# Sanghpriya Gautam v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1555
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-07
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 5494 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanghpriya-gautam-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53534
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Law
-
Assistant
Teacher
Appointment - Equivalence of D.Ed. and
D.El.Ed. - Petitioner completed two-year
Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) from M.P. Board
(2014)
and
qualified
TET
(2015)
-
Appointment order issued in 2024 but school
not allotted; later appointment cancelled on
ground that D.Ed. not equivalent to Diploma
in
Elementary
Education
(D.El.Ed.)
as
required under NCTE Regulations - Challenge
thereto.

Held: NCTE notification (23.08.2010) prescribes
"Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever
name
known)"
as
minimum
qualification.
However,
syllabus
comparison
reveals
substantial differences: D.El.Ed. focuses on child
psychology, elementary education pedagogy,
and inclusive education, while D.Ed. is more
general,
oriented
towards
upper
primary.
Therefore,
D.Ed.
cannot
be
treated
as
equivalent to D.El.Ed. Appointment rightly
cancelled. No interference warranted.

Writ Petition dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Sanghpriya Gautam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1555
respondent authorities. However,
the respondent authorities again passed the
order dated 27.2.1998 which has been set
aside by this Court by order dated
5.10.2023 with a finding that necessary
consequences will follow. The respondent
authorities have treated the petitioner in
service w.e.f. 13.5.1998 as a consequence
of judgment of this Court dated 5.10.2023.
Once the respondent authorities have
themselves accepted the petitioner in
service from 13.5.1998, then the petitioner
would be entitled to back wages as the
reason for not permitting the petitioner to
work arising out of an order dated
27.2.1998 has been set aside by this Court
by order dated 5.10.2023.

12. Accordingly, the impugned order
dated 22.6.2024 passed by respondent nos.4/5
is set aside. The writ petition is allowed and
the respondents are directed to pay the back
wages of the petitioner from 13.5.1998 till the
date of retirement within a period of three
months and since the petitioner has already
retired from service the pensionary benefits
shall also be granted to the petitioner in
accordance with law.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1555
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 5494 of 2025

Sanghpriya Gautam ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Satyendra Chandra Tripathi, Shiv Poojan
Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Archana Singh, C.S.C.

Service
Law
-
Assistant
Teacher
Appointment - Equivalence of D.Ed. and
D.El.Ed. - Petitioner completed two-year
Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) from M.P. Board
(2014)
and
qualified
TET
(2015)
-
Appointment order issued in 2024 but school
not allotted; later appointment cancelled on
ground that D.Ed. not equivalent to Diploma
in
Elementary
Education
(D.El.Ed.)
as
required under NCTE Regulations - Challenge
thereto.

Held: NCTE notification (23.08.2010) prescribes
"Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever
name
known)"
as
minimum
qualification.
However,
syllabus
comparison
reveals
substantial differences: D.El.Ed. focuses on child
psychology, elementary education pedagogy,
and inclusive education, while D.Ed. is more
general,
oriented
towards
upper
primary.
Therefore,
D.Ed.
cannot
be
treated
as
equivalent to D.El.Ed. Appointment rightly
cancelled. No interference warranted.

Writ Petition dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Harsh Kumar & Anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2014 0 Supreme (All) 276 (affirmed by SC)

2. Km. Pallavi Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2018) 6
ADJ 329

3. Anju Kumari & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ
A No.41992 of 2016, decided on 18.01.2018

4. Smt. Mala Yadav & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:26366

5. U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. (Division Bench judgment)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)
1556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Sri Satyendra Chandra
Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel
for the respondent no.3.

2. Petitioner has set up a case that
he has passed a Diploma in Education
(D.Ed), a two years course in the year 2014
from Board of Secondary Education, M.P.
Bhopal (Shri Swamiji Maharaj College of
Education and Scienes, Housing Board
Colony, Datiya, Madhya Pradesh) as well
as he has passed Teacher Eligibility Test in
September, 2015, therefore, he was eligible
to become an Assistant Teacher. However,
despite he appeared in counselling in
pursuance of a selection process initiated in
the year 2016 and consequently an
appointment letter dated 7.1.2024 was also
issued to him by the District Basic
Education Officer, Sitapur, still he was not
allotted a school, purportedly on a ground
that D.Ed is not equivalent with Diploma in
Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) and vide
an
order
dated
15.01.2025,
further
consideration of his name was kept in
abeyance.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that aforesaid order was challenged
before this Court in Writ Petition-A
No.10126 of 2024, which was disposed of
vide order dated 7.8.2024, with a direction to
Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, Prayagraj,
to
take
a
final
decision,
however,
subsequently his claim was rejected vide
orders dated 8.1.2024 and 7.2.2025 and his
appointment was cancelled on the ground that
D.Ed was not an essential qualification for
Asst. Teacher and it was not equivalent to
(D.El.Ed.) and his appointment was held to
be void-ab-initio.

