- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1144 WP No. 106596 of 2017 C/W WP No. 108852 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 106596 OF 2017 (EDN-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 108852 OF 2016 (EDN-RES) IN WP NO. 106596/2017: BETWEEN: DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHARA SABHA (KARNATAKA), DHARWAD, TQ: & DIST: DHARWAD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE COMPOUND, DHARWAD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI. K. VIJAYAN, AGE: 48 YEARS, R/O: DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION), NEW DELHI-110001. DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 20.07.2017. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 3. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, HANS BHAVAN, WING II, #1, BAHADUR SHAH, ZAFAR MARG (NEAR ITO), MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.03 10:49:12 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1144 WP No. 106596 of 2017 C/W WP No. 108852 of 2016 NEW DELHI-110002. 4. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NAGARABHAVI, JNANA BHARATI CAMPUS ROAD, BENGALURU-560072, KARNATAKA STATE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPER, AGA FOR R2; MISS BUSHRA S. WAREMANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANOOP G. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.ED25 LBP 2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-W AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME; AND ETC. IN WP NO. 108852/2016: BETWEEN: 1. DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHARA SABHA (KARNATAKA), DHARWAD, TQ: & DIST: DHARWAD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE COMPOUND, DHARWAD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI. K. VIJAYAN, AGE: 48 YEARS, R/O: DHARWAD. 2. SARDAR VALLABH BAHAI PATEL SHIKSHA SNATAK COLLEGE, KOPPAL, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. K. VIJAYAN, AGE: 48 YEARS, R/O. DHARWAD. 3. RAJIV GANDHI SHIKSHA SNATAK COLLEGE, DHARWAD, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI. K. VIJAYAN, AGE: 48 YEARS, R/O. DHARWAD. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1144 WP No. 106596 of 2017 C/W WP No. 108852 of 2016 4. DR. B.D. JATTI SHIKSHA SNATAK COLLEGE, BELGAUM, TQ: AND DIST: BELGAUM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. K. VIJAYAN, AGE: 48 YEARS, R/O. DHARWAD. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPER, AGA FOR C/R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BRG.NO.ED 291 LBP 2015, BENGALURU DATED 29.09.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-J ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AND TO RESTORE THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-E SO FAR AS IT PRESCRIBES THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF LANGUAGE ASSISTANTS IN HINDI IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1144 WP No. 106596 of 2017 C/W WP No. 108852 of 2016 ORAL ORDER Both the writ petitions are filed by Dakshina Bharata Hindi Prachara Sabha. 2. WP.No.106596/2017 is filed calling in question the Government order dated 18.04.2017 (Annexure-W), whereby the State relying upon the Karnataka Education Department's Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2016 (‘Amendment Rules, 2016’ for short) notified on 29.09.2016 (Annexure- Q) has withdrawn the recognition/equivalence earlier granted to Hindi Shiksha Sanathak qualification and has sought to give effect to such withdrawal retrospectively affecting appointments and eligibility for the post of language assistant (Hindi). 3. WP.No.108852/2016 is filed assailing the gazette notification dated 29.09.2016 (Annexure-J), by which, 2000 Amendment Rules were brought into force retrospective effect from 23.03.2015, deleting Hindi - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1144 WP No. 106596 of 2017 C/W WP No. 108852 of 2016 Shiksha Sanathak as recognized qualification under the recruitment rules and mandating B.A as the sole professional qualification for appointment as language assistant (Hindi). 4. Since the challenge in both writ petitions arise out of the same amendment and its retrospective application, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. Brief facts: 5. The petitioner- Dakshina Bharata Hindi Prachara Sabha, a statutory body established under the Dakshina Bharata Hindi Prachara Sabha Act, 1964, having the object of promotion and propagation of Hindi and imparting teacher-training qualification such as Hindi Praveen/Shiksha Sanathak, which were, for several decades recognized by the State of Karnataka for the purpose of appointment as teachers, including language assistants (Hindi). - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1144 WP No. 106596 of 2017 C/W WP No. 108852 of 2016 6. Under the Recruitment Rules, 1967 as amended by the Gazette Notification