# State of U.P. & Ors v. Sakshi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 477
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-20
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Kunal Ravi Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-sakshi-ors-54250
- **Pages:** 23

## Text

_Characters 0–39,941 of 68,943. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39941 for what follows._

2 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Sakshi & Ors.
477

147. The concerned authority is further directed to forthwith verify, rectify, and update the
correct and authentic data on the UDISE portal and, on the basis of such updated data, to undertake
posting and deployment of teachers strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, so as to ensure and maintain the prescribed
pupil-teacher ratio in its true letter and spirit.

148. With the aforesaid observations/directions, these writ petitions are disposed of.

149. The Court records its appreciation for the diligent efforts and valuable assistance
rendered by Ms. Vaishanavi Kesarwani, Research Associate. The precision and clarity reflected in
the legal research and analysis submitted by her demonstrate commendable attention to detail. The
Court acknowledges her contribution in aiding the adjudication of the matter.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 477
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.02.2026
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

Special Appeal No. 191 of 2026 and other cases

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Sakshi & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Binding nature of Regulations of 2014 requiring the candidates to complete the Diploma course within two
years' time, subject to a maximum time of three years.
(2) Validity of the orders of Secretary providing additional chance to the failed students, which consequently
extend the maximum three years time period of Diploma course as provided under the statute.
(3) Permissibility of claiming parity of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
(4) Entitlement of right to appear for an additional chance in the examination in contravention of right of
children to get quality education guaranteed under Article 21-A and directed under Article 45 of the
Constitution of India.

Headnotes
(A) Education law - Diploma Course - Maximum time limit of passing the course - Regulations
of 2014 framed under the Act of 1993 require the candidates to complete the course in two
years' time, subject to a maximum time of three years - Binding nature :
Held : NCTE Act and the Regulations framed in pursuance of the powers given in Section 32 have binding
effect in relation to norms and qualifications of teachers. Thus, it is patently obvious that the norms laid down
in Regulation 2 to Appendix-2 of Regulations 2014 have a binding effect, and the time period prescribed
under Regulation 2 of Appendix-2 is binding and mandatory in nature leading to the irresistible conclusion that
the maximum time limit for passing a Diploma in Elementary Education course is three years. [Para 32]
(B) Education law - Diploma Course - Students failed in one subjects three times - Additional
chance sought - Relaxation - Secretary issued an order dated 11.09.2021 to give additional
chance to the students failed in one subjects of their first semester, and further another order
478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated 19.04.2022 to the students failed in any subjects in any of the semester - Permissibility :
(E-1)
Held : The orders dated 11.09.2021 and 19.04.2022 are only executive orders. They are subordinate to the
Regulations, 2014. The executive order would not in any way override the Regulations having statutory force
- The Examination Regulatory Authority would have powers to issue executive orders to deal with issues as
described in the Government order dated 27.02.2004, but the Authority could not issue any executive order
that transgressed upon the norms and qualifications imposed by the Regulations, 2014. [Para 36]
(C) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Right to Equality - Negative equality - Scope - Additional
chance was claimed by the students of Diploma course failed in one subjects three times -
Entitlement - Secretary passed the orders granting additional chances to those students who
had filed representation - Similar opportunity was sought by the petitioners-respondent, who
had not filed representation and whose name was not in the list - Plea of right to equality under
Article 14 was taken - Permissibility - Writ court found the action of the respondent of not
granting the petitioners additional chance as discriminatory - Validity challenged : (E-1)
Held : Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equal protection to similarly situated persons. The
intention of the Article is in a positive sense as it seeks to eliminate discrimination between persons who are
similarly situated - Article 14 protects the rights in a positive manner meaning thereby that any rights based
on an illegality cannot be claimed under Article 14 - Moreover, the petitioners (respondents herein) have
admittedly not filed any representation before the Secretary. Therefore, even otherwise, they cannot claim
any parity with the candidates, who have filed representations before the Secretary and consequently, their
names were found placed in all the lists issued thereafter by the Secretary - Once it is the opinion of this
Court that the executive orders dated 11.09.2021 and 19.04.2022 were in contravention of the Regulations,
2014, then there would be no question with regard to granting a similar benefit to the respondents herein, as
no rights can be claimed based on the illegal orders. [Para 42, 43 and 45]
(D) Constitution of India - Article 21-A and 45 - Fundamental right of Education - Scope - Right
of children to get quality education vis-à-vis Right of Diploma-student to appear for an
additional chance in the examination - Superseding effect - Regulation was framed with the
object to provide quality education - Enforceability - In contravention of the constitutional
guarantee, the order were passed by the State or the authorized officer - Permissibility : (E-1)
Held : The power to lay down norms and qualifications by Regulations is to ensure quality education to the
children of age 6-14 years. These young formative minds will shape the future of the country, therefore the
persons to be recruited as teachers should be of utmost quality and standards - The Constitutional Court owe
a duty to protect the rights of the children, it would be apt to reinforce that the actions of the State must align
with the constitutional guarantees provided to the children, keeping in mind the directive principles as
enshrined in Article 45 of the Constitution of India. The Constitution has cast a permanent obligation on the
State to fulfill the right to education of children. Besides this the State under the Constitution and various
statutes is also a guarantor of rights and guardian of the children therefore before taking any executive
action, the State must ensure that any order/direction/circular issued by the State or any authorized officer
under any delegation of power under the Act, 2009 must be in compliance with the constitutional guarantees
towards the children. [Para 52 and 55] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs. Union of India and others, (2022) 11 SCC 392; Jyotsana Mayee
Mishra vs. State of Odisha and others, SLP (C) 13984 of 2023; State of Haryana vs. Ram Kumar Mann, 1997
AIR SCW 1574; Harshad Chima Lal Modi vs. DLF Universal Ltd, (2005) 7 SCC 791; Director of Elementary
education vs. Pramod Kumar Sahu, (2019) 10 SCC 674; Shiv Kumar Sharma and others vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2013(6) ADJ 310 (FB); Ram Surat Yadav and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2013 SCC Online ALL
14351; Syed Shakeb Ashraf and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR ONLINE 2019 ALL 1069; State of
U.P. and others vs, Shiv Kumar Pathak and others, 2017 INSC 666; Ram Kishore Yadav vs. M.P. Board of
Secondary Education, 2016 (4) MPLJ 658; Poonam Pattaya and others vs. Board of Secondary Education and
others, 2017 (3) MPLJ 711; Vijay Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2004 SCC OnLine All 1656;
Ram Ganesh Tripathi vs. State of U.P., AIR 1997 SC 1446; Chandigarh Administration vs. Jagjit Singh, (1995)
1 SCC 745; State of Odisha vs. Anup Kumar Senapati, (2019) 19 SCC 626; R. Muthukumar vs. The Chairman
2 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Sakshi & Ors.
479
and Managing Director TANGEDCO, 2022 INSC 157; Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer vs. Yati Jain
and others, 2026 INSC 64; Mahendra Dev vs. Radhey Shaym Pandey, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2713 of
2025; The State of U.P. and others vs. Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at
Allahabad and others, 2024 INSC 4; Shailendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. And others, 2025 (4) ADJ 462;
Avinash Nagra vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and others, (1997) 2 SCC 534; State of Maharashtra vs. Vikas
Sahebrao Roundale and others, (1992) 4 SCC 435; Ram Sharan Maurya and others vs. State of U.P. and
others, (2021) 15 SCC 401; Devesh Sharma vs. Union of India and others, (2023) 18 SCC 339; Sharda vs.
Dharmpal, (2003) 4 SCC 493; Modern Dental College & Research Centre and others vs. State of M.P. and
others, (2016) 7 SCC 353 - referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 14 and Article 21-A; National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 - Ss.
2(l), 12, 12-A, 27 and 32; Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009; Uttar Pradesh Right
of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 - Part VII, Clause 19 and 20; National Council for
Teachers Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulation, 2014 - Clause 2.1.

