Supreme Court settles eligibility criteria for primary teacher appointments: Soumen Paul vs. Shrabani Nayek (2025) INSC 451 (April 04, 2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 04, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 451

Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Manoj Misra, J.

Can candidates whose Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) results were delayed due to extraordinary circumstances, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, be considered eligible for primary teacher appointments? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case concerning the recruitment of assistant teachers in West Bengal. The core issue revolved around the interpretation of Rule 6(2) of the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016, and whether it prescribes a strict cut-off date for possessing the required educational qualifications.

This judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra, clarifies the eligibility criteria for candidates applying for the post of assistant teachers in primary schools in West Bengal. The court examined the interplay between the state’s recruitment rules and the guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE).

Case Background

The case originates from the recruitment process for assistant teachers in primary schools in West Bengal, governed by the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016. A key requirement for these positions is a Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.), a two-year course conducted by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education.

The appellants, aspiring to become primary teachers, enrolled in the 2020-2022 D.El.Ed. batch. Traditionally, these batches commence on July 1st and conclude by June 30th of the second successive year. However, the COVID-19 pandemic and administrative issues within the Board caused significant delays, casting uncertainty over the timely completion of the 2020-2022 session.

Fearing they would miss the opportunity to apply for upcoming recruitment due to potential age restrictions, the appellants approached the Calcutta High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. They sought directives to expedite the completion of the D.El.Ed. course, declare results promptly, and prevent the initiation of any selection process until they received their final results and certificates.

During this period, the government formed an ad-hoc committee to address the Board’s operational challenges. The committee took charge in late August 2022 and acknowledged the delays in the 2020-2022 D.El.Ed. batch, recognizing the need for immediate action.

On September 21, 2022, the High Court heard the writ petition, and the Board’s counsel requested time for instructions. On September 29, 2022, the Board informed the Court that the D.El.Ed. Part-I results would be declared that day, with digital mark sheets distributed to institutions. Furthermore, the Board stated that candidates like the appellants, who were TET (Teacher Eligibility Test) qualified and pursuing the 2020-2022 D.El.Ed. course, having cleared the Part-I examination, would be allowed to participate in the recruitment process initiated under the advertisement dated October 21, 2022.

Based on the Board’s statement, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing that TET-qualified candidates undergoing D.El.Ed. training (2020-2022 session) and qualified in the D.El.Ed. Part-I examination (2020-2022 session) would be given the opportunity to apply in the recruitment process initiated by the Board.

On September 29, 2022, the Board issued a notification declaring the D.El.Ed. Part-I results for the 2020-2022 session, allowing candidates to apply for post-publication review or scrutiny. Another notification on the same day announced the Board’s intention to recruit TET-qualified candidates for assistant teacher positions.

Subsequently, the recruitment notification was issued on October 21, 2022, inviting online applications from TET-qualified trained candidates, including those appearing for the 2020-2022 D.El.Ed./Special D.Ed./B.Ed. courses, in compliance with the High Court’s order. This notification specified 11,765 vacancies and stated that the recruitment would follow the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016.

The appellants applied as per the October 21, 2022, notification, received their course completion certificates on November 29, 2022, and their final Part-II results were declared on December 30, 2022. As interviews commenced in December 2022, private respondents challenged the legality of the single Judge’s order before a division bench of the High Court, arguing that the appellants were ineligible as they did not possess the minimum qualification on the date of the recruitment notification.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellants initially filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court, seeking directions to expedite the D.El.Ed. course completion and prevent the initiation of the recruitment process until their results were declared. The single judge disposed of the petition based on the West Bengal Board of Primary Education’s (Board) submission, allowing candidates like the appellants to participate in the recruitment process.

Subsequently, private respondents challenged the single judge’s order before a division bench of the High Court, arguing that the appellants were ineligible because they did not possess the minimum qualification (D.El.Ed. completion) on the date of the recruitment notification.

The division bench, in its order dated February 27, 2023, directed the Board to file an affidavit explaining the circumstances surrounding the recruitment process and the steps taken in conducting the 2020-2022 D.El.Ed. course.

Ultimately, the division bench allowed the appeal, setting aside the single judge’s order. The High Court emphasized that Rule 6(2) of the Recruitment Rules 2016, as amended, specifies that candidates must possess the required eligibility qualifications as of the date of the advertisement, which the court determined to be September 29, 2022. The division bench deemed the appellants ineligible for even participating in the selection process.

Legal Framework

The legal framework governing the appointment of assistant teachers in primary schools in West Bengal is primarily based on the following:

1. West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973: This act provides the foundation for primary education in the state.
2. West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016: These rules, framed under the 1973 Act, govern the recruitment process for primary school teachers. Rule 6 outlines the qualifications required for appointment.
3. Rule 6(2) of the Recruitment Rules, 2016: This sub-rule, central to the dispute, specifies that candidates must possess the minimum educational qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). It was later amended on December 22, 2020, to state that the qualifications should be those “prevailing as on date of publication of recruitment notification.”
4. National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Act, 1993: This act established the NCTE as a statutory body to regulate and maintain standards in teacher education throughout the country.
5. NCTE Notifications: The NCTE, in exercise of its powers under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, issues notifications prescribing the minimum qualifications for teachers. The relevant notification in this case is dated July 29, 2011.

The NCTE notification dated July 29, 2011, specifies the minimum qualifications for teachers of Classes I-V, including:

“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 two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known).
AND
b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.”

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellants:

• The appellants contended that the High Court erred in interpreting Rule 6(2) of the Recruitment Rules 2016 as prescribing a strict cut-off date for possessing the minimum educational qualifications. They argued that the rule only requires candidates to possess the qualifications prescribed by NCTE prevailing on the date of the recruitment notification.
• They emphasized that the delay in the D.El.Ed. course completion was due to extraordinary circumstances beyond their control, namely the COVID-19 pandemic. They had promptly approached the High Court seeking resolution of the delay.
• The appellants relied on the recruitment notification dated October 21, 2022, which explicitly invited applications from candidates appearing for the 2020-2022 D.El.Ed. courses. They argued that this notification should be considered the operative one and that they met the eligibility criteria as per this notification.
• They asserted that the Board and the single judge of the High Court had sought to resolve the problem arising from the delayed D.El.Ed. examination, and there was no illegality in the recruitment notification dated October 21, 2022.

Arguments of the Board:

• The Board supported the appellants’ position, clarifying that Rule 6(2) does not stipulate any specific date for acquiring eligibility. They argued that the notification dated September 29, 2022, was merely an introduction to the recruitment notification, which was published on October 21, 2022.
• The Board, in its affidavit before the division bench, stated that the NCTE notification dated July 29, 2011, lays down the minimum qualifications but does not specify the date from which such eligibility is to be counted.
• The Board emphasized that the recruitment notification dated October 21, 2022, invited applications from candidates appearing for the 2020-2022 D.El.Ed. courses, indicating that they were eligible to participate in the recruitment process.

Arguments of the Respondents:

• The respondents (private parties who possessed D.El.Ed. qualifications on the date of the recruitment notification) argued that the appellants were ineligible as they did not possess the minimum qualification as of the date of the recruitment notification, which they claimed was September 29, 2022.
• They contended that Rule 6(2) of the Recruitment Rules 2016 unambiguously specifies that the eligibility qualification is required as of the date of the advertisement.
• The respondents relied on precedents of the Supreme Court, arguing that if the recruitment rule or notification does not provide a date by which the minimum qualifications must be possessed, the relevant date should be the last date for receipt of applications.

Innovativeness of the argument:

The innovativeness of the argument lies in the appellants’ and the Board’s interpretation of Rule 6(2), emphasizing that it does not prescribe a cut-off date for acquiring qualifications but rather incorporates the NCTE’s prevailing standards on the date of the recruitment notification. This interpretation seeks to accommodate candidates who faced delays due to extraordinary circumstances, ensuring that they are not unfairly disadvantaged.

[TABLE] showing the sub-submissions categorized by main submissions of all sides pertaining to the issue.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether Rule 6(2) of the West Bengal School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016, prescribes a cut-off date for possessing the minimum educational qualifications.
2. Which date should be considered for determining the eligibility of candidates for selection, especially when the recruitment rule or notification does not provide a specific date.
3. Whether the recruitment notification dated October 21, 2022, is legal and valid.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

1. National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993: This act establishes the NCTE and its role in regulating teacher education.
2. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009: This act mandates free and compulsory education for children and empowers the NCTE to lay down minimum qualifications for teachers.
3. NCTE Notification dated 29.07.2011: This notification prescribes the minimum qualifications for a person to be appointed as a teacher for class I to class VIII.
4. Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab ((2000) 5 SCC 262): This case formulates principles for determining the date by which candidates must possess eligible qualifications.
5. Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) ((2013) 11 SCC 58): This case refers to and considers many other precedents regarding the date by which candidates must possess the minimum qualifications prescribed for recruitment.
6. Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court ((2025) 2 SCC 1): This Constitution Bench decision explains the legal position regarding the cut-off date for determining eligibility.
7. U.P. Public Service Commission v. Alpana ((1994) 2 SCC 723): This Court held that eligibility conditions should be examined as on the last date for receipt of applications by the Commission.
8. M.V. Nair v. Union of India ((1993) 2 SCC 429): This Court held that suitability and eligibility have to be considered with reference to the last date for receiving the applications, unless, of course, the notification calling for applications itself specifies such a date.
9. Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions (1995 Supp (4) SCC 706): This Court held that such of those candidates, who possessed of all the qualifications as on that date, alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to the rules.
10. Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan (1993 Supp (3) SCC 168): This Court held that in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications.
11. A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra ((1990) 2 SCC 669): Referred to in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan.
12. Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi ((1990) 3 SCC 655): Referred to in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan.
13. Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekher (1993 Supp (2) SCC 611): The majority view was that the appellants did pass the examination and were fully qualified for being selected prior to the date of interview.
14. Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar ((1997) 4 SCC 18): This Court reconsidered and explained the judgment of Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993).
15. Shankar K. Mandal v. State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 519: This case was relied on by Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court.

[TABLE] of which authority were considered by the court and HOW.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the division bench of the High Court. The Court directed that the recruitment process, which commenced with the notification dated October 21, 2022, must proceed further, and the Board must take immediate steps to conclude the recruitment process as expeditiously as possible.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Interpretation of Rule 6(2): The Court emphasized that Rule 6(2) of the Recruitment Rules 2016 does not prescribe a cut- off date for possessing the minimum educational qualifications. Instead, it incorporates the NCTE’s prevailing standards on the date of the recruitment notification.
• Recruitment Notification dated October 21, 2022: The Court considered this notification as the operative one, which explicitly invited applications from candidates appearing for the 2020-2022 D.El.Ed. courses. This indicated that the Board intended to include these candidates in the recruitment process.
• Extraordinary Circumstances: The Court acknowledged the extraordinary circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to delays in the D.El.Ed. course completion. The Court recognized that the appellants should not be penalized for delays beyond their control.
• Previous Court Decisions: The Court relied on previous decisions, particularly **Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab ((2000) 5 SCC 262)** and **Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) ((2013) 11 SCC 58)**, to establish the principles for determining the date by which candidates must possess eligible qualifications.

Ranked Table of Influencing Factors:

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future recruitment processes for primary teachers in West Bengal and potentially other states. The key takeaways are:

• Flexible Interpretation of Eligibility Criteria: The judgment emphasizes the need for a flexible interpretation of eligibility criteria, particularly in situations where candidates face delays due to extraordinary circumstances.
• Importance of Recruitment Notification: The recruitment notification is crucial in determining the eligibility criteria. If the notification explicitly includes candidates appearing for a particular course, they should be considered eligible, even if they do not possess the final qualification on the date of the notification.
• Consideration of NCTE Guidelines: The NCTE’s guidelines on minimum qualifications for teachers are paramount. State recruitment rules should align with these guidelines, and any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the NCTE guidelines.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in *Soumen Paul vs. Shrabani Nayek* provides much-needed clarity on the eligibility criteria for primary teacher appointments in West Bengal. The Court’s emphasis on a flexible interpretation of Rule 6(2) and the importance of the recruitment notification ensures that deserving candidates are not unfairly excluded due to circumstances beyond their control. The judgment also reinforces the significance of NCTE guidelines in determining the minimum qualifications for teachers.

However, the judgment also raises some potential areas of controversy. The Court’s reliance on the recruitment notification dated October 21, 2022, as the operative one could be questioned, as the respondents argued that the September 29, 2022, notification was the relevant one. The Court’s decision to invoke Article 142 to validate the recruitment process, while understandable in the context of the extraordinary circumstances, could be seen as an overreach of its powers.

Overall, the judgment is a welcome step towards ensuring fairness and transparency in the recruitment process for primary teachers. It strikes a balance between upholding the integrity of the recruitment rules and accommodating the legitimate concerns of candidates who have faced unforeseen challenges.