# State of U.P. & Ors v. Yashank Khandelwal & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 314
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-03
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 918 of 2024
- **Bench:** Arun Bhansali, C.J. Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-yashank-khandelwal-ors-52784
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

11 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Yashank Khandelwal & Ors.
315
Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.), Parashar Pandey,
Siddharth Khare, Tej Bhanu Pandey

Issue for Consideration
Rationality of GO dated 09.09.2024 prescribing
minimum
qualification
of
'Graduation'
for
'D.El.Ed. course' in the light when minimum
qualification for D.El.Ed. (Special Education)
course is 'Intermediate'.

Headnotes
(A)
Education
law
-
Admission
for
Diploma in Elementary Education Course
('D.El.Ed. course') - GO dated 09.09.2024
prescribed
minimum
qualification
of
'Graduation'
-
Single
Judge
held
it
arbitrary,
discriminatory
and
unconstitutional
as
it
create
two
groups/classes, one which is meant for
aspirants for admission in D.El.Ed. course
and the other for those who are interested
in D.El.Ed. (Special Education) course,
which amounts to creating a class within a
class by prescribing minimum eligibility
qualification as graduation for one course
and Intermediate for other course .
Validity challenged :
Held : Though service rules, at first instance,
appear to be meant for appointment of
Assistant Teachers in Basic Schools, 'training'
itself has been given due weightage and the
intention of law is that even for a training
course recognized by the Government or any
training qualification notified by NCTE to teach
children from Class I to VIII, it is the graduates
who are eligible for appointment. Therefore, if
the State Government, in every Government
Order, right from 1998 till today, has prescribed
graduation as minimum qualification for taking
admission in B.T.C./D.El.Ed. course, the same
being in consonance with the Rules of 1981,
cannot be said to be an arbitrary provision -
The order impugned passed by the learned
Single Judge holding Clause 4(1) of the
Government
Order
dated
09.09.2024
as
arbitrary, discriminatory or unconstitutional does
not take into account various vital aspects of the
matter, such as inter-connectivity and corelation in between various Government Orders
issued from time to time and NCTE Regulations
vis-a-vis Service Rules applicable for teaching in
basic education institutions and also significant
definitions described hereinabove and changed
nomenclature of B.T.C. course into D.El.Ed.
course but carrying the same eligibility criteria
over more than two decades. [Paras 27 and 32]
(E- 1)

Case Law Cited
State of U.P. and others v. Bhupendra Nath
Tripathi and others, (2010) 13 SCC 203 -
referred to.

List of Acts
National Council for Teacher Education Act,
1993; UP Basic Education (Teachers) Service
Rules, 1981; UP Basic Education Teachers
Service
(Fifth
Amendment)
Rules,
1993;
National
Policy
on
Education,
1986;
UP
Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools)
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Teachers) Rules, 1978 - Rule 4; National
Council of Teacher Education [Recognition
Norms and Procedure] Regulations, 2009;
National
Council
for
Teacher
Education
(Recognition
Norms
and
Procedure)
Regulations, 2014.

List of Keywords
Educational qualification; Diploma in Elementary
Education Course; Admission; Eligibility criteria;
Creating
class
within
class;
Arbitrary;
Discriminatory; Qualitative difference; Selection
process; Training; Isolation; Rational; Irrational;
Higher qualification; Due weightage.

Case Arising From
Impugned
judgement
and
order
dated
24.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge
in Writ C No. 24528 of 2024.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : M.C. Chaturvedi,
Senior Advocate, Additional Advocate General;
Sudhanshu Srivastava, A.C.S.C.; Ankit Gaur,
S.C.; Abhishek Srivastava
Advs. For the Respondent : Shri Ashok Khare,
Senior Advocate; Parashar Pandey; Siddharth
Khare; Tej Bhanu Pandey

## Text

_Characters 0–39,684 of 48,003. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39684 for what follows._

