal Department, the same will not come to rescue the petitioner for the reason that the Hon'ble Apex Court in unequivocal terms has already held that B.Ed qualification to teach primary level students amounts to lowering of quality of education at primary level. Thus, the said qualification cannot be accepted as a qualification for recruitment on the post of Primary Teacher.
Considering the same, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.