List of Keywords
Additional chance, Similar opportunity, Pick-and-choose policy, Examination, Relaxation, Concession,
Discrimination, Binding Precedent, Time limit, Representation, Approbate and reprobate, Norms and
standards, Elementary education, Binding nature of the Act, Delegated power, Essential condition of the
syllabus, Course duration, Parity, Rights in a positive manner, Rights based on an illegality, Negative equality,
Illegal exercise of power, Fundamental right of children, Quality education, Right to quality education.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 06.07.2023 and other orders passed by the writ court.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant : Anoop Trivedi, AAG; Ratan Deep Mishra
Advs. for the Respondents : Ravindra Singh, Kauntey Singh, Alok Tripathi, Jahnavi Singh, Siddharth Khare

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.
&
Hon'ble Kunal Ravi Singh, J.)

[1] Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Ratan Deep
Mishra for the State-appellants and Sri Ravindra Singh and Sri Kauntey Singh, learned counsels for
the respondents-petitioners.

[2] The present Special Appeal along with other connected appeals arise out of the same
controversy and as the facts and controversy are the same, they are being decided by a common
judgment. For the purpose of deciding these appeals, the facts of Special Appeal No.191 of 2026
(State of U.P. and 32 others Vs. Sakshi and 77 others) are being treated as the leading case.

