[2024] 8 S.C.R. 810 : 2024 INSC 656 Navin Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc. (Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 20768-20770 of 2024) 28 August 2024 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court which quashed the appointment of the primary school teachers with B.Ed qualification. Headnotes† Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – Appointment to the post of Assistant teacher in a Primary School – Eligibility of B.Ed candidates – On facts, issuance of appointment orders in favour of the B.Ed candidates by the State of Chhattisgarh, which was after the judgment in Devesh Sharma’s case wherein it was held that the candidates having B.Ed qualification were ineligible for the appointment and as such cannot be given any relief – Petitions filed by candidates holding Diploma in Elementary Education, challenging the eligibility of B.Ed. candidates – Interim order by the High Court whereby the recruitment process as regards B.Ed. candidates was directed to be kept in abeyance – Challenge to, by the B.Ed. candidates before Supreme Court – Clarificatory order by this Court that selection and appointment of B.Ed. candidates would be subject to the final decision of the High Court – Thereafter, petitions filed by the Diploma holders in Elementary Education before the High Court were allowed and service of teachers with B.Ed. Qualification terminated – Interference with:

Held: Not called for – B.Ed. qualified candidates were called by the State in the selection process, yet as they were held to be non-qualified by a judgment of this Court in Devesh Sharma’s case, which is the law now and by logic has to be implemented, they were rightly held to be disqualified – B.Ed. is not a qualification for a teacher in a Primary School – Moreover, this aspect has already [2024] 8 S.C.R. 811 Navin Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc.

been clarified in the order dated 08.04.2024, where only such candidates have been saved who were selected and appointed prior to the order dated 11.08.2023 in Devesh Sharma’s Case – Since the instant petitioners were appointed post 11.08.2023 and their appointments were also subjected to the final outcome of the pending writ petition before High Court, they cannot get any benefit – Date of appointment which is certainly after the cut-off date, is important – They will stand disqualified, as they do not have the essential qualification for appointment as primary school teachers – Furthermore, r. 8(II) of the 2019 Rules placing B.Ed. as a qualification is again subsequent to the Notification of NCTE, which has already been quashed and set aside by the judgment in Devesh Sharma’s case – Thus, 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’s case – Also, order of NCTE whereby the judgment in Devesh Sharma’s case was communicated to Chief Secretaries of all State Governments for further appropriate action has been shown to the Court – In spite of this, appointments were given to B.Ed. candidates which was illegal and has rightly been quashed by the High Court – Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019. [Paras 10-13] Case Law Cited

Devesh Sharma v. Union of India [2023] 11 SCR 167 : 2023 INSC 704 – relied on. List of Acts Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009; Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019. List of Keywords Post of Assistant teacher in Primary School; Eligibility of B.Ed candidates; Diploma in Elementary Education; Recruitment process; Devesh Sharma’s Case. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition(C) Nos. 20768-20770 of 2024 812 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports From the Judgment and Order dated 02.04.2024 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in WPS No. 3541, 5788 and 7344 of 2023 With Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 10295, 20777-20779, 20776, 13756, 20811 and 20812 of 2024 Appearances for Parties

K.M. Natraj, A.S.G., Apoorv Kurup, A.A.G., Amit Anand Tiwari, Sanjay Hegde, Ravindra Shrivastava, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Ranjit Kumar, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Advs., Arjun D Singh, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Arjun Garg, Aakash Nandolia, Ms. Kriti Gupta, Shashank Shekhar Jha, Ms. Priyanka Thakur, Subhash Chandra Jha, Archit Kaushik, Vishhal Saxxenaa, Pramod Kumar Tripathy, Ms. Erika Yagnik, Diva Kant, Anil Kumar, Abhijeet Shrivastava, Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Anshuman Shrivastava, Abhishek Sharma, Aniket Singh Das, Ms. Devangna Singh, Ms. Sanya Shukla, Ms. Krati Dubey, Ieeshan Sharma, Ms. Rhea Rao, Ms. Selina Raj Mevati, P S Patwalia, Amit Pawan, Hassan Zubair Waris, Suchit Rawat, Abhishek Amritanshu, Ms. Aastha Shreshta, Ms. Aastha Sherstha, Mandeep Kalra, Ms. Anushna Satapathy, Ms. Chitrangada Singh, Yashas J, Vishal Sinha, Chandratanay Chaube, Rishi K Awasthi, Piyush Vatsa, Rahul Kumar Gupta, Punit Vinay, Rahul Raj Mishra, Avinash Ankit, Manoj Kumar, D.K. Garg, Abhishek Garg, Dhananjay Garg, Akshat Srivastava, Advs. for the appearing parties. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order