dated 24.06.2003 (Annexure- E), Shiksha Sanathak was expressly recognized as a valid professional qualification for appointment as language assistant (Hindi). Acting on the said statutory recognition, institutions were permitted to function, students were admitted, examinations were conducted and appointments were made. 7. In the earlier round of litigation, issue of competence of the State Government, to withdraw equivalence after coming into force of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) in 1993 came to be considered and by the judgment in W.P.No.44785/2001, preferred by the Dakshina Bharata Hindi Prachara Sabha disposed on 19.12.2002 (Annexure-H) and the earlier Division Bench Judgment in T Shrilaxmi and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others1 (T Shrilaxmi) relating to another institution, it has held that the State lacked 1 WP.Nos.20275-294/2002 D.D 29.11.2002 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1144 WP No. 106596 of 2017 C/W WP No. 108852 of 2016 jurisdiction to unilaterally withdraw equivalence and the said judgments have attained finality. 8. Subsequently, the State issued Amendment Rules, 2016 (Annexure-J in WP No.108852/2016), deleting Shiksha Sanathak as qualification and giving the amendment retrospective operation from 23.03.2015, which is a subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned notification seeks to give a retrospective effect to the deletion of the recognized qualification. It is submitted that the statutory requirement rules may be amended prospectively, but accrued and vested interest of institutions, students and candidates cannot be taken away retrospectively, particularly when the earlier recognition flawed from a statutory rule. It is contended that issue of equivalence of Hindi qualification imparted by petitioner-Sabha has already been adjudicated in the earlier round of litigation, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1144 WP No. 106596 of 2017 C/W WP No. 108852 of 2016 the T Shrilaxmi’s case held that the State Government has no jurisdiction to withdraw the equivalence once NCTE regime applies and Annexure-J though relating to another institution, lays down the same principle of law and these judgments have attained finality and bind the same. 10. It is contended that the petitioner's Sabha is not a private body but a statutory Sabha engaged in Hindi Prachara, and its qualification has historically been treated as equivalent to B.A-B.ED for teaching purpose, a position recognized for decades and affirmed judicially. It is contended that the deletion of qualification by Amendment Rules, 2016, if applied retrospectively would adversely affect; i) institution lawfully conducting courses, ii) students, who enrolled earlier on statutory recognition, iii) candidates already selected are eligible for selection. Such civil consequences cannot be imposed - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1144 WP No. 106596 of 2017 C/W WP No. 108852 of 2016 retrospectively unless expressly authorized by law which is absent here. 11. It is submitted that even assuming that the State has power to align recruitment rules with NCTE regulations, Amendment Rules, 2016 can operate only prospectively. The recognition under Annexure-E cannot be nullified for the past period. 12. Per contra, learned AGA contends that 2016 amendment Rules was issued in conformity with NCTE Regulation 2014 after inviting objections. Once the amendment occupies the field, earlier Rules, inconsistent therewith, stand superseded. The deletion of Shiksha Sanathak is only a policy decision to maintain uniform standards in teacher education. 13. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3- NCTE in W.P.No.106596/2017, places the reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Unnikrishnan CV and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1144 WP No. 106596 of 2017 C/W WP No. 108852 of 2016 Others Vs. Union of India and Others2 (Unnikrishnan CV) to contend that Courts cannot prescribe qualification or declare equivalence of causes, and the determination of equivalence lies exclusively within the domain of the expert bodies unless the rule itself recognizes a equivalence, the Court cannot substitute its own view. 14. This Court has carefully considered the contentions urged and perused the material on record. 15. There can be no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in Unnikrishnan CV, that Courts should not substitute their views for that of expert bodies in prescribing qualification or determining equivalence. However, the present case stands on a distinct and narrow footing. 