[3] In all the connected Special Appeals the appellants have asked for the following reliefs:

Sl.
Petition number & parties' name

Relief claimed

1.
SPLA- 191 of 2026
State of U.P. & 32 Others vs. Sakshi & 77 Others
Set aside the Judgment and Order dated 06.07.2023
2.
SPLA-189 of 2026
State of U.P. & others vs. Seema Yadav and others
Set aside the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2023
480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3.
SPLA-188 of 2026
State of Uttar Pradesh & Others vs. Shalini & Others
Set aside the Judgment and Order dated 07.07.2023
4.
SPLA- 186 of 2026
State of U.P. and 4 others vs. Ruvendra Kumar and 45 others
Set aside the Judgment and Order dated 07.07.2023
5.
SPLA-970 of 2024
State of UP & 4 others vs. Deepak Kumar and 29 others
Set aside the Judgment and Order dated 18.09.2023
6.
SPLA-190 of 2026
State of U.P. and 2 others vs. Mayank Yadav
Set aside the Judgment and Order dated 19.07.2023
7.
SPLA-184 of 2026
State of U.P. and 4 others vs. Satakshi Parasari and 45 others
Set aside the Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2023
8.
SPLA-187 of 2026
State of U.P. and 5 others vs. Km. Archana Shukla & 2 others
Set aside the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2023
9.
SPLA-185 of 2026
State of U.P. and 3 others vs. Divya Dwivedi and others
Set aside the Judgment and Order dated 19.01.2024

FACTS:

[4] The respondents herein (petitioners in the writ petitions) are the students of Diploma in
Elementary Education Course of various batches across various Colleges offering the Diploma
Course. The common feature with all the respondents herein is that all the respondents herein have
failed in one subject three times, thereby cancelling their enrollment as students of the Diploma
Course. Upon numerous representations being filed by such failed students before the Secretary,
Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj, the Secretary issued an order dated 11.09.2021 by
means of which one additional chance was provided to students, who had failed in one subject of
their first semester three times and who had represented to the Secretary for an additional chance to
clear the course. The order gave one additional chance to students whose names figured in the list
enclosed with the order dated 11.09.2021. Thereafter, another order dated 19.04.2022 was issued
by the Secretary by which one additional chance was given to the students, who had failed in any
subject three times in any of the semesters. The order was issued in respect of students, who had
represented to the Secretary, and an additional chance was given to students whose names figured
in the enclosed list. As the names of the respondents herein did not figure in the enclosed list of the
two orders, the respondents herein preferred several writ petitions claiming that the actions of the
State appellants in denying similar opportunity to the respondents were in violation of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. The respondents herein claimed to be similarly situated to the students,
who were granted additional chances by the two orders of the Secretary. The respondents herein
also claimed that their representations had remained pending, and as such, by adopting a pick-andchoose policy, the State appellants had allowed only selective students to appear in the
examination. On the above averments, the respondents herein prayed that the State appellants be
directed to permit the respondents herein to appear in the subject in which they had failed after
granting them an additional chance in the Diploma Course of their respective year.

[5] The Learned Single Judge, while entertaining the petitions, on 03.05.2023, framed several
issues which were required to be answered by the State appellants and National Council for
Teacher Education. The order dated 03.05.2023 is hereinafter reproduced below:

"Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, is present.

Shri Bharat Pratap Singh, learned counsel, has entered an appearance on behalf of the
NCTE. The NCTE shall file counter affidavit disclosing all relevant facts, including the following:
2 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Sakshi & Ors.
481

A. The stand of the NCTE regarding the additional chance given by the State Government
to D.El.Ed. candidates who had been admitted in the academic Sessions commencing from 2013,
2014, 2015, 2017 and 2018.

B. Whether the said decision is contrary to standards of the D.El.Ed. course determined
by the NCTE?

C. Whether any prior permission was required and taken from the NCTE for relaxing the
outer limit of D.El.Ed. examination?

The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is not satisfactory. The State shall file a
fresh counter affidavit disclosing all relevant facts including:

A. Whether the relaxation granted is consistent with the standards for D.El.Ed. course set
by the NCTE?

B.
Whether
the
said
standards
are
binding
on
the
State
Government?
In case counter affidavits are not forthcoming on behalf of the State as well as NCTE respectively
on the next date of listing, the Court may summon concerned officials in person. Name of Shri
Bharat Pratap Singh, learned counsel shall be shown in the cause list as counsel for the
respondent-NCTE whenever the matter is listed next. Put up this case on 25.05.2023 in the list of
fresh cases."

[6] In pursuance of the queries of the Court, the State appellants and NCTE filed their
respective affidavits, which were taken on record. In the affidavit filed by the State appellants, a
Government Order dated 27.02.2004 was placed on record, which detailed certain powers given to
the Secretary about the conduct of the examinations in the Diploma Course. The State appellants
averred that relaxation/additional chance was only given to those students, who had represented to
the Secretary before the date of issuance of the orders by the Secretary.

[7] In the affidavit filed by NCTE, it was stated that as per Clause 2.1 of Appendix-2 of the
National Council for Teachers Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulation, 2014,
the Diploma Course shall be of two (2) years however the students shall be permitted to complete
the course within a maximum period of three (3) years. Furthermore, it was averred that any
decision of the State Government contrary to the norms and standards fixed by NCTE or any
concession granted by the State Government for completing the Diploma Course would violate the
Regulations 2014.