314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Contempt Judge nor can we in this appeal
consider the same. The only forum
available for consideration of these issues
was an appeal against the judgment dated
05.09.2019 which has been filed after much
delay, but we say no more as this is an issue
to be considered by the RERA -Appellate
Authority. We are only concerned with the
maintainability of the special appeal under
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952. An appeal under the
aforesaid provision against an order passed in
contempt proceedings would lie only in the
circumstances mentioned in Clause V of para
11 of the judgment in Midnapore Peoples'
Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra), none of
which are present in this case. The order
impugned does not say anything on merits
except to say that the recovery certificate has
not been fully executed. The Contempt Court
has only opined that the recovery has not
been made as yet, which was obligatory for
the District Magistrate, Lucknow to do and a
supplementary affidavit has been filed by the
respondent in the said contempt proceedings
stating that the money is being transferred by
the appellant herein elsewhere and in this
eventuality the District Magistrate concerned
has been directed to file a compliance
affidavit and in case the compliance affidavit
is not filed, the District Magistrate, who is
respondent no.2 in the contempt proceedings,
has been directed to appear in person for
framing of charge. This is not even an order
against which an appeal would lie under
Section 19 of the Act 1971, if it was preferred
by the District Magistrate, Lucknow, What to
say of an appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 by the
appellant, who was not even a party in the
contempt proceedings we are of the
considered opinion that a special appeal
under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952 against the impugned
order dated 09.10.2025 passed in Contempt
Application (Civil) No.2102 of 2022 is not
maintainable.

11. We have also gone through the
decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the case of Ajay Kumar Bhalla and
others
Vs.
Prakash
Kumar
Dixit,
reported in (2024) 12 SCC 159 relied upon
by the learned counsel for the appellant, but
the said decision also enunciates the law on
the same lines as Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra). It does not
lay down any such proposition of law
which could persuade us to entertain this
appeal in the facts as noticed hereinabove.
In the said case of Ajay Kumar Bhalla &
others (supra), the Contempt Judge had
issued directions on merits of the matter,
therefore, the appeal was held to be
maintainable, which is not the case here.

12. For all these reasons, we dismiss
this appeal as not maintainable.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 314
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Special Appeal No. 918 of 2024

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Yashank Khandelwal & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
M.C.
Chaturvedi
(A.A.G.),
Sudhanshu
Srivastava (A.C.S.C.), Ankit Gaur (S.C.),
Abhishek Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
11 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Yashank Khandelwal & Ors.
315
Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.), Parashar Pandey,
Siddharth Khare, Tej Bhanu Pandey

Issue for Consideration
Rationality of GO dated 09.09.2024 prescribing
minimum
qualification
of
'Graduation'
for
'D.El.Ed. course' in the light when minimum
qualification for D.El.Ed. (Special Education)
course is 'Intermediate'.

Headnotes
(A)
Education
law
-
Admission
for
Diploma in Elementary Education Course
('D.El.Ed. course') - GO dated 09.09.2024
prescribed
minimum
qualification
of
'Graduation'
-
Single
Judge
held
it
arbitrary,
discriminatory
and
unconstitutional
as
it
create
two
groups/classes, one which is meant for
aspirants for admission in D.El.Ed. course
and the other for those who are interested
in D.El.Ed. (Special Education) course,
which amounts to creating a class within a
class by prescribing minimum eligibility
qualification as graduation for one course
and Intermediate for other course .
Validity challenged :
Held : Though service rules, at first instance,
appear to be meant for appointment of
Assistant Teachers in Basic Schools, 'training'
itself has been given due weightage and the
intention of law is that even for a training
course recognized by the Government or any
training qualification notified by NCTE to teach
children from Class I to VIII, it is the graduates
who are eligible for appointment. Therefore, if
the State Government, in every Government
Order, right from 1998 till today, has prescribed
graduation as minimum qualification for taking
admission in B.T.C./D.El.Ed. course, the same
being in consonance with the Rules of 1981,
cannot be said to be an arbitrary provision -
The order impugned passed by the learned
Single Judge holding Clause 4(1) of the
Government
Order
dated
09.09.2024
as
arbitrary, discriminatory or unconstitutional does
not take into account various vital aspects of the
matter, such as inter-connectivity and corelation in between various Government Orders
issued from time to time and NCTE Regulations
vis-a-vis Service Rules applicable for teaching in
basic education institutions and also significant
definitions described hereinabove and changed
nomenclature of B.T.C. course into D.El.Ed.
course but carrying the same eligibility criteria
over more than two decades. [Paras 27 and 32]
(E- 1)

Case Law Cited
State of U.P. and others v. Bhupendra Nath
Tripathi and others, (2010) 13 SCC 203 -
referred to.

