The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Chhattisgarh High Court decision that terminated the service of teachers with B.Ed qualifications.

The Court noted that inspite of communication of the Supreme Court decision in Devesh Sharma v. Union of India appointments were given to B.Ed candidates.

The Court was hearing a batch of Special Leave Petitions filed by the teachers with B.Ed. qualification whose appointments have been quashed after the Chhattisgarh High Court held that the B.Ed. candidates were not entitled to be appointed as primary school teachers.

The bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed, “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.”

Senior Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, Senior Advocate Ravindra Shrivastava, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar appeared for the Appellant and Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora and Senior Advocate U.K. Uniyal appeared for the Respondent.

In the present case, the appointment orders in favour of the B.Ed candidates were issued by the State of Chhattisgarh after the Supreme Court judgement in Devesh Sharma v. Union of India 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 June 28, 2018, and the regulations made therein, by which B.Ed was made a qualification, were quashed and set aside.

In subsequent review applications, the Court clarified that B.Ed. qualified candidates who were selected and appointed prior to the decision in Devesh Sharma (supra) shall not be disturbed as there was a special equity in their favour. Therefore the SC said that the judgement would be prospective, and would not disturb the appointments of such candidates who had already been appointed prior to the judgment in Devesh Sharma (supra).

The Court noted that the B.Ed. qualified candidates were called by the State in the selection process, yet they were held to be non-qualified by a judgment of the Supreme Court, which is the law now and by logic has to be implemented.

According to the Court, the appointed teachers were rightly held to be disqualified.

Finally, the Court dismissed all the Special Leave Petitions.

Cause Title: Navin Kumar v. Union of India
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Adv. Amit Anand Tiwari, Senior Adv. Sanjay Hegde, Senior Adv. Ravindra Shrivastava, Senior Adv. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Adv. Ranjit Kumar, AAG Apoorv Kurup, ASG K.M. Natraj, Adv. Arjun D Singh, AOR Ankita Sharma, AOR Arjun Garg, Adv. Aakash Nandolia, Adv. Kriti Gupta, Adv. Shashank Shekhar Jha, Adv. Priyanka Thakur, Adv. Subhash Chandra Jha, Adv. Archit Kaushik, Adv. Vishhal Saxxenaa, Adv. Pramod Kumar Tripathy, Adv. Erika Yagnik, Adv. Diva Kant, AOR
Anil Kumar, AOR Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Naushina Afrin Ali, Adv. Anshuman Shrivastava, Adv. Abhishek Sharma, Adv. Aniket Singh Das, Adv. Devangna Singh, Adv. Sanya Shukla, Adv. Krati Dubey, Adv. Ieeshan Sharma, Adv. Rhea Rao, Adv. Selina Raj Mevati, Adv. P S Patwalia, AOR Amit Pawan, Adv. Hassan Zubair Waris, Adv. Suchit Rawat, Adv. Abhishek Amritanshu and Adv. Aastha Shreshta

Respondent: Senior Adv. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Adv. Meenakshi Arora, Senior Adv. U.K. Uniyal, AOR Mandeep Kalra, Adv. Anushna Satapathy, Adv. Chitrangada Singh, Adv. Yashas J, Adv. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Chandratanay Chaube, Adv. Piyush Vatsa, Adv. Rahul Kumar Gupta, AOR Punit Vinay, Adv. Rahul Raj Mishra, Adv. Avinash Ankit and Adv. Manoj Kumar


Supreme CourtJustice Sudhanshu DhuliaJustice Pankaj Mithal

Tanveer Kaur