[8] The Learned Single Judge, after considering the replies of the State appellants and NCTE
by means of judgment and order dated 06.07.2023, allowed the writ petitions and held that the
respondents herein have been discriminated as they were not granted an additional chance to clear
their course. A writ of mandamus was issued to the State appellants to provide one additional
chance to the respondents herein to appear in the paper in which the respondents herein had failed
in the Course. However, the Learned Single Judge further directed that the judgment and order
shall not be treated as a binding precedent in relation to those petitions which shall be filed after the
date of the decision, and all arguments shall remain open for the State insofar as the factual
background of such petitions would reflect. When several other petitions came to be filed relying
upon the judgment and order dated 06.07.2023, the same were allowed in terms of the mandamus
issued in Writ C No. 9773 of 2023. The present Special Appeal, along with other connected appeals
have been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 06.7.2023 and other orders in the
482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respective writ petitions by means of which the mandamus issued in Writ C No. 9773 of 2023
(Sakshi and 77 others vs. State of U.P. and 32 others) was extended.

APPELLANTS SUBMISSION:

[9] The State appellants have filed the present Special Appeals challenging the judgment and
order dated 06.07.2023 and other orders extending the benefit of the judgment and order dated
06.07.2023 to the other writ petitions on the following grounds:-

(i) The course duration is of two (2) years, with a maximum of three (3) years being allowed
to clear the Course. By the time the orders were issued by the Secretary, the course duration was
over, and no further chances could be given to the respondents herein.

(ii) As per Clause 2.1 of Appendix-2 of the Regulation, 2014, the maximum duration of the
Course is three years; no further relaxation could be given about the number of years required to
clear the Course. The bar in the Regulations, 2014 has not been relaxed, and the orders issued by
the Secretary could not extend the period of course completion, as the Regulations, 2014 of NCTE
are binding upon the State authorities. Statutory Rules prevail over executive orders.

(iii) The power to make regulations is in light of Section 32 of the National Council for
Teachers Education Act, 1993, especially Section 32 (2) (d) (ii), which empowers the NCTE to lay
down norms/ guidelines and standards in respect of the category of courses or training in Teacher
Education. The regulations made under the statutory duty are binding in nature, and their effect
cannot be curtailed.

(iv) There is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution as there cannot be any negative
parity. Even though the orders of the Secretary gave benefits to some of the students, the same
benefits cannot be given to the respondents herein, as the same would amount to an illegal act
being done. Wrong consequences of the orders cannot be extended to the respondents herein.

(v) There cannot be any estoppel against the statute especially because the time limit for the
course duration was not extended by NCTE; therefore, the orders of the Secretary would not
amount to a valid exercise of jurisdiction, as any executive order/ government order could not
dilute the Regulations which have been framed by NCTE and have binding force.

(vi) The Learned Single Judge has been swayed by the fact that some students were given
benefits, but the respondents herein were denied the same, thus violating Article 14 of the
Constitution. The respondents herein did not file their respective representations before the orders
were passed by the Secretary, and as such, no benefits could have extended to the respondents
herein.

(vii) The judgment of the learned Single Judge has overlooked the Regulations, 2014, while
granting benefits to the respondents herein, which is completely arbitrary and illegal. No benefits
contrary to the Regulations, 2014 could be given to the respondents herein. Learned Senior
Advocate for the State appellants relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments:
2 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Sakshi & Ors.
483

(a) Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs. Union of India and others;

(b) Jyotsana Mayee Mishra vs. State of Odisha and others;

(c) State of Haryana vs. Ram Kumar Mann

(d) Harshad Chima Lal Modi vs. DLF Universal Ltd

(e) Director of Elementary education vs. Pramod Kumar Sahu

RESPONDENTS SUBMISSIONS:

[10] The counsels for the respondents have refuted the stand of the State appellants and have
contended the following:-

(i) The judgment of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality as the same
has addressed an arbitrary action on the part of the respondents in giving benefits to only some of
the students.

(ii) Since the representations filed by the petitioners were never addressed, the mandamus
issued by the learned Single Judge does not need any interference.

(iii) There is no question of any negative parity as the power to issue executive orders by the
Secretary was never questioned; the appellants stated that the orders were issued under special
circumstances. Once there is no challenge to the orders, then there is no question of any negative
parity, and the respondents herein are entitled to be treated on the same footing as that given to the
other students whose names appeared in the two lists attached to the Orders dated 11.09.2021 and
19.04.2022.

(iv) The State cannot approbate and reprobate on the issue as the State has earlier taken the
submission that the executive order was valid, and as such, the appellants were stopped from saying
otherwise.

(v) The State respondents in the compliance affidavit filed in the contempt application had
stated categorically that the State can conduct the examination, and necessary orders have been
passed; therefore, now they cannot be permitted to resile from their admission.

LEGISLATIVE MATRIX:

[11] Before delving into the various issues and submissions advanced by the respective
learned counsels, it is necessary to keep in mind the legislative provisions that are in play in the
controversy at hand. By means of Act no. 73 of 1993, the Parliament enacted the Act, 1993. The
aims and objectives of the Act, 1993 are as follows:
484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"An Act to provide for the establishment of a National Council for Teacher Education
with a view to achieving planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system
throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the
teacher education system [including qualifications of school teachers] and for matters connected
therewith."