1. In Devesh Sharma v. Union of India1 (delivered on 11.08.2023), there was before us a challenge to the judgement of the Rajasthan High Court dated 25.11.2021 where it was held that for appointment of primary school teachers (i.e., teachers of Class I to Class V), the essential qualification is D.El.Ed. (i.e., Diploma in Elementary Education) and not B.Ed. (i.e., Bachelor in Education), and B.Ed. qualified candidates were held to be disqualified. 1 [2023] 11 SCR 167 : 2023 INSC 704 [2024] 8 S.C.R. 813 Navin Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc. 2. Before the Rajasthan High Court, the National Council for Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to as “NCTE”) notification dated 28.06.2018, by which B.Ed. qualified candidates were held eligible was, inter alia, under challenge. In our judgment dated 11.08.2023, we have upheld the Division Bench order of Rajasthan High Court and affirmed the findings that the essential qualification for appointment as primary school teachers is Diploma in Elementary Education and not B.Ed. Consequently, the NCTE notification dated 28.06.2018 and the regulations made therein, by which B.Ed was made a qualification, were quashed and set aside.

3. The above judgment of Devesh Sharma (supra) was delivered on 11.08.2023 and thereafter review applications, clarifications, etc. kept coming up, mainly from such candidates who were having B.Ed. qualification and were selected and appointed by different States in the recent selection process for primary school teachers. We had heard all such applicants at length and clarified that such B.Ed. qualified candidates who were selected and appointed prior to our decision in Devesh Sharma (supra) i.e. prior to 11.08.2023, shall not be disturbed as there was a special equity in their favour. Therefore, our judgement would be prospective in nature, and will not disturb the appointments of such candidates who had already been appointed prior to the judgment in Devesh Sharma (supra) i.e. prior to 11.08.2023. This is what was clarified in our order dated 08.04.2024:

As it appears that a large number of candidates with B.Ed. degree had already been appointed on the basis of eligibility criteria specified by the educational authorities, we do not think it to be equitable to effect their removal. We, accordingly hold that the judgment delivered by this Bench on 11th August, 2023 shall have prospective operation. But prospective operation of this judgment shall be only for those candidates who were appointed without any qualification or conditions imposed by any Court of Law to the effect that their appointment would be subject to final outcome of the case which might have had been instituted by them and such candidates were in regular employment without any disqualification and were appointed in pursuance of a notice of advertisement where B.Ed. was stipulated to be valid qualification. Services of 814 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports only such candidates shall not be disturbed because of this judgment. We make it clear that this benefit is only for the candidates who were appointed prior to the date our judgment was delivered, on 11th August, 2023. Mere selection of such candidates or their participation in the process will not entitle them for a benefit under our present order. …

We also make it clear that the directions contained in this order shall not be confined to the applicant state only and shall cover all cases which may be pending in different judicial fora in any State or Union territory on the same point of law. (emphasis supplied) After our clarifications, on 08.04.2024, there should not have remained any doubts, yet clarification and review applications, kept coming up in one form or the other which were all dismissed. Now, in the present batch of petitions, the same question has again come up before this Court, this time arising out of a judgment of Chhattisgarh High Court, which has only been passed following our order in Devesh Sharma (supra). 4. The High Court in its judgment dated 02.04.2024 declared all such candidates, having B.Ed. qualification to be ineligible and disqualified for selection to the post of primary school teachers, following the decision of this Court in Devesh Sharma (supra). 5. Admittedly in the present case, the appointment orders in favour of the B.Ed candidates were issued in September 2023 by the State of Chhattisgarh, that is after the date of our judgement in Devesh Sharma (supra) which was delivered on 11.08.2023. We have already held in our order dated 08.04.2024 that such candidates cannot be given any relief.

