“Qualifications Must Be Possessed by the Date Appointed in the Rules or the Advertisement”: Supreme Court Sets Aside Calcutta High Court Order, Upholds Eligibility of D.El.Ed. Candidates
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra set aside the judgment of the Calcutta High Court Division Bench and upheld the eligibility of candidates who had completed the D.El.Ed. course after the publication of a recruitment notification dated 21.10.2022. The Court held that Rule 6(2) of the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016 did not prescribe a cut-off date for acquiring minimum qualifications and that the recruitment process initiated through the said notification was lawful. The Court directed the West Bengal Board of Primary Education to complete the ongoing recruitment process expeditiously.
The case arose from a batch of civil appeals challenging the Calcutta High Court Division Bench’s decision that had disqualified several candidates from participating in the recruitment process for the post of assistant teacher in government-aided primary schools in West Bengal. The appellants were enrolled in the 2020–2022 session of the D.El.Ed. (Diploma in Elementary Education) programme, conducted by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education. The course was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and administrative restructuring within the Board.
The West Bengal Board of Primary Education, after assuming charge through an ad-hoc committee in August 2022, notified the Part-I results of the D.El.Ed. course on 29.09.2022. On the same day, the Board issued a notification indicating that TET-qualified candidates who were undergoing D.El.Ed. training and had qualified in Part-I would be permitted to participate in the upcoming recruitment process. A recruitment notification was subsequently published on 21.10.2022, inviting applications from eligible candidates, including “appearing candidates for the session 2020–2022 in D.El.Ed./Special D.Ed./B.Ed. Courses.”
The appellants applied in response to this recruitment notification. By 29.11.2022, they received their course completion certificates, and the final results for the Part-II examination were published on 30.12.2022. While the recruitment process proceeded, certain respondents who had completed the D.El.Ed. course prior to the notification date filed writ appeals before the High Court. They argued that the appellants were ineligible on the ground that they had not completed the required qualifications by the date of the recruitment notification, which they identified as 29.09.2022.
The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court accepted this argument and set aside the order of the Single Judge that had permitted the appellants to apply. The Division Bench held that Rule 6(2) of the Recruitment Rules required the possession of minimum qualifications as on the date of the advertisement and interpreted the 29.09.2022 notification as the recruitment notification. The appellants then filed civil appeals before the Supreme Court challenging this interpretation.
The Supreme Court examined the applicable legal framework governing eligibility criteria for assistant teachers. The Court noted that Rule 6(2) of the 2016 Recruitment Rules incorporates the qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) and stated:
“The intendment of Rule 6(2) of the Recruitment Rules 2016 is only to declare that the qualifications as prescribed by NCTE and that are prevailing on the date of publication of the recruitment notification should be possessed by the candidate.”
The Court rejected the High Court’s view that Rule 6(2) imposed a cut-off date for possessing the qualification. It held:
“We are of the opinion that the High Court committed a mistake in interpreting and construing Rule 6(2) as a provision prescribing some kind of a cut-off date by which time the minimum educational qualifications must be possessed.”
The Court also affirmed the Board’s position as expressed in its affidavit:
“The notification never stipulates any date of eligibility. In other words, on and from which date such eligibility is to be counted and/or assessed is not specified in the notification.”
The judgment stated well-established legal principles governing the timing for determining candidate eligibility. The Court cited Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, recording:
“The eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one.”
Addressing the Division Bench's treatment of the 29.09.2022 notification as the recruitment advertisement, the Supreme Court disagreed and clarified:
“There is no illegality and arbitrariness in the actual recruitment notification dated 21.10.2022 and that the recruitment process commenced under the relevant rules.”
On the fairness of allowing the appellants to apply, the Court recorded that they had approached the High Court well in time and had obtained their certificates before the conclusion of the selection process. It stated:
“The direction of the learned Single Judge enabled candidates such as the appellant who were at the verge of completing the course to participate in the selection process, and they would have been appointed only upon attaining the prescribed qualifications.”
Recognising the administrative difficulties posed by the pandemic, the Court observed that the Board and Single Judge had devised an equitable solution to an extraordinary situation. It held:
“The facts of this case reveal a rather extraordinary situation where the Board and also the High Court (Single Judge) sought to resolve the problem that had arisen due to late conduct of the 2020-22 of D.El.Ed. examination immediately after the Covid-19 pandemic.”
Finally, the Court invoked its powers under Article 142 to ensure that no injustice resulted from a rigid application of technical timelines:
“We have no hesitation in exercising our power and jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice for the parties.”
The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeals and set aside the judgment of the Calcutta High Court Division Bench dated 11.04.2023. It confirmed the validity of the recruitment process initiated by the notification dated 21.10.2022 and directed the West Bengal Board of Primary Education to resume and conclude the selection process.
The Court stated:
“We allow the appeals and set aside the judgment of the division bench in M.A.T. No. 1725 of 2022 dated 11.04.2023 and we direct that the recruitment process which commenced in the notification dated 21.10.2022 must proceed further and the Board must take immediate steps for concluding the recruitment process as expeditiously as possible.”
The Court further directed:
“All applications for impleadment are dismissed as withdrawn. The applicants are permitted to avail such remedies as are available to them in law.”
Pending applications, including those for intervention or impleadment, were accordingly disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate; Mr. Rauf Rahim, Senior Advocate; Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Senior Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kunal Chatterjee (for the Board); Mr. Subir Sanyal, Senior Advocate; Mr. Biswajit Deb, Senior Advocate
For Intervenors (NIOS Candidates): Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Advocate
Case Title: Soumen Paul & Ors. v. Shrabani Nayek & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 451
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. ____ of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No. 12660 of 2023
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Manoj Misra
[Read/Download order]