4.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner by referring relevant part of
notification dated 23.8.2010 issued by the
NCTE has submitted that for appointment
of a Teacher to impart teaching for Classes
1-5, a Diploma in Elementary Education
(by whatever name known) is essential,
which would also include Diploma in
Elementary
Education
(D.Ed),
a
qualification which petitioner possessed.

5.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner also referred a judgment passed
by a Division Bench of this Court in Harsh
Kumar & Anr Vs. State of U.P. & Ors,
2014 0 Supreme (All) 276, that a two year
diploma in education would be a prescribed
qualification and that an Appeal thereof at
behest of State of U.P. was rejected by
Supreme Court. He further submitted that
since issue was already settled, therefore,
by the impugned orders not only an
illegality was committed, but it was an
attempt to march over the judgment passed
by a Division Bench of this Court as
confirmed by the Supreme Court.

6.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner also referred judgments of this
Court in Km. Pallavi Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors, (2018) 6 ADJ 329 and Anju Kumari &
Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, (Writ A
No.41992 of 2016) decided on 18.1.2018,
and he referred following paragraph of it:

"Admittedly, in the facts of the
present case, the process of appointment
had commenced in the year 2016, after the
Act of 2009 as well as rules framed
thereunder came into being. NCTE had
already been notified as the academic
authority under the Act of 2009 and the
qualification required for appointment as
teacher in primary institution has been
notified.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has also placed on record a
Government Order dated 5.6.2017 whereby
5 All. Sanghpriya Gautam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1557
the teaching qualification earlier known as
'Basic Teacher Certificate (BTC)' has been
altered and rechristened as 'Diploma in
Elementary Education', so as to bring it in
conformity with the NCTE Regulations of
2014. That being the admitted position, it
would be impermissible now to insist upon
possessing of qualification for recruitment
for the post of teacher in a primary
institution, which is at variance with the
NCTE Regulations. Petitioners assert that
they have already obtained qualification of
'Diploma in Education' which is a two year
course and has already been included in
'Diploma in Elementary Education' under
the NCTE Regulations, 2010.

In view of the settled position of
law, noticed above, the petitioners who
possess qualification notified by the NCTE
for being appointed as teacher in primary
institution, their result pursuant to the
counselling
undertaken
need
not
be
detained any further. "

7. Per contra, learned counsel for
the respondent no.3 has opposed the
aforesaid submissions and submitted that
Diploma in Education (D.Ed) and Diploma
in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) are two
different
concepts
having
different
curriculum.

8.
Learned
counsel
further
submitted that in Harsh Kumar (supra)
equivalence to D.Ed and D.El.Ed was not
considered. The authority which could
decide the issue of equivalence would be
N.C.T.E., however, same is not arrayed as a
party in present writ petition.

9. Heard learned counsel for parties
and perused records.

10. An issue whether a 'Nursery
Education Certificate' would be equivalent to
Diploma in Elementary Education was
decided by this Court in a bunch of Writ
Petitions (leading being Smt. Mala Yadav
and 10 others Vs. State and U.P. and 4
others),
Neutral
Citation
No.
2024:AHC:26366, and for reference, relevant
part of it is reproduced hereinafter:-

" 15. The issue before this Court
for consideration is that whether "Nursery
Training
Certificate"
is
equivalent
to
"Diploma in Elementary Education" (by
whatsoever name known) (as mentioned in
NCTE notification dated 23.08.2010 as
amended on 29.07.2011) and subsequent
notification dated 12.09.2014 and whether it
is also equivalent to "Basic Teachers
Training
Certificate"
for
purpose
of
minimum qualification for post of Assistant
Teacher in primary school (class I to V) run
by Basic Education Board?

16. The crux of argument of
petitioners
is
that
once
NCTE,
the
appropriate
Authority
under
National
Council
for
Teachers
Education
(Amendment) Act, 2011, by a notification has
provided minimum qualification in terms of
Act of 2009, the same will govern irrespective
of any minimum qualification prescribed for
appointment on post of Assistant Teacher by
of any State.

17.
In order
to
substantiate
argument, learned Senior Advocate has
referred various provisions of above referred
Act, Rules and Circulars which do not
require to elaborate since they have been
considered by Division Bench of this Court in
Harsh Kumar (supra), a judgment relied
upon by petitioner.

18. Relevant part of Harsh
Kumar (supra) has already been quoted in
earlier part of this judgment and for
disposal of this judgment, a general
mandamus issued in Harsh Kumar (supra)
is repeated hereinafter -:
1558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"14. In the circumstances, the
special appeals would have to be allowed
and
are,
accordingly,
allowed.
The
impugned judgment and order of the
learned Single Judge dated 14 November
2013 is set aside. A mandamus would,
accordingly, issue directing the State to
permit the appellants and such other
persons who claim to be holding the
qualifications
which are
within
the
purview of the notification issued by the
NCTE on 23 August 2010, as amended on
29 July 2011, to apply for the post of
Assistant Teachers for Classes I to V
which was the subject matter of the
advertisement in question.

15. Since the Court is informed
that the process of counseling is still to
commence, we direct the State Government
to act in accordance with the aforesaid
direction in processing and completing the
selection process.

16. We clarify that the issue as to
whether
the
appellants
hold
the
qualifications strictly in accordance with
the notification issued by the NCTE has not
been decided by us since that is a matter of
verification by the authority concerned."

19. The above mandamus was
that the essential qualification given in
Notification dated 23.08.2010 as amended
by
Notification
dated 27.08.2011
be
applied in selection process in question
subject to verification whether candidate
possesses
qualification
in
terms
of
notification,
therefore,
there
was
no
occasion for Division Bench to consider
whether "Nursery Training Certificate"
would
be
a
minimum
qualification
equivalent to BTC Course?

20. The above issue was later on
considered by another Division Bench of
this Court in Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha
Parishad (supra) wherein Harsh Kumar
(supra) as well as a subsequent notification
dated 12.11.2014 issued by NCTE was also
considered. As well as stand of NCTE was
also heard.

21. The Division Bench in Uttar
Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad (supra)
has thereafter arrived to a considered
opinion that -:

"i.
"Nursery
Training
Programme"
as
mentioned
in
the
Government Order dated 30.06.2010 is not
at all recognized under Appendix I or II of
NCTE
(Recognitions
Norms
and
Procedure)
Regulations,
2009.
N.T.T.
Course is recognized as per Appendix-4 of
Regulations,
2009
meant
for
early
childhood education.

ii. Early Childhood Education
(ECE) is for pre-school and class I and II
of primary education only.

iii.
Elementary
Training
Education Programme aims of preparing
teachers for elementary stage of education
i.e. class I to VI/VII.

iv. Basic Shiksha Parishad of
State of U.P. does not accord recognition
to any nursery school to run additionally
class I and II. There are three categories of
institutions (i) Nursery School (ii) Junior
Basic School (iii) Senior Basic School.
Petitioners-opposite parties can be at the
best appointed in Nursery School but they
cannot be appointed in Junior Basic
School/Senior Basic School.

v. Once N.T.T. Course as per the
petitioners-opposite parties is designed for
children in the age group of 4-6 followed
by first 2 years in the formal school i.e. of
children in the age group of 6-8 years, then
the said course in question cannot be
carried forward even to the students of
Class III to V as it would be going beyond
the N.T.T. course that has been designed."

22. The above reference makes a
clear difference in nursery school and
Junior basic school and their respective
5 All. Sanghpriya Gautam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1559
requirement of teachers in terms of their
minimum education. The certificate in

question is "Certificate Teacher (ShishuShiksha) Examination-2013. The subject
of course are कशिा कसद्धांत तथा कशिालय संिठि, बाल
अध्ययि, कवशेि पाठि कवकध ज्ञािोपिरण, कवशेि पाठि कवकध
कविय and for reference, a certificate and
result of one petitioner is scanned
hereinafter -:

23. Petitioners have not brought
on record details of study material/syllabus
of referred examination in order to show
that it would sufficient upto class-V also,
whereas the Basic Teacher Certificate
course has extensive study material much
more than C.T. (Shishu Shiksha). For
reference same is mentioned below -:

First Year
Education and principles of teaching
Psychological basis of child Development
Teaching subject: Hindi, Environmental studies, Social
Studies, Mathematics, Sanskrit/Urdu, English
Cognitive
Aspects:
Moral
Education,
Physical
Education and Music, Art
Psycho Motor Aspect: Class Teaching, Curriculum
Analysis
Second Year
Emerging Trends of Elementary: Education and
1560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Education Evaluation, School Management, Community
Education and Health education
Teaching Methods, work experience and Relevant
Practical work: Hindi, Environmental Education,
Science,
Social
Studies,
Mathematic,
SUPW,
Sanskrit/Urdu, English
Cognitive Aspects: Physical education and music
Psycho motor aspect: class room teaching, school
experience (internship) Community work and Action
research, Analysis of Curriculum and text book

24. This Court has undertaken
above exercise as Harsh Kumar (supra)
has also granted liberty to verify whether
course of a candidate would be same in
terms of notification issued by NCTE,
otherwise, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad
(supra)
is
completely
against
the
petitioners.

25. A bare consideration of
standards of course material of Certificate
Training (Shishu Shiksha) and Basic
Teacher
Certificate
are
sufficient
to
observe that course material of Basic
Training
Certificate
is
proposed
for
purpose of teaching upto Class-V, whereas
course material of CT (Shishu Shiksha)
would be limited to pre-school i.e. up to
class-II only.

26.
In
view
of
aforesaid
observations, not only U.P. Basic Shiksha
Parishad (supra) is against the petitioners
but above consideration of course material
of CT (Shishu Shiksha) is not equivalent to
course material of minimum qualification
i.e. B.T.C. for appointment of Assistant
Teachers.

27. Therefore, all writ petitions
being sans-merit are dismissed."

11. A challenge to above judgment
is pending before a Division Bench of this
Court being (Special Appeal No.- 305 of
2024), Bindu Yadav Vs. State Of Up And 3
Others.

12. In order to ascertain whether
curriculum of D.Ed and D.El.Ed are same
or
have
elementary
difference,
their
respective
syllabus
are
mentioned
hereinafter:

" D.El.Ed Syllabus for 1st Year

Foundation Courses
Understanding
the
Psychology of Children

Education
in
Contemporary
Indian Society
Education
Society,
and
Curriculum

Pedagogy
Across
the Curriculum
Pedagogical Courses
Teaching of English Language

Hindi Bhasha
Shikshan
Teaching of Mathematics

Teaching
of
Environment
al Studies
Practical Courses
Children's
Physical
and
Emotional
Health,
School
Health and Education

Creative
Drama,
Fine
Arts,
and
Education
School InternshipI (30 to 35 days)
D.El.ED Syllabus for 2nd Year
Foundation Courses
Understanding the Learning
and Cognition of Children

Teacher Identity,
School
Culture
and Leadership
Diversity,
Gender
and
inclusive Education

NA
Pedagogical Courses
English Education

Hindi Shiksha
Mathematics Education

Science Education
Practical Courses
Children's
Physical
and
Emotional
Health,
School
Health and Education - II

Creative
Drama,
Fine
Arts
and
Education- II
School Internship-I (50 to 55
days)

NA

D.Ed Syllabus

1. First Part Theory

First Year

Question
Paper- 1
Education in Indian Society
Question
Paper- 2
Child Development (Nutrition,
Health, Physical Education, Yoga
and Moral Development)
Question
Paper- 3
School Management and Planning
Question
Paper- 4
Hindi Language and its Teaching
Question
Paper- 5
Mathematics and its Teaching
Second Year
5 All. Kamlesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
1561
Question Paper6
Educational Psychology
Question Paper7
Educational Technology and
Research
Question Paper8
English Language and its
Teaching
Question Paper9
Social Science and its Teaching
Question Paper10
Science and Environmental
Education and their Teaching

2. Part II Practical
Practical Practice (First and Second Year)
A. Teaching Practice
B. Work Experience
i. Compulsory Activities
ii. Optional Activities
C. Social cultural and creative work behavior
i. Working with society
ii. Physical education, yoga education and cultural
activities
iii. Painting and fine arts education
iv. computer education

13.
The
difference
in
above
syllabus are substantial. D.El.Ed is more on
understanding Psychology of Children,
Child
Development
and
Childhood,
Counselling and Guidance Environmental
studies etc; whereas D.Ed is more on
general subjects concentrating for upper
primary classes, which includes Child
Development and Work Experience in
teaching practice.

14. It is clearly evident that module
of D.El.Ed where concentration is on Child
Development is of children of elementary
age. It is a very specified module and
curriculum is also very specific and has
rational difference from curriculum of
D.Ed, therefore, D.Ed is not equivalent to
D.El.Ed. Accordingly, there is no reason to
interfere with the impugned order.

15.
Present
writ
petition
is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1561
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24930 of
2024

Kamlesh Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Hari Narayan Singh, Punya Sheel Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468,
471 & 120-B - Bail - Principles governing
grant or refusal of bail - Applicant a
habitual offender with 52 criminal cases of
cheating and forgery - No explanation for
delay of four years in lodging FIR - Role
as property mediator alleged in fraudulent
sale transaction - Gravity of offence and
antecedents disentitle applicant to bail -
Co-accused's bail not a ground for parity
- Held, discretion to grant bail must be
exercised
judiciously
considering
antecedents,
gravity,
likelihood
of
tampering with evidence and repetition of
offence - Bail refused. (Paras 14, 20, 22,
23, and 25)

HELD:
This Court has taken into consideration of the
fact that the applicant has almost 52 criminal
cases pending against him under section 420
IPC. Under Schedule 1 of the Code or Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), an offence under
Section 420 IPC is cognizable and non-bailable
and is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class,
therefore, the instant offence is serious in
nature. It is also noted that he is habitual
offender of commission of the same nature of
the offence punishable under Section 420 of
IPC. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is great
apprehension in the mind of the Court that