16. What falls for consideration here is not whether this Court should newly declare equivalence, but whether the State can retrospectively withdraw a qualification that 2 2023 Live law (SC) 256 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1144 WP No. 106596 of 2017 C/W WP No. 108852 of 2016 was statutory recognized and judicially upheld. In the earlier round of proceedings as evidenced initially in WP.No.44785/2001 and in the case of T Shrilaxmi stated supra, it has been conclusively held that; i) the State Government lacked jurisdiction to unilaterally withdraw equivalence after the NCTE Act, ii) the recognition then prevailing was protected, iii) such determination has attained finality. 17. Annexure-E in W.P.no.108852/2016, being a statutory amendment of Recruitment Rules, 2003, expressly recognized Shiksha Sanathak as a valid qualification. Acting on the said rules, rights accrued in favour of institutions, students and candidates. Amendment Rules, 2016 delete Hindi Shiksha Sanathak as qualification and prescribe B.Ed. as mandatory. The State is competent to amend recruitment rules retrospectively so as to align them with the NCTE regulations. However, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1144 WP No. 106596 of 2017 C/W WP No. 108852 of 2016 the clause giving amendment retrospective from 23.03.2015, directly affects; i) institutional lawfully imparting the cause, ii) students admitted on the strength of statutory Rules, iii) candidates whose eligibility has already been accrued. Such retrospective deprivation of rights is impermissible in law. 18. Annexure-W in W.P.No.106596/2017 is only an executive Government order issued to implement the retrospective operation of the Amendment Rules, 2016. An executive order cannot override the statutory rules nor nullify the binding judicial pronouncement, nor can it retrospectively extinguish vested rights. However, the present case does not involve this Court declaring equivalent suffrage, this Court is only examining the legality of the retrospective withdrawal of an already - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1144 WP No. 106596 of 2017 C/W WP No. 108852 of 2016 recognized qualification, which had statutory backing and judicial affirmation. Deletion of a recognized qualification is not a procedural change but a substantial one with serious civil consequences. In the absence of express legislative mandate, such deletion cannot operate retrospectively. 19. The accrued and vested rights protected under Annexure-E and the earlier judgments cannot be taken away by 2016 Amendment Rules or by Annexure-W. The amendment brought about by Amendment Rules 2016 (Annexure-J) to the extended deletes in the Shiksha Sanathak as a qualification, cannot operate retrospectively so as to nullify rights flowing from 2003 Rules (Annexure- E) and protected by earlier binding judgments at Annexures-H and J. The amendments can only have prospective effect and any contrary interpretation would amount to arbitrary deprivation of vested rights of institutions, students, and candidates. 20. For the foregoing reasons, the following: - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1144 WP No. 106596 of 2017 C/W WP No. 108852 of 2016 ORDER i. The writ petitions are allowed. ii. It is declared that the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2016 notified vide Gazette Notification dated 29.09.2016 (Annexure-J in WP.No.108552/2016), insofar as they gave retrospective effect from 23.03.2015 to the deletion of Hindi 2003 Rules Shiksha Sanathak as a recognized qualification for appointment to the post of language assistant (Hindi) are illegal, arbitrary and unenforceable. iii. It is further declared that the said Amendment Rules, 2016 shall operate only prospectively from the date of their publication in the official gazette and shall not affect; a. admissions made to the courses, b. examination conducted, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1144 WP No. 106596 of 2017 C/W WP No. 108852 of 2016 c. selections or appointment made or, d. eligibility accrued to candidates and institutions under the unamended recruitment Rules of 2003 (Annexure-E in W.P.No.108852/2016). iv. The respondents are directed to consider and protect all accrued and vested rights of the petitioners-institution, students and candidates arising prior to 29.09.2016, in light of the statutory recognition contained in Annexure-E and binding judgments of this Court produced at Annexures-H and J. v. It is made clear that nothing in this order shall prevent the State or the competent authority from enforcing Amendment Rules, 2016 prospectively in accordance with law and subject to the regulations framed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1144 WP No. 106596 of 2017 C/W WP No. 108852 of 2016 vi. All consequential actions taken solely on the basis of retrospective operation of the impugned notifications shall stand set aside. vii. No order as to costs. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AT CT:VH LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 29