6. Before the Chhattisgarh High Court, petitions were filed by candidates holding Diploma in Elementary Education, challenging the eligibility of B.Ed. candidates on the grounds that they were not entitled to be appointed as primary school teachers. In their defence the B.Ed. candidates had argued that B.Ed. is one of the [2024] 8 S.C.R. 815 Navin Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc. qualifications for appointment of elementary school teachers under the applicable Rules i.e., Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 (“2019 Rules”), and thus, they have the necessary qualification. 7. All the same, apprised of the order of this Court in Devesh Sharma (supra), the Division Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court had passed an interim order on 21.08.2023 whereby the recruitment process was directed to be kept in abeyance as regards B.Ed. candidates. This is what was said:

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the law laid down by the Apex Court on the issue in question passed in Civil Appeal No. 5068 of 2023 (Devesh Sharma Vs. Union of India & Others decided on 11.08.2023), the further recruitment process with regard to the candidates having B.Ed. qualification for the post of Assistant Teachers shall be kept in abeyance with immediate effect and further no final decision would be taken by the respondents in respect of such candidates till the next date of hearing. 8. This interim order of High Court was then challenged by B.Ed. candidates before this Court, where a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order dated 29.08.2023: In the meantime, taking into consideration that the recruitment process which was in progress, is now interrupted by the ad-interim order dated 21.08.2023 and the aspect ultimately to be considered by the High Court is with regard to the manner in which the judgment in C.A. No. 5068 of 2023 passed by this Court is to be construed, at this stage interrupting the recruitment process would not be justified.

Therefore, to the said extent, we hereby stay the order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the High Court and clarify that the recruitment process, which was in progress prior to the date of the said interim order passed by the High Court, shall continue and the appointments, if any, made thereunder will however remain subject to result of the 816 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports consideration to be made by the High Court in W.P.S No. 5788 of 2023. The selected candidates shall be informed of the same by the Appointing Authority concerned. (emphasis supplied) 9. The above order of this Court has clarified that the selection and appointment of B.Ed. candidates would be subject to the final decision of the High Court in the writ petition. Later, when they were given appointments, their Appointment Order also clearly states that this appointment is subject to the decision of Chhattisgarh High Court in the pending writ petition. Ultimately, the petitions filed by the Diploma holders (in Elementary Education) were allowed vide the impugned judgement and the logical consequence of this is that the service of teachers, with B.Ed. qualification, are liable to be terminated. In the present batch of petitions, we have before us these teachers with B.Ed. qualification whose appointments have been quashed. The State of Chhattisgarh is also before us challenging the impugned judgement and order dated 02.04.2024 of the High Court.

10. One of the arguments of the learned senior counsel (Mr. Shrivastava) for the petitioners before this Court is that this Court in Devesh Sharma (supra) had opened a small window for B.Ed. candidates who were called for selection as B.Ed. was one of the qualifications in the 2019 Rules as also in the notification of NCTE and till it was set aside such candidates cannot be called as ineligible. All we had said in Devesh Sharma (supra) was that since the law, making B.Ed. as qualification, was not struck down by any Court (as was the position in Rajasthan when recruitment to the post of teachers were taking place in 2019) such candidates ought to have been called at least. This is exactly what was said: “Having made the above determination we, all the same, are also of the considered opinion that the State of Rajasthan was clearly in error in not calling for applications from B.Ed. qualified candidates, for the reasons that till that time when such an advertisement was issued by the Rajasthan Government, B.Ed. candidates were included as eligible candidates as per the statutory notification of NCTE, which was binding on the Rajasthan Government, till it was declared illegal or unconstitutional by the Court.” [2024] 8 S.C.R. 817 Navin Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc.