The Act sought to provide statutory powers to the NCTE to determine, maintain, and
coordinate standards in teacher education, laying down norms and guidelines for various courses,
promotion of innovation in the said field and establishment of a suitable system of conducting
education of teachers.

[12] Under Section 2(l), Teacher Education is described as following:

"(l) teacher education means programmes of education, research or training of persons
for equipping them to teach at pre-primary, primary, secondary and senior secondary stages in
schools, and includes non-formal education, part-time education, adult education and
correspondence education"

[13] Under Section 12, the functions of the Council are described as follows:

"12. Functions of the Council- It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as
it may think fit for ensuring planned and co-ordinated development of teacher education and for
the determination and maintenance of standards for teacher education, and for the purposes of
performing its functions under this Act, the Council may-

(e) lay down norms for any specified category of courses or trainings in teacher
education, including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of
selection of candidates, duration of the course, course contents and mode of curriculum; ...."

[14] Further Section 12-A grants power to the Council to determine minimum standards of
education of school teachers: its reads as following :

"12-A. Power of Council to determine minimum standards of education of school
teachers.-For the purpose of maintaining standards of education in schools, the Council may, by
regulations, determine the qualifications of persons for being recruited as teachers in any preprimary, primary, upper primary, secondary, senior secondary or intermediate school or college,
by whatever name called, established, run, aided or recognised by the Central Government or a
State Government or a local or other authority:
....."

[15] Section 27 of the Act, 1993 deals with the delegation of powers, which reads as follows:

"27. Delegation of powers and functions. -The Council may, by general or special order
in writing, delegate to the chairperson or to any other member or to any officer of the Regional
Committee, subject to such conditions and limitations, if any, as may be specified in the order, such
2 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Sakshi & Ors.
485
of its powers and functions under this Act (except the power to make regulations under section 32),
as it may deem necessary."

[16] Section 32 of the Act, 1993 grants power to the Council to make regulations for the
effective implementation of the provisions of the Act. The only limitation is that the Regulations
cannot be inconsistent with the Act, 1993. It reads as follows:

"32. Power to make regulations. - (1) The Council may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules made
thereunder, generally to carry out the provisions of this Act.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such
regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely: -

(d) the norms, guidelines and standards in respect of-

(ii) the specified category of courses or training in teacher education under clause (e) of
section12."

[17] In pursuance of the powers given under sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act, 1993,
the Council promulgated Regulations, 2014 on 28.11.2014. As per Regulation 3, the Regulations
shall be applicable to all matters relating to teachers' education programme for preparing norms and
standards. The Regulations 2014 further lay down norms for Diploma in Elementary Education in
Appendix-2. The preamble to Appendix 2 states as follows:

1.1. The Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) is a two-year professional
programme of teacher education. It aims to prepare teachers for the elementary stage of education,
i.e. classes I to VUI. Elementary education aims to fulfil the basic learning needs of all children in
an inclusive school environment, bridging social and gender gaps with the active participation of
the community.

1.2. The elementary teacher education programme carries different nomenclatures such
as BTC, J.B.T, D.Ed. and (Diploma in Education). Henceforth, the nomenclature of the programme
shall be the same across all states and it shall be referred to as the 'Diploma in Elementary
Education'(D.El.Ed)."

Furthermore, the course duration is prescribed in Regulation 2 to the appendix which reads as
follows:

"2. The D.El.Ed. programme shall be of a duration of two academic years. However, the
students shall be permitted to complete the programme within a maximum period of three years
from the date of admission to the programme."

[18] The State Government in pursuance of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 enacted the Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Rules, 2011. Part VII of the Rule 2011 provides as follows:

"Part-VII (1) For Section 29 the State Council of Educational Research and Training
shall lay down the curriculum and evaluation procedure for elementary education.
486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2) The State Council of Education Research and Training, while laying down the
curriculum and evaluation procedure, shall perform the following functions: (a) Formulate the
relevant and age-appropriate syllabus and textbooks and other learning material;

(b) Develop in-service teacher training design; and

(c) Prepare guidelines for putting into practice continuous and comprehensive
evaluation."

[19] In light of the above, the Curriculum for Diploma Course was prepared by the District
Institute of Education & Training working under the State Council for Educational Research and
Training. As per the curriculum prepared by DIET, it is provided that a student will have three
attempts to clear any failed subject otherwise, his candidature for training shall come to an end.