List of Acts
National Council for Teacher Education Act,
1993; UP Basic Education (Teachers) Service
Rules, 1981; UP Basic Education Teachers
Service
(Fifth
Amendment)
Rules,
1993;
National
Policy
on
Education,
1986;
UP
Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools)
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Teachers) Rules, 1978 - Rule 4; National
Council of Teacher Education [Recognition
Norms and Procedure] Regulations, 2009;
National
Council
for
Teacher
Education
(Recognition
Norms
and
Procedure)
Regulations, 2014.

List of Keywords
Educational qualification; Diploma in Elementary
Education Course; Admission; Eligibility criteria;
Creating
class
within
class;
Arbitrary;
Discriminatory; Qualitative difference; Selection
process; Training; Isolation; Rational; Irrational;
Higher qualification; Due weightage.

Case Arising From
Impugned
judgement
and
order
dated
24.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge
in Writ C No. 24528 of 2024.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : M.C. Chaturvedi,
Senior Advocate, Additional Advocate General;
Sudhanshu Srivastava, A.C.S.C.; Ankit Gaur,
S.C.; Abhishek Srivastava
Advs. For the Respondent : Shri Ashok Khare,
Senior Advocate; Parashar Pandey; Siddharth
Khare; Tej Bhanu Pandey

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

Order
on
Civil
Misc.
Delay
Condonation Application No. 1 of 2024
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. This appeal has been reported to be
beyond time by 50 days. An application
seeking condonation of delay has been filed
and
in
the
affidavit
supporting
the
application, stand has been taken that about
the order impugned dated 24.09.2024, legal
opinion was sought from the Chief
Standing
Counsel
vide
letter
dated
03.10.2024 which was provided by his
office
on
15.10.2024,
whereafter
permission for filing the special appeal was
granted by Special Secretary (Law) on
05.11.2024; thereafter permission was
granted by Special Secretary of the State
Government on 07.11.2024; the appellant
No.4, vide letter dated 08.11.2024, then
requested the Chief Standing Counsel of
this Court to file special appeal and, after
obtaining
necessary
permission
and
narrative, special appeal was prepared and
filed and, therefore, delay in filing the
appeal may be condoned.

2. Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior
Counsel
appearing
for
writ
petitioners/respondents
in
the
present
appeal, did not oppose the application
seeking
condonation
of
delay
and
arguments of both sides at length on merits
of appeal were heard by the Court.

3. In view of the above, the
explanation offered for delay occurred in
filing the appeal is found to be satisfactory.
Accordingly,
the
application
seeking
condonation of delay stands allowed.
Delay in filing the appeal is hereby
condoned.

Order on Appeal

1. The present appeal has been filed by
the State of U.P. and its instrumentalities
challenging the order dated 24.09.2024
whereby the learned Single Judge has
allowed
Writ-C
No.24528
of
2024
(Yashank Khandelwal and 9 others vs.
State of U.P. and 3 others) and quashed
Clause 4 of the Government Order dated
09.09.2024 to the extent it imposes
condition of graduation being eligible
educational qualification for admission in
Diploma
in
Elementary
Education
Course ('D.El.Ed. course') run by District
Institute
of
Education
and
Training
('DIET'), with prospective effect. Learned
Single Judge has also directed the Stateappellants to permit the respondents to
participate in the admission process for the
training course.