As we know when recruitment to the post of teachers was being made in Rajasthan, B.Ed. was a qualification for teachers as per the NCTE notification. The above observation made by us was only to affirm the findings of the Rajasthan High Court which had although held that B.Ed. was not a valid “qualification” for primary teachers, yet cautioned that the Government could not have ignored the notification of the NCTE till it was declared illegal by a Competent Court. That was all. In Chhattisgarh, this was not the case. B.Ed. qualified candidates were called by the State in the selection process, yet as they were held to be non-qualified by a judgment of this Court, which is the law now and by logic has to be implemented, they were rightly held to be disqualified. How does our observations in Devesh Sharma (supra) help the petitioners, we simply fail to understand. This argument is totally misconceived. B.Ed. is not a qualification for a teacher in a Primary School. Moreover, this aspect has already been clarified in the order dated 08.04.2024, where only such candidates have been saved who were selected and appointed prior to our order dated 11.08.2023 in Devesh Sharma (supra). Since the petitioners in the present case were appointed post 11.08.2023 and their appointments were also subjected to the final outcome of the pending writ petition before High Court, they cannot get any benefit. The completion of the selection process prior to 11.08.2023 is not material. What is important is the date of appointment which is certainly after the cut-off date. They will stand disqualified, as they do not have the essential qualification for appointment as primary school teachers.

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: 818 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports “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 50% 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 [2024] 8 S.C.R. 819 Navin Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc. 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. 13. In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgement passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court. 14. Accordingly, all the Special Leave Petitions are hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Result of the case: Special Leave Petitions dismissed. †Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain

[2024] 8 S.C.R. 810 : 2024 INSC 656 Navin Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc. (Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 20768-20770 of 2024) 28 August 2024 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court which quashed the appointment of the primary school teachers with B.Ed qualification. Headnotes† Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – Appointment to the post of Assistant teacher in a Primary School – Eligibility of B.Ed candidates – On facts, issuance of appointment orders in favour of the B.Ed candidates by the State of Chhattisgarh, which was after the judgment in Devesh Sharma’s case wherein it was held that the candidates having B.Ed qualification were ineligible for the appointment and as such cannot be given any relief – Petitions filed by candidates holding Diploma in Elementary Education, challenging the eligibility of B.Ed. candidates – Interim order by the High Court whereby the recruitment process as regards B.Ed. candidates was directed to be kept in abeyance – Challenge to, by the B.Ed. candidates before Supreme Court – Clarificatory order by this Court that selection and appointment of B.Ed. candidates would be subject to the final decision of the High Court – Thereafter, petitions filed by the Diploma holders in Elementary Education before the High Court were allowed and service of teachers with B.Ed. Qualification terminated – Interference with:

Held: Not called for – B.Ed. qualified candidates were called by the State in the selection process, yet as they were held to be non-qualified by a judgment of this Court in Devesh Sharma’s case, which is the law now and by logic has to be implemented, they were rightly held to be disqualified – B.Ed. is not a qualification for a teacher in a Primary School – Moreover, this aspect has already [2024] 8 S.C.R. 811 Navin Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc.

