Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8724 (UTT)

Neetu Pathak v. State of Uttarakhand

2026-03-25

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit

body2026
JUDGMENT : Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore are being taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No.574 of 2019 alone are being considered. Review Application (MCC/10189/2024) in WPSB/379/2020 Review Application (MCC/9529/2024) in WPSS/574/2019 Review Application (MCC/5110/2024) in WPSS/910/2019 Review Application (MCC/2/2024) in WPSB/430/2021 Review Application (MCC/3/2024) in WPSB/446/2021 2. For the reasons indicated, delay in filing the review applications is condoned. Delay Condonation applications stand disposed of. 3. Writ petitioners have filed these applications seeking review of judgment and order dated 06.12.2023, whereby, the writ petitions filed by petitioners were dismissed by holding that as per the law declared by Hon’ble Apex Court, persons having B.Ed. qualification are no more eligible for appointment as Teacher in Elementary/Primary Schools. Para 5, 6 and 7 of the judgment sought to be reviewed are extracted below:- “5. It is not in dispute that petitioners in these writ petitions are seeking appointment as Assistant Teacher in Government Primary Schools on the strength of B.Ed. qualification and none of them possesses Diploma in Elementary Education and Diploma in Education, which makes a candidate eligible for appointment as teacher in a Primary/Elementary School. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that B.Ed. qualification alone is not sufficient for appointment as teacher in Elementary/Primary Schools. In view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court, petitioners are not eligible for appointment in Basic/Primary/Elementary Schools, therefore, the challenge thrown to provision contained in Rule 9 Column-2 of Uttarakhand Government Elementary Education School (Teachers) Service Rules, 2012, as amended in 2018, becomes only academic in nature, and this Court refrains from going into the issues raised by petitioners in these writ petitions. 7. Accordingly, writ petitions fail and are dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.” 4. Learned senior counsel for review applicants submits that even though number of grounds have been raised in the review applications, however, he is not pressing other grounds and review is sought only on the following three grounds: 1) While deciding the writ petitions, earlier judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sharan Maurya Vs. Learned senior counsel for review applicants submits that even though number of grounds have been raised in the review applications, however, he is not pressing other grounds and review is sought only on the following three grounds: 1) While deciding the writ petitions, earlier judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sharan Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and Others (2021) 15 SCC 401 , was not considered and the writ petitions were dismissed by relying on a subsequent judgment rendered in the case of Devesh Sharma Vs. Union of India (2023) Vol.18 SCC 339. 2) In the case of Ram Sharan Maurya (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that as per notification dated 28.06.2018 issued by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), candidates with B.Ed. qualification are eligible for appointment as Teacher in Primary Schools, which aspect however was overlooked by this Court while deciding the writ petitions. 3) In some of the writ petitions, petitioners/review applicants had cleared six months Bridge Course after passing B.Ed., which brings them at par with D.El.Ed. qualification holders, therefore, such candidates are entitled to be appointed as Teacher in Government Primary Schools in their own right. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the writ petitions were rightly dismissed by following the law declared in the case of Devesh Sharma (Supra) . He further submits that judgment rendered in the case of Ram Sharan Maurya (Supra) is distinguishable on facts. It is contended that in Ram Sharan Maurya (Supra) , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that different yardstick cannot be adopted for Shiksha Mitra (Para Teacher) for their regular appointment as Teacher. 6. Learned State Counsel further submits that validity of the notification issued by NCTE on 28.06.2018 was not in issue in the case of Ram Sharan Maurya (Supra) , while in the case of Devesh Sharma (Supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court declared the said notification invalid and held that B.Ed. qualification is not suitable for appointment as Teacher in Primary Schools. 7. He further submits that the advertisement, pursuant to which petitioners applied, was issued after NCTE notification dated 28.06.2018 and petitioners were permitted to participate in the selection on the strength of interim orders passed in their writ petitions or else petitioners could not have participated in the process. 8. He submits that since NCTE notification dated 28.06.2018 is declared to be invalid and B.Ed. 8. He submits that since NCTE notification dated 28.06.2018 is declared to be invalid and B.Ed. qualification holders have been declared to be ineligible for appointment as Teacher in Primary Schools, therefore, the writ petitions were rightly dismissed. 9. Learned State Counsel further contends that the judgment rendered in the case of Devesh Sharma (Supra) was reviewed qua the candidates who were appointed prior to the date of judgment i.e. 11.08.2023, provided they were appointed without any condition imposed by a Court of Law that their appointment would be subject to final outcome of the case which they might have instituted. 10. Learned State Counsel relies upon following paragraphs of order dated 08.04.2024 passed in the case of Devesh Sharma (Supra) on the review applications:- “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 11 th 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. Moreover, the candidates having B.Ed. qualification whose appointments we are protecting in this judgment, will have to undergo a bridge course and we direct the educational authorities to device such course, which would be applicable for each state and union territory, within a period of one year from today. This course shall be only for those appointees who have been engaged with B.Ed. degree only in the subject-posts under conditions stipulated in the earlier part of this order. This course shall be only for those appointees who have been engaged with B.Ed. degree only in the subject-posts under conditions stipulated in the earlier part of this order. National Council for Teacher Education shall design such course under overall supervision of the Ministry of Education, Union of India. Upon formulation of such course, the same shall be publicly notified and a timeframe shall also be given within which the respective candidates shall participate therein. Failure of any candidate to participate and complete the course within the timeframe to be given by the concerned educational authorities will invalidate the appointment of such candidate.” 11. Learned State Counsel contends that since review applicants had not secured 50% marks in Graduation which was an essential condition of eligibility, therefore, they were not permitted to participate in the selection, however, on the strength of interim orders, they participated in the selection and during pendency of their writ petitions, some of them were appointed, but they are not entitled to protection of the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the review applications, as participation of petitioners in the selection process was subject to final outcome of the writ petitions. 12. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. In the case of Ram Sharan Maurya (Supra) , eligibility of B.Ed. qualification holders was tested on the touchstone of NCTE notification dated 28.06.2018, and validity of the said notification was not in issue. However, in the case of Devesh Sharma (Supra) , Hon’ble Supreme court examined validity of NCTE notification dated 28.06.2018 and it was declared to be invalid and B.Ed. qualification holders were held to be ineligible for appointment as Teacher in Primary Schools. Therefore, earlier judgment rendered in the case of Ram Sharan Maurya (Supra) , do not support the case of review applicants. 13. Review applicants participated in the selection held pursuant to advertisement issued on 14.12.2018 and subsequent dates, pursuant to interim orders of this Court, thus, their participation was subject to final outcome of their writ petitions. Thus, review applicants are not entitled to benefit of the order dated 08.04.2024 passed on review applications filed in the case of Devesh Sharma (Supra) ., as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. In the writ petitions, review applicants had challenged the condition of scoring minimum 50% marks in Graduation for B.Ed. Thus, review applicants are not entitled to benefit of the order dated 08.04.2024 passed on review applications filed in the case of Devesh Sharma (Supra) ., as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. In the writ petitions, review applicants had challenged the condition of scoring minimum 50% marks in Graduation for B.Ed. qualification holders, which was added by NCTE notification dated 28.06.2018 and they also challenged the consequent amendment made in applicable Service Rules, as such in view of the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Devesh Sharma (Supra) , review applicants became ineligible for appointment, consequently, this Court refrained from going into the issues raised by review applicants for challenging validity of the condition of having 50% in Graduation, which was inserted in NCTE notification as well as in the applicable Service Rules. 15. The contention that petitioners have cleared six months Bridge Course therefore they are eligible for appointment cannot be accepted, as NCTE notification dated 28.06.2018 provides that every B.Ed. qualification holder should pass Graduation with minimum 50% marks, while the review applicants do not meet the said condition, which was also added in the applicable Service Rules. Moreover Bridge Course is meant for persons who were serving as Teacher and there is no pleading in the writ petitions that review applicants were serving as Teacher in recognized Primary Schools. 16. Scope of review is limited and a judgment can be reviewed only when there is error apparent on the face of record. Review is not an appeal in disguise, therefore, if for seeking review, detailed arguments are to be made and reappreciation of evidence has to be done, then it is not a fit case for review, though it may be a ground for Appeal. From the submissions made on behalf of petitioners/review applicants, it is apparent that correctness of judgment rendered by this Court is being questioned. An erroneous judgment cannot be corrected in review and the remedy would be to file an Appeal. Thus, this Court do not find any good ground for review of the judgment dated 06.12.2023. 17. Review applications are therefore rejected. 18. Interim order(s), if any, stand vacated. Review Application (MCC Nos.9534 of 2024, 9537 of 2024 and 9540 of 2024) in WPSS/574/2019 19. For the reasons indicated, delay in filing the review applications is condoned. Delay Condonation applications stand disposed of. 20. 17. Review applications are therefore rejected. 18. Interim order(s), if any, stand vacated. Review Application (MCC Nos.9534 of 2024, 9537 of 2024 and 9540 of 2024) in WPSS/574/2019 19. For the reasons indicated, delay in filing the review applications is condoned. Delay Condonation applications stand disposed of. 20. These review applications have been filed by persons who were not party in these writ petitions while it was decided vide judgment dated 06.12.2023. 21. Review applicants contend that they have been appointed as Teacher in Government Primary Schools, however, their appointment has come under cloud in view of the judgment rendered by this Court on 06.12.2023. 22. Merely, because the appointment given to the review applicants has come under cloud because of our judgment cannot be a valid ground for review of the judgment dated 06.12.2023, unless it is shown that there is some error apparent on the face of the record. 23. Review applicants could not demonstrate that there is error apparent in our judgment dated 06.12.2023, therefore, we do find not any good ground to review the judgment. 24. The review applications are therefore rejected. However, review applicants shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum as and when cause of action arises to them. 25. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.