Clause-19 of the Rules of Training provides a condition for cancellation of candidature, which
is as follows:

"प्रभशक्षु यदि अधधकतम ककन्हीां िो ववषयों की भलखखत परीक्षा में अनुिीणथ होता है तो उसे आगे
आने वाले सेमेस्िर में पुनः भलखखत परीक्षा में सन्म्मभलत होने की अनुमनत िी जायेगी, ककन्तु यदि िो से
अधधक ववषयों में अनुिीणथ होता है तो उसे पूरा सेमेस्िर िोिारा करना होगा।"

Furthermore, Clause 20 provides for a representation of candidates whose candidature has
been cancelled. Clause 20 provides as follows:

"अभ्यथथन ननरस्त होने पर / िी०िी०सी० प्रमाण पत्र रद्ि ककये जाने पर प्रभशक्षु द्वारा अपीलीय
प्राधधकारी के समक्ष आिेश जारी होने की नतधथ से तीस दिन के अांिर अपील प्रस्तुत की जा सकती है। अपील
के ननस्तारण के पूवथ प्रभशक्षु को सुनवाई का अवसर दिया जाएगा। अपीलीय प्राधधकारी, ननिेशक, राज्य
शैक्षक्षक अनुसांधान एवां प्रभशक्षण पररषि, उ०प्र० लखनऊ तथा उनके द्वारा अधधकृत प्राधधकारी होंगे।
अपीलीय अधधकारी का ननणथय अन्न्तम होगा"

Thus, from the aforesaid, it is clear that it is for those candidates, whose candidature has been
cancelled, to file an Appeal before the Appellate Authority, which is to be decided after giving a
proper opportunity of hearing. The Appellate Authority is the Director, SCERT or an officer
authorized by him.

[20] As per the Government Order dated 27.02.2004, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P.
Prayagraj was created, and the Secretary of the said Authority was vested with powers to conduct
examinations and the same was made applicable to SCERT and Director, Basic Education.

"प्रेषक,

हररराज ककशोर,

सधचव,
2 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Sakshi & Ors.
487

उ०प्र० शासन।

सेवा में,

(1) ननिेशक,

राज्य शैक्षक्षक अनुसांधान और प्रभशक्षण पररषद्,

उ०प्र०, लखनऊ।

(2) ननिेशक,

िेभसक भशक्षा,

उ०प्र०, लखनऊ।

भशक्षा अनुिाग-II लखनऊः दिनाांकः 27 फरवरी, 2004.

ववषयः- परीक्षा ननयामक प्राधधकारी के गठन के सम्िन्ध में।

महोिय,

उपयुथक्त ववषयक ननिेशक, राज्य शैक्षक्षक अनुसांधान और प्रभशक्षण पररषद्, उ०प्र० शा. पत्राांक-
../18150/2003-2004, दिनाांक 8-1-2004 के सम्िन्ध में मुझे यह कहने का ननिेश हुआ है कक राज्यपाल
महोिय ने तात्काभलक प्रिाव से रन्जस्ट्रार वविागीय परीक्षाएां, उ०प्र०, इलाहािाि द्वारा ववभिन्न प्रकार की
परीक्षाओां से सम्िन्न्धत कायों को अधधक प्रिावी िनाते हुए अधधक प्राधधकार दिये जाने और व्यवस्था को
सुदृढ ककये जाने के भलए रन्जस्ट्रार वविागीय परीक्षाएां, उ०प्र०, इलाहािाि के कायाथलय को परीक्षा ननयामक
प्राधधकारी, उ०प्र० के रूप में गदठत ककये जाने की ननम्नवत् स्वीकृनत प्रिान कर िी हैः-

(1). परीक्षा ननयामक प्राधधकारी का कायाथलयाध्यक्ष सधचव, परीक्षा ननयामक प्राधधकारी, उ०प्र० के नाम
से जाना जायेगा।

(2). रन्जस्ट्रार वविागीय परीक्षाएां, उ०प्र०, इलाहािाि के कायाथलय को परीक्षा ननयामक प्राधधकारी,
उ०प्र० के नाम से जाना जायेगा तथा इसे रन्जस्ट्रार वविागीय परीक्षाएां के कायाथलय में ही स्थावपत रखा
जायेगा।

(3). सधचव, माध्यभमक भशक्षा पररषद् की िाांनत सधचव, परीक्षा ननयामक प्राधधकारी का ववभिन्न प्रकार
की परीक्षाओां के आयोजन का पूणथ िानयत्व होगा।

(4). परीक्षा ननयामक प्राधधकारी ननम्नाांककत चार सिस्यीय सभमनत के माध्यम से अपने प्रशासननक
िानयत्वों का ननवथहन करेगीः-

(क). सधचव, परीक्षा ननयामक प्राधधकारी, उ०प्र० -अध्यक्ष

(ख). प्राचायथ, राज्य भशक्षा सांस्थान, उ०प्र०, इलाहािाि, -सिस्य

(ग). प्राचायथ, .... भशक्षा और प्रभशक्षण सांस्थान ननिेशक

(घ). रन्जस्ट्रार वविागीय परीक्षाएां, उ०प्र० - सिस्य, सधचव।
488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(5). परीक्षा ननयामक प्राधधकारी को ककसी िी प्रकार की परीक्षाओां के आयोजन से सम्िन्न्धत ववभिन्न
गनतववधधयों के सम्िन्ध में ननणथय लेने एवां उसे कियान्न्वत कराने का अधधकार होगा। परीक्षा की नतधथयों को
ननधाथररत करना, परीक्षा केन्रों को अन्न्तम रूप िेना, केन्र व्यवस्थापकों तथा कक्ष ननरीक्षकों एवां पररवीक्षकों
के ननयांत्रण आदि के सम्िन्ध में ननिेश िेना, ननधाथररत समय-साररणी के अनुसार परीक्षाओां के आयोजन,
उिर पुन्स्तकाओां का सांकलन, उनका मूजयाांकन, परीक्षाफल को तैयार तथा परीक्षाफल को घोवषत करना
(प्रवेश परीक्षा/मुख्य परीक्षा) और आिेशानुसार प्रवेश एवां अपेक्षक्षत अांकपत्रों/प्रमाणपत्रों के ननगथत करने से
सम्िन्न्धत ननणथय उक्त सभमनत द्वारा भलया जायेगा।

(6). प्रश्न-पत्रों की गोपनीयता को िनाये रखते हुए प्रश्न-पत्रों के सांरचना, उनका मुरण, परीक्षा केन्रों पर
पहुांचाने आदि से सम्िन्न्धत समस्त कायथवाही का उिरिानयत्व सधचव, परीक्षा ननयामक प्राधधकारी, उ०प्र०
का होगा।

परीक्षा ननयामक प्राधधकारी तत्काल प्रिाव से सिी अपेक्षक्षत कायथवाही आरम्ि कर िें और इस सम्िन्ध
में शासन को िी सूधचत ककया जाय।
िविीय,
(हररराज ककशोर)
सधचव,
िेभसक भशक्षा।"

[21] In pursuance of such powers, the Secretary issued the order dated 11.09.2021, which is as
follows:

"प्रेषक,

सेवा में,

सधचव,

परीक्षाननयामक प्राधधकारी,

उिर प्रिेश, प्रयागराज

उपभशक्षा ननिेशक / प्राचायथ, न्जला भशक्षा एवां प्रभशक्षण सांस्थान उिर प्रिेश।

पत्राांकः गोप०/डी०एल०एस०/ 2446-52/2021-22 दिनाांक 11 भसतम्िर 2021
ववषय- डी०एल०एड० (िी०िी०सी०) के ववभिन्न िैचों की परीक्षा में अनुिीणथ अभ्यधथथयों द्वारा पररषि
कायाथलय में उपलब्ध कराये गये प्रत्यावेिनों के िम में एक अन्न्तम अनतररक्त अवसर प्रिान ककये गये
अभ्याधथथयों की प्रथम सेमेस्िर की परीक्षा में सन्म्मभलत कराये जाने के सम्िन्ध में।

महोिय,
2 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Sakshi & Ors.
489

उपयुथक्त ववषयक अवगत कराना है कक पररषि कायाथलय के पत्र सांख्या रा०शै०
डी०एल०एड०/17524/2021-22, दिनाांक 09.09.2021 एवां पत्र सांख्याः रा०शे/डी०एल०एड०/17535/2021-22,
दिनाांक 09.09.2021 द्वारा डी०एल०एड० (िी०िी०सी०) के ववभिन्न िैंचो की परीक्षा में अनुिीणथ अभ्यधथथयों
द्वारा उपलब्ध कराये गये प्रत्यावेिनों के िम में, सूची सांलग्न करते हुए ऐसे अभ्यधथथयों जो ककसी सेमेस्िर
के एक ववषय में तीन िार अनुिीणथ है तथा उनके द्वारा शेष अन्य सेमेस्िर उिीणथ कर भलया गया है को एक
अन्न्तम अनतररक्त अवसर प्रिान ककये जाने के ननिेश दिये गये है।

तििम पररषि कायाथलय के पत्र दिनाांक 09 भसतांिर 2021 के साथ सांलग्न सूची का परीक्षण कराते हुए
डी०एल०एड० (िी०िी०सी०) प्रभशक्षण िैच 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018 प्रथम सेमेस्िर के ऐसे परीक्षाथी
जो एक ववषय में तीन िार अनुिीणथ है तथा उनके द्वारा शेष अन्य सेमेस्िर उिीणथ कर भलये गये है, को एक
अन्न्तम अनतररक्त अवसर प्रिान करते हुए प्रवेश पत्र व नामावली सूची िैचवार ननधाथररत वेवसाइि/डायि के
ई-मेल पर प्रेवषत की गयी है।

उक्त के िम में मुझे यह कहने का ननिेश हुआ है कक पररषि कायाथलय के पत्र दिनाांक 09 भसतांिर 2021,
के साथ सांलग्न सूची के ऐसे अभ्यथी जो प्रथम सेमेस्िर के एक ववषय में तीन िार अनुिीणथ है तथा उनके
द्वारा शेष अन्य सेमेस्िर उिीणथ कर चुके है, उनके प्रवेश पत्र सम्िन्न्धत परीक्षाथी को प्राप्त कराने तथा
नामावली सूची सम्िन्न्धत परीक्षा केन्र को प्राप्त कराते हुए कायाथलय के पत्राांकः गोप०/डी.एल.एड./21012179/2021-22 दिनाांक 06 भसतम्िर 2021 में दिये गये ननिेश के अनुसार डी.एल.एड (िी०िी०सी०) प्रथम
सेमेस्िर परीक्षा वषथ 2021 की दिनाांक 12.09.2021 से प्रारम्ि होने वाली परीक्षा में परीक्षाधथथयों को सन्म्मभलत
कराने हेतु अपने स्तर से प्रिावी कायथवाही करने का कष्ि करें।
िविीय
ह०अप०/11.09.2021
कृते सधचव
रन्जस्ट्रारपरीक्षा ननयामक प्राधधकारी
उिर-प्रिेश प्रयागराज।"

(22) Thereafter another order was issued by the Secretary on 19.04.2022, which is as follows:

"प्रेषक,

सधचव, परीक्षा ननयामक प्राधधकारी, उिर प्रिेश, प्रयागराज

सेवा में,

01 समस्त उपभशक्षा ननिेशक/ प्राचायथ न्जला भशक्षा एवां प्रभशक्षण सांस्थान, उ०प्र०।

02 समस्त प्राचायथ ननजी डी०एल०एड० सांस्थान उ०प्र०।

पत्राांकः गोप०/परीक्षा/274-371/2022-23 दिनाांक 19.04.2022
490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

ववषय- डी०एल०एड० (िी०िी०सी०) प्रभशक्षण के अन्तगथत ववभिन्न िैंचो के अनुिीणथ अभ्यधथथयों द्वारा
पररषि कायाथलय में उपलब्ध कराये गये प्रत्यावेिन के सापेक्ष ननिेशक राज्य शैक्षक्षक अनुसांधान एवां प्रभशक्षण
पररषि, लखनऊ महोिय द्वारा प्रिान की गयी िम में-अहथ पाये गये परीक्षाधथथयों के तथा अांकानुसांधान एवां
आतररक गयी अनुमनत के मुजयाकांन के अांक पूररत कराये जाने के उपरान्त अहथ प्रभशक्षुओां के परीक्षा आवेिन
पूररत कराये जाने के सम्िन्ध में।

महोिय,

उपयुथक्त ववषयक अवगत कराना है कक पररषि कायाथलय के पत्र सांख्या रा०शै०/2597/2022-23 दिनाांक
12 अप्रैल 2022 एवां िैच सांख्या रा०शै०/3290/2022-23 दिनाांक 18 अप्रैल 2022 द्वारा डी०एल०एड०
(िी०िी०सी०) प्रभशक्षण के ववभिन्न िैचों में अनुिीणथ अभ्यधथथयों द्वारा पररषि कायाथलय में उपलब्ध कराये
गये प्रत्यावेिन के सापेक्ष सूची सांलग्न करते हुए ऐसे अभ्यथी जो ककसी सेमेस्िर के एक ववषय में तीन िार
अनुिीणथ है तथा उनके द्वारा शेष अन्य सेमेस्िर उिीणथ कर भलये गये है का एक अन्न्तम अनतररक्त अवसर
प्रिान करते हुए वतथमान वषथ-2023 की परीक्षा में सन्म्मभलत कराये जाने के ननणथय भलये गये है। इसके साथ
ही अांकानुसांधान का परीक्षाफल अांककत ककये जाने तथा आांतररक मूजयाकांन के अांक पूररत कराये जाने के
उपरान्त घोवषत परीक्षाफल के ऐसे परीक्षाथी, जो आगामी सेमेस्िर की परीक्षा हेतु अहथ पाये गये है उनके िी
परीक्षा आवेिन पूररत कराते हुए परीक्षा वषथ 2022 में सन्म्मभलत कराया जाना है।

उक्त के आलोक में पररषि कायाथलय के पत्र दिनाांक 12 अप्रैल 2022 एवां पत्र दिनाांक 18.04.2022 के
साथ सांलग्र सूची के ऐस अभ्यथी जो ककसी सेमेस्िर के एक ववषय में तीन िार अनुिीणथ है तथा शेष अन्य
सेमेस्िर उिीणथ ककये जा चुके है, उनको परीक्षा वषथ-2022 में सन्म्मभलत कराये जाने हेतु तथा अनुसांधान एवां
आांतररक मूजयाकांन के अांक पूररत कराये जाने के उपरान्त अहथ प्रभशक्षुओां के परीक्षा आवेिन ननम्नवत
कायथिम के अनुसार पूररत कराये जायेगें.
प्रभशक्षण सांस्थान द्वारा िैचवार ननधाथररत
िेवसाइि पर प्रिभशथत अभ्यथी के आवेिन पूररत
ककया जाना।

दिनाांक 20.04.2022 को समय प्रातः 8.00 िजे से दिनाांक
22.04.2022 को समय साांय 3.00 िजे