been clarified in the order dated 08.04.2024, where only such candidates have been saved who were selected and appointed prior to the order dated 11.08.2023 in Devesh Sharma’s Case – Since the instant petitioners were appointed post 11.08.2023 and their appointments were also subjected to the final outcome of the pending writ petition before High Court, they cannot get any benefit – Date of appointment which is certainly after the cut-off date, is important – They will stand disqualified, as they do not have the essential qualification for appointment as primary school teachers – Furthermore, r. 8(II) of the 2019 Rules placing B.Ed. as a qualification is again subsequent to the Notification of NCTE, which has already been quashed and set aside by the judgment in Devesh Sharma’s case – Thus, 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’s case – Also, order of NCTE whereby the judgment in Devesh Sharma’s case was communicated to Chief Secretaries of all State Governments for further appropriate action has been shown to the Court – In spite of this, appointments were given to B.Ed. candidates which was illegal and has rightly been quashed by the High Court – Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019. [Paras 10-13] Case Law Cited

Devesh Sharma v. Union of India [2023] 11 SCR 167 : 2023 INSC 704 – relied on. List of Acts Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009; Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019. List of Keywords Post of Assistant teacher in Primary School; Eligibility of B.Ed candidates; Diploma in Elementary Education; Recruitment process; Devesh Sharma’s Case. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition(C) Nos. 20768-20770 of 2024 812 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports From the Judgment and Order dated 02.04.2024 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in WPS No. 3541, 5788 and 7344 of 2023 With Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 10295, 20777-20779, 20776, 13756, 20811 and 20812 of 2024 Appearances for Parties

K.M. Natraj, A.S.G., Apoorv Kurup, A.A.G., Amit Anand Tiwari, Sanjay Hegde, Ravindra Shrivastava, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Ranjit Kumar, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Advs., Arjun D Singh, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Arjun Garg, Aakash Nandolia, Ms. Kriti Gupta, Shashank Shekhar Jha, Ms. Priyanka Thakur, Subhash Chandra Jha, Archit Kaushik, Vishhal Saxxenaa, Pramod Kumar Tripathy, Ms. Erika Yagnik, Diva Kant, Anil Kumar, Abhijeet Shrivastava, Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Anshuman Shrivastava, Abhishek Sharma, Aniket Singh Das, Ms. Devangna Singh, Ms. Sanya Shukla, Ms. Krati Dubey, Ieeshan Sharma, Ms. Rhea Rao, Ms. Selina Raj Mevati, P S Patwalia, Amit Pawan, Hassan Zubair Waris, Suchit Rawat, Abhishek Amritanshu, Ms. Aastha Shreshta, Ms. Aastha Sherstha, Mandeep Kalra, Ms. Anushna Satapathy, Ms. Chitrangada Singh, Yashas J, Vishal Sinha, Chandratanay Chaube, Rishi K Awasthi, Piyush Vatsa, Rahul Kumar Gupta, Punit Vinay, Rahul Raj Mishra, Avinash Ankit, Manoj Kumar, D.K. Garg, Abhishek Garg, Dhananjay Garg, Akshat Srivastava, Advs. for the appearing parties. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order

1. In Devesh Sharma v. Union of India1 (delivered on 11.08.2023), there was before us a challenge to the judgement of the Rajasthan High Court dated 25.11.2021 where it was held that for appointment of primary school teachers (i.e., teachers of Class I to Class V), the essential qualification is D.El.Ed. (i.e., Diploma in Elementary Education) and not B.Ed. (i.e., Bachelor in Education), and B.Ed. qualified candidates were held to be disqualified. 1 [2023] 11 SCR 167 : 2023 INSC 704 [2024] 8 S.C.R. 813 Navin Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc. 2. Before the Rajasthan High Court, the National Council for Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to as “NCTE”) notification dated 28.06.2018, by which B.Ed. qualified candidates were held eligible was, inter alia, under challenge. In our judgment dated 11.08.2023, we have upheld the Division Bench order of Rajasthan High Court and affirmed the findings that the essential qualification for appointment as primary school teachers is Diploma in Elementary Education and not B.Ed. Consequently, the NCTE notification dated 28.06.2018 and the regulations made therein, by which B.Ed was made a qualification, were quashed and set aside.

