2026:UHC:2802 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/143/2026 with WPSS/164/2026 WPSS/165/2026 WPSS/167/2026 WPSS/168/2026 WPSS/170/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Dushyant Mainali, Advocate for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Deputy Advocate General & Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Mr. Shashank Upadhyaya, Advocate for NIOS/respondent no. 4. 4. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions, therefore, they are being heard and decided together. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPSS No. 143 of 2026 alone are being considered and discussed. 5. Petitioners are graduate and they also possess B.Ed. qualification. They have also qualified Teachers Eligibility Test-I or Central Teachers Eligibility Test-I. They responded to an advertisement issued on 20.11.2020, whereby applications were invited from eligible persons for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Government Primary Schools within State of Uttarakhand. Petitioners were eligible in terms of the said advertisement, therefore, they responded and participated in the selection process. Their result, however, was kept in a sealed cover, vide order dated 09.12.2021, passed by Director, Elementary Education. 6. Since petitioner is not appointed, therefore, he filed this writ petition, seeking the following reliefs:- “i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing respondents to modify the order dated 9.12.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3, by removing the words ".......तो ऐसे अɷिथŊयों के िनयुİƅ पत्र जारी न करते Šए इनका िलफाफा बंद िकया जाये....... from the said order, so as to remove the hurdle in the issuance of 2026:UHC:2802 appointment letter of the petitioner for Assistant Teacher (Primary) pursuant to his selection. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the respondents, to open the envelope containing the appointment letter of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) pursuant to his selection and appointment on the said post advertised through advertisement dated 20.11.2020 and to forthwith allot a primary school as a place of posting for the petitioner without any undue delay. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in six months’ bridge course in terms of the directions issued by the Director, Elementary Education on 14.11.2025 purportedly issued in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Devesh Sharma v. Union of India dated 11.08.2023.” 7. Learned State Counsel submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Devesh Sharma v. Union of India has held that B.Ed. qualification is not valid for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Government Primary Schools and vide order dated 08.04.2024 passed on review applications, Hon’ble Supreme Court protected such B.Ed. qualified persons, who were already appointed in service on the date of the judgment i.e 11.08.2023, provided they were appointed without the help of courts order. He further submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court while passing order on the review applications further made it clear that mere selection of such candidates or their participation in the process will not entitle them for a benefit under our present order. Relevant paragraph of the order dated 08.04.2024, passed on review applications, is extracted below:- “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 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.” 2026:UHC:2802 8. Learned State Counsel thus submits that since petitioners were not appointed till passing of the judgment in the case of Devesh Sharma v. Union of India i.e. 11.08.2023, therefore, in view of the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court, B.Ed. qualified candidates cannot be appointed as teachers in primary schools thereafter. He submits that petitioners are not entitled to any relief in these writ petitions and there cannot be any direction to appoint B.Ed. qualification holders as Assistant Teacher, post judgment rendered in Devesh Sharma case (supra). Learned State Counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in WPSS No. 574 of 2019 and other connected petitions. He submits that review applications filed by the petitioners in those writ petitions were also dismissed by Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 25.03.2026. 9. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. Since petitioners do not possess D.El.Ed. or D.Ed. qualification and they have staked claim for appointment based only on B.Ed. qualification possessed by them. 10. Learned State Counsel points out that petitioners have also not completed six months bridge course. 11. Having regard to the law declared by Apex Court in the case of Devesh Sharma (supra), the reliefs as claimed in the writ petitions cannot be granted. 12. The writ petitions fail and are dismissed. Interim orders, if any, are vacated. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 18.04.2026 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131b b4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653 D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.04.18 19:22:17 +05'30' 2026:UHC:2802