A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in Kousik Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. examines the legal validity of excluding candidates possessing an 18-month Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) obtained through NIOS under Open and Distance Learning mode from teacher recruitment processes. The controversy arose after the West Bengal Board of Primary Education imposed a blanket exclusion pursuant to a High Court directive, relying on the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Jaiveer Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. The Supreme Court scrutinised the statutory framework under Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the 2014 NCTE Regulations, and the Recognition Order dated 22.09.2017 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education. The Court clarified that the 18-month D.El.Ed. programme was a one-time statutory relaxation intended solely for in-service untrained teachers appointed on or before 10.08.2017, enabling them to meet minimum qualifications before the statutory cut-off of 01.04.2019. The High Court’s interpretation was found erroneous as it imposed an indiscriminate ban without considering the limited statutory purpose of the relaxation. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that eligible in-service teachers who completed the programme within the stipulated period are valid diploma holders, entitled to consideration for recruitment, promotional avenues, and applications to other institutions. The ruling reinforces statutory interpretation principles, prevents administrative overreach, and protects vested service rights arising from transitional educational policies.

Keywords: Teacher recruitment; D.El.Ed.; NIOS; Open Distance Learning; RTE Act; NCTE Regulations; In-service teachers

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The statutory background of the dispute lies in the implementation of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which mandates minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers. The Central Government, exercising its authority, designated the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) as the academic body responsible for prescribing such qualifications. Pursuant thereto, the 2014 NCTE Regulations structured teacher education programmes, including the two-year Diploma in Elementary Education.

A legislative challenge emerged due to the presence of a large number of in-service untrained elementary teachers across government and aided schools. Recognising the imminent risk of mass termination, Parliament enacted the 2017 Amendment to the RTE Act, granting a final window until 31.03.2019 for such teachers to acquire requisite qualifications. To operationalise this mandate, the NCTE issued a Recognition Order dated 22.09.2017, permitting a reduced 18-month D.El.Ed. programme through NIOS under ODL mode, strictly limited to teachers in service as on 10.08.2017.

The present litigation arose when recruitment notifications issued in 2022 by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education were challenged by candidates holding the conventional two-year diploma. The Calcutta High Court, misapplying the ruling in Jaiveer Singh, prohibited all candidates with an 18-month NIOS diploma from future recruitment. This sweeping exclusion disregarded the statutory purpose of the relaxation scheme. The Supreme Court was therefore called upon to reconcile prior precedent with statutory intent and administrative fairness .

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellants were in-service untrained elementary teachers appointed prior to 10.08.2017. Following the 2017 Amendment to the RTE Act, they availed the statutory opportunity to complete the 18-month D.El.Ed. programme through NIOS under the recognition granted by NCTE. The appellants successfully completed the course before 01.04.2019, thereby satisfying the statutory cut-off.

Subsequently, the West Bengal Board of Primary Education issued a recruitment notification dated 29.09.2022 for appointment of Assistant Teachers. A writ petition was filed before the Calcutta High Court by competing candidates seeking exclusion of NIOS diploma holders on the ground that the qualification was inferior and non-equivalent. During pendency, the Supreme Court delivered Jaiveer Singh, clarifying the limited scope of the NIOS programme.

Relying selectively on this ruling, the Single Judge directed a complete ban on recruitment of all candidates holding 18-month NIOS diplomas from 2022 onwards. The Division Bench affirmed this view. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court contending that the High Court misunderstood the ratio of Jaiveer Singh and ignored subsequent clarifications issued by the Supreme Court itself in Viswanath. The appellants asserted that their diplomas were statutorily valid and that denial of consideration amounted to violation of service rights .

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the 18-month D.El.Ed. diploma obtained through NIOS is valid for recruitment when acquired by in-service teachers before 01.04.2019?
ii. Whether the High Court erred in imposing a blanket ban contrary to the ratio of Jaiveer Singh?
iii. Whether statutory relaxation under Section 23 of the RTE Act can be nullified by administrative interpretation?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellants submitted that the 2017 Amendment to the RTE Act and the NCTE Recognition Order dated 22.09.2017 created a lawful one-time window. They argued that Jaiveer Singh never invalidated the qualification for eligible in-service teachers. Reliance was placed on the Review Order dated 10.12.2024 in Viswanath, which expressly clarified the continued validity of the diploma for recruitment and promotion. The appellants contended that denial of consideration amounted to arbitrary exclusion violative of equality principles under administrative law .

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondents contended that the two-year D.El.Ed. remained the minimum qualification under NCTE norms. They argued that the NIOS programme was intended solely for service continuation and not fresh recruitment. However, it was fairly conceded that eligible candidates satisfying recruitment criteria could be considered upon verification .

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 23, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
ii. NCTE (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014
iii. Recognition Order dated 22.09.2017

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a jurisdictional and interpretative error by imposing a blanket prohibition. The Court reaffirmed that Jaiveer Singh recognised the limited equivalence of the 18-month diploma exclusively for in-service teachers who completed it within the statutory timeframe. The judgment underscored that administrative authorities cannot enlarge or restrict statutory schemes beyond their express intent. The impugned judgments were quashed, and directions were issued to consider eligible candidates within three months .

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The 18-month D.El.Ed. obtained through NIOS by teachers in service as on 10.08.2017 and completed before 01.04.2019 constitutes a valid qualification. Any interpretation imposing a blanket exclusion violates statutory intent and binding precedent.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that transitional statutory relaxations must be interpreted purposively to protect accrued service rights and prevent administrative arbitrariness.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Eligibility must be assessed individually.
ii. Blanket bans are impermissible.
iii. Statutory cut-off dates are determinative.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces the supremacy of statutory intent over administrative expediency. It safeguards the legitimate expectations of in-service teachers and ensures consistency in teacher recruitment policy. The ruling also clarifies the doctrinal limits of precedent application, preventing selective reliance divorced from context .

K) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i. Jaiveer Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., [2023] 15 SCR 597
ii. Viswanath & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., Review Order dated 10.12.2024

b) Important Statutes Referred

i. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
ii. NCTE (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014