RESPONDENTS' CASE BEFORE
THE WRIT COURT

2. The writ petition was initially filed
claiming a direction commanding the
appellants to permit consideration of the
respondents
and
other
similarly
circumstanced candidates for admission to
two years D.El.Ed.' 2024 on the basis of
Intermediate Certificate Examination or
equivalent qualification possessed by them
and the second relief claimed was to the
effect that appellants might not restrict
consideration of respondents for admission
to the said course to District Institute of
Education and Training ('DIET') and other
privately managed recognized institutions
for possession of a graduation degree.

3. After the State-appellants filed
counter affidavit and banked upon the
Government Order dated 09.09.2024, an
amendment application was filed by the
respondents on 17.09.2024 challenging the
said Government Order. The application
was allowed the same day and the matter
was directed to be listed on 23.09.2024 as
fresh and, on the next date, i.e. 24.09.2024,
the writ petition was allowed.
11 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Yashank Khandelwal & Ors.
317

4. The case of the respondents is that
they
possess
Intermediate
Certificate
Examination/Senior
School
Certificate
Examination or equivalent certificates and
are desirous for admission to the aforesaid
D.El.Ed. course, however, they have been
excluded from such consideration on
account of a stipulation made by the State
Government for possession of graduation
degree for admission. According to the
respondents,
National
Council
for
Teacher Education Act, 1993, (the NCTE
Act, 1993) lays down norms for any
specified category of course or training in
teacher education including the minimum
eligibility criteria for admission and, as per
Clause
3.2
of
Appendix-2
of
the
Regulations of 2014 framed under the Act,
1993, candidates who have obtained at least
50% marks in higher secondary (+2) or its
equivalent examination, are eligible for
admission, however, paragraph 2(1) of the
Government
Order
dated
14.05.2010
specifies requirement of having passed a
graduation degree with a minimum 50%
marks for admission and, therefore, the
same being contrary to the norms laid down
by NCTE, is unsustainable.

5. Further case of the respondents is
that another Government Order dated
26.05.2023 also contains similar stipulation
of possessing a graduation degree for
admission in the course and the rationale
given for such eligibility criteria based
upon the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (the
'Rules of 1981') is wholly irrational as the
Rules of 1981 prescribe for minimum
qualification
for
appointment
as
an
Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic Schools
and has no nexus with the eligibility criteria
provided for admission in the course. It is
further stated that the students of other
States
applying
for
consideration
as
Assistant
Teacher
and
possessing
qualification prescribed by NCTE, i.e.
higher secondary (+2), would be eligible
for appointment after a period of three
years after having passed Intermediate
Certificate
Examination
or
equivalent
qualification, whereas the respondents
would become eligible for consideration
only after a minimum of five years after
passing
Intermediate
Certificate
Examination which period would include a
three year period of completion of
graduation degree, followed by a two year
period for D.El.Ed. course and, hence, the
restriction
put
forth
by
the
State
Government in the State of U.P. by
imposing
graduation
being
minimum
qualification for entering into the said
course, is unsustainable.

APPELLANTS' CASE BEFORE THE
WRIT COURT

6. Counter affidavit was filed by the
appellants before the writ Court and by
referring
to
Uttar
Pradesh
Basic
Education
Teachers
Service
(Fifth
Amendment) Rules, 1993 and the Rules of
1981, stand was taken that the State
Government had prescribed graduation
being minimum eligibility criteria for
'B.T.C. course', which was subsequently
nomenclatured as 'D.El.Ed. Course' and
graduation degree has been the minimum
eligibility qualification since 1998 as is
apparent from Government Order dated
19.05.1998 when the present D.El.Ed.
Course
was
known
as
B.T.C.
and,
therefore, consistency maintained by the
State Government cannot be said to be
irrational. Reliance was placed on the latest
Government
Order
dated
09.09.2024
prescribing the similar qualification. As
regards NCTE, stand is that the institutions
recognized
by
NCTE
are
granted
318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recognition after completing the standards
fixed by the State Government wherein the
process of entrance designed by the
government,
Rules
and
regulations,
examination fees, any other charge, time
table of examinations as well as syllabus
would be binding on the institutions.
Reference to various judgements was made
in the counter affidavit taking a plea that
the State Government has right to extend
and prescribe educational qualification for
various
educational
programmes
and,
therefore, the respondents have no case.

VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE

7. The learned Single Judge, after
noticing the contentions advanced on
behalf of the parties, arrived at a conclusion
that by putting the impugned condition of
graduation being minimum educational
qualification for getting admission in the
same
institution
by
creating
two
groups/classes, one which is meant for
aspirants for admission in D.El.Ed.' 2024
course and the other for those who are
interested
in
D.El.Ed.'2024
(Special
Education) course in the Government
institutions, i.e. DIET, amounts to creating
a class within a class and prescribing
minimum
eligibility
qualification
as
graduation for one course and Intermediate
for other course, is arbitrary, discriminatory
and violative of Constitution of India. The
learned Single Judge has further observed
that there is no qualitative difference in the
said two courses i.e. D.El.Ed.' 2024 and
D.El.Ed.'2024 (Special Education) course
and reliance placed by the appellants on the
Service Rules is misplaced as the same
have no concern with the admission to a
training
course
but
are
meant
for
appointment. Learned Single Judge, after
discussing the judgements laying down
parameters for judicial review, arrived at a
conclusion
that
Clause
4
of
the
Government Order dated 09.09.2024 being
arbitrary and discriminatory, quashed the
same with prospective effect taking into
consideration that selection process had
already started.

APPELLANTS'
SUBMISSIONS
BEFORE US

8. Learned counsel for the appellants
has made submissions that National Policy
on Education, 1986 ('NEP, 1986') aims at
regulating and maintaining norms and
standards in teacher education system and
as far as NCTE is concerned, it was
constituted under the NCTE Act, 1993 and
one of its functions, as enumerated in
Section 12, is laying down norms for any
specified category of courses or training in
teacher education, including the minimum
eligibility criteria for admission therein, the
method of selection of candidates, duration
of the course, course contents and mode of
curriculum. Submission is that Clause 9.4
of the NEP, 1986 contained in Chapter 9
mentions that conditions of 'pre-service'
and 'during service' cannot be segregated
and, therefore, any qualification prescribed
by NCTE or under the regulations framed
under the NCTE Act, 1993 cannot be read
in isolation but in consonance with the
minimum eligibility criteria laid down for
appointment of teachers in Basic Schools.

9. It is further contended that Clause
3.3 of the Appendix-2, forming part of
regulations framed by NCTE clearly
provides that admission shall be made on
the basis of marks obtained in qualifying
admission test as per the policy of the State
Government and once before the learned
Single Judge, no dispute was raised by the
respondents to the aspect that State is
11 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Yashank Khandelwal & Ors.
319
empowered
to
prescribe
higher
qualification than the one provided by the
NCTE and, further, the learned Single
Judge has also recorded a finding to that
effect, no challenge could be raised by the
respondents to the stipulations made in any
Government Order right from 1998 till
2024 wherein minimum eligibility criteria
has been fixed by the State Government
prescribing graduation as the qualification
for
the
purposes
of
entering
into
B.T.C./D.El.Ed. Course.

10. It is further contended that initially
no challenge was laid to the Government
Order
dated
09.09.2024
prescribing
qualification for the concerned course,
during the course of proceedings, an
amendment application was filed by the
respondents,
which
was
allowed
on
17.09.2024 and, at no point of time,
amended copy of the writ petition was filed
nor did learned Single Judge grant time to
the appellants for filing counter affidavit
against the amended portions and the writ
petition was decided within a week from
the date of allowing the amendment
application and, hence, the appellants were
deprived of defending the Government
Order dated 09.09.2024.

11. It is further contended that learned
Single
Judge
has
made
perverse
observations regarding the course itself,
inasmuch as, there is no course conducted
in
the
name
of
D.El.Ed.
(Special
Education) by the DIET or any other
institution and normally a special course
run in any institution can only be
recognized by Rehabilitation Council of
India (RCI) and, in such course, a special
training is imparted for teaching Physically
Disabled
(Differently
Abled)
persons
having no concern with the courses offered
by the appellants. Further submission is
that once the process of appointment was
set into motion pursuant to the notification
as well as the Government Orders, rules of
game cannot be allowed to be changed and,
therefore, interference made by the learned
Single Judge qua the criteria laid down by
the
State
Government
which,
even
otherwise, has remained applicable and
intact since 1998, is unsustainable.

12. It is further submitted that as per
Rule 2(q) of the U.P. Basic Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (the 'Rules
of 1981'), the Government Order dated
19.05.1998 issued in consonance with
NEP, 1986 having not been challenged by
the respondents, no interference could be
made in the latest Government Order dated
09.09.2024, which is, infact, reiteration of
the previously issued Government Orders,
which always remained validly operative.

RESPONDENTS'
SUBMISSIONS
BEFORE US

13. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondents submits that
once the NCTE has already provided
higher
secondary
(+2)
as
minimum
eligibility criteria for admission in D.El.Ed.
course, any Government Order prescribing
graduation being minimum qualification is
contrary to the regulations and, hence,
cannot be read. As far as Rules of 1981 are
concerned, submission has been made that
Rule 8(2) of the Rules includes 'Diploma in
Education (Special Education)' approved
by Rehabilitation Council of India as one of
the permissible qualifications which itself
demonstrates
that
there
is
no
such
intendment in the Rules of 1981 that only
such training qualification for which
graduation is the minimum qualification for
admission can be considered. Submission is
that
Diploma
in
Education
(Special
320 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Education) is imparted in institutions/
universities/ departments all over the
country,
that
are
approved
by
the
Rehabilitation Council of India and actual
admission process is conducted by the
National
Board
of
Examination
in
Rehabilitation (An Adjunct Body of
Rehabilitation Council of India) and clause
(i) of a circular dated 13.06.2025 specifies
10+2 or equivalent with 50% marks as
eligibility
qualification;
Diploma
in
Education (Special Education) is imparted
by
the
institutions
approved
by
Rehabilitation Council of India and such
course may or may not be conducted in
DIET. Submission is that Diploma in
Education (Special Education) is a training
course to which admission is granted to
students who have passed class 12 and is a
permissible qualification for appointment
under Rule 8 (2) of 1981 Rules and that the
claim of the State that no such course is
imparted in State of Uttar Pradesh, as
specified in Ground No. XVIII of the
Grounds of Appeal, is incorrect.

14. Further submission has been made
that the reference to the Rules of 1981 by
the State is wholly inappropriate as
appointment of Assistant Teachers on the
basis of Diploma in Education is also
permissible in privately managed and
recognized Junior High Schools under
provisions of UP Recognised Basic
Schools
(Junior
High
Schools)
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service
of Teachers) Rules, 1978. Under Rule 4 of
the said rules, two year Diploma in
Elementary Education is a permissible
qualification for admission and there exists
no condition under 1978 Rules that only
such teachers training qualifications are
permissible to which admission is granted
after a graduation degree, nor does there
exist any definition of 'training'.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

15. We have heard Shri M.C.
Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate
General, Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava and
Shri Ankit Gaur, learned Standing Counsel
for the appellants and Shri Ashok Khare,
learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Tej
Bhanu
Pandey,
Advocate
for
the
respondents and have perused the material
available on record.

16. Since much thrust has been laid on
the regulations framed by the NCTE, we
deem it appropriate to first discuss the
same. In exercise of powers conferred by
Section 32(2) of the NCTE Act, 1993 and
in supersession of National Council of
Teacher Education [Recognition Norms
and Procedure] Regulations, 2009, the
NCTE
framed
regulations
namely,
National Council for Teacher Education
(Recognition Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2014. Regulation 9 of the
said regulations provides for 'Norms and
Standards' and states that every institution
offering the programmes prescribed in the
said regulation shall have to comply with
the norms and standards for various teacher
education programmes, as specified in
Appendix- 1 to Appendix-15.

17. Appendix-2 relates to the D.El.Ed.
Course we are dealing with and relevant
portion thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

"APPENDIX-2

Norms
and
standards
for
diploma in elementary teacher education

programme
leading
to
Diploma in Elementary Education

(D.El