3. The above judgment of Devesh Sharma (supra) was delivered on 11.08.2023 and thereafter review applications, clarifications, etc. kept coming up, mainly from such candidates who were having B.Ed. qualification and were selected and appointed by different States in the recent selection process for primary school teachers. We had heard all such applicants at length and clarified that such B.Ed. qualified candidates who were selected and appointed prior to our decision in Devesh Sharma (supra) i.e. prior to 11.08.2023, shall not be disturbed as there was a special equity in their favour. Therefore, our judgement would be prospective in nature, and will not disturb the appointments of such candidates who had already been appointed prior to the judgment in Devesh Sharma (supra) i.e. prior to 11.08.2023. This is what was clarified in our order dated 08.04.2024:

As it appears that a large number of candidates with B.Ed. degree had already been appointed on the basis of eligibility criteria specified by the educational authorities, we do not think it to be equitable to effect their removal. We, accordingly hold that the judgment delivered by this Bench on 11th August, 2023 shall have prospective operation. But prospective operation of this judgment shall be only for those candidates who were appointed without any qualification or conditions imposed by any Court of Law to the effect that their appointment would be subject to final outcome of the case which might have had been instituted by them and such candidates were in regular employment without any disqualification and were appointed in pursuance of a notice of advertisement where B.Ed. was stipulated to be valid qualification. Services of 814 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports only such candidates shall not be disturbed because of this judgment. We make it clear that this benefit is only for the candidates who were appointed prior to the date our judgment was delivered, on 11th August, 2023. Mere selection of such candidates or their participation in the process will not entitle them for a benefit under our present order. …

We also make it clear that the directions contained in this order shall not be confined to the applicant state only and shall cover all cases which may be pending in different judicial fora in any State or Union territory on the same point of law. (emphasis supplied) After our clarifications, on 08.04.2024, there should not have remained any doubts, yet clarification and review applications, kept coming up in one form or the other which were all dismissed. Now, in the present batch of petitions, the same question has again come up before this Court, this time arising out of a judgment of Chhattisgarh High Court, which has only been passed following our order in Devesh Sharma (supra). 4. The High Court in its judgment dated 02.04.2024 declared all such candidates, having B.Ed. qualification to be ineligible and disqualified for selection to the post of primary school teachers, following the decision of this Court in Devesh Sharma (supra). 5. Admittedly in the present case, the appointment orders in favour of the B.Ed candidates were issued in September 2023 by the State of Chhattisgarh, that is after the date of our judgement in Devesh Sharma (supra) which was delivered on 11.08.2023. We have already held in our order dated 08.04.2024 that such candidates cannot be given any relief.

6. Before the Chhattisgarh High Court, petitions were filed by candidates holding Diploma in Elementary Education, challenging the eligibility of B.Ed. candidates on the grounds that they were not entitled to be appointed as primary school teachers. In their defence the B.Ed. candidates had argued that B.Ed. is one of the [2024] 8 S.C.R. 815 Navin Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc. qualifications for appointment of elementary school teachers under the applicable Rules i.e., Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 (“2019 Rules”), and thus, they have the necessary qualification. 7. All the same, apprised of the order of this Court in Devesh Sharma (supra), the Division Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court had passed an interim order on 21.08.2023 whereby the recruitment process was directed to be kept in abeyance as regards B.Ed. candidates. This is what was said:

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the law laid down by the Apex Court on the issue in question passed in Civil Appeal No. 5068 of 2023 (Devesh Sharma Vs. Union of India & Others decided on 11.08.2023), the further recruitment process with regard to the candidates having B.Ed. qualification for the post of Assistant Teachers shall be kept in abeyance with immediate effect and further no final decision would be taken by the respondents in respect of such candidates till the next date of hearing. 8. This interim order of High Court was then challenged by B.Ed. candidates before this Court, where a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order dated 29.08.2023: In the meantime, taking into consideration that the recruitment process which was in progress, is now interrupted by the ad-interim order dated 21.08.2023 and the aspect ultimately to be considered by the High Court is with regard to the manner in which the judgment in C.A. No. 5068 of 2023 passed by this Court is to be construed, at this stage interrupting the recruitment process would not be justified.

Therefore, to the said extent, we hereby stay the order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the High Court and clarify that the recruitment process, which was in progress prior to the date of the said interim order passed by the High Court, shall continue and the appointments, if any, made thereunder will however remain subject to result of the 816 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports consideration to be made by the High Court in W.P.S No. 5788 of 2023. The selected candidates shall be informed of the same by the Appointing Authority concerned. (emphasis supplied) 9. The above order of this Court has clarified that the selection and appointment of B.Ed. candidates would be subject to the final decision of the High Court in the writ petition. Later, when they were given appointments, their Appointment Order also clearly states that this appointment is subject to the decision of Chhattisgarh High Court in the pending writ petition. Ultimately, the petitions filed by the Diploma holders (in Elementary Education) were allowed vide the impugned judgement and the logical consequence of this is that the service of teachers, with B.Ed. qualification, are liable to be terminated. In the present batch of petitions, we have before us these teachers with B.Ed. qualification whose appointments have been quashed. The State of Chhattisgarh is also before us challenging the impugned judgement and order dated 02.04.2024 of the High Court.

10. One of the arguments of the learned senior counsel (Mr. Shrivastava) for the petitioners before this Court is that this Court in Devesh Sharma (supra) had opened a small window for B.Ed. candidates who were called for selection as B.Ed. was one of the qualifications in the 2019 Rules as also in the notification of NCTE and till it was set aside such candidates cannot be called as ineligible. All we had said in Devesh Sharma (supra) was that since the law, making B.Ed. as qualification, was not struck down by any Court (as was the position in Rajasthan when recruitment to the post of teachers were taking place in 2019) such candidates ought to have been called at least. This is exactly what was said: “Having made the above determination we, all the same, are also of the considered opinion that the State of Rajasthan was clearly in error in not calling for applications from B.Ed. qualified candidates, for the reasons that till that time when such an advertisement was issued by the Rajasthan Government, B.Ed. candidates were included as eligible candidates as per the statutory notification of NCTE, which was binding on the Rajasthan Government, till it was declared illegal or unconstitutional by the Court.” [2024] 8 S.C.R. 817 Navin Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc.

As we know when recruitment to the post of teachers was being made in Rajasthan, B.Ed. was a qualification for teachers as per the NCTE notification. The above observation made by us was only to affirm the findings of the Rajasthan High Court which had although held that B.Ed. was not a valid “qualification” for primary teachers, yet cautioned that the Government could not have ignored the notification of the NCTE till it was declared illegal by a Competent Court. That was all. In Chhattisgarh, this was not the case. B.Ed. qualified candidates were called by the State in the selection process, yet as they were held to be non-qualified by a judgment of this Court, which is the law now and by logic has to be implemented, they were rightly held to be disqualified. How does our observations in Devesh Sharma (supra) help the petitioners, we simply fail to understand. This argument is totally misconceived. B.Ed. is not a qualification for a teacher in a Primary School. Moreover, this aspect has already been clarified in the order dated 08.04.2024, where only such candidates have been saved who were selected and appointed prior to our order dated 11.08.2023 in Devesh Sharma (supra). Since the petitioners in the present case were appointed post 11.08.2023 and their appointments were also subjected to the final outcome of the pending writ petition before High Court, they cannot get any benefit. The completion of the selection process prior to 11.08.2023 is not material. What is important is the date of appointment which is certainly after the cut-off date. They will stand disqualified, as they do not have the essential qualification for appointment as primary school teachers.

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: 818 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports “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 50% 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 [2024] 8 S.C.R. 819 Navin Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc. 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. 13. In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgement passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court. 14. Accordingly, all the Special Leave Petitions are hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Result of the case: Special Leave Petitions dismissed. †Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain