NAVIN KUMAR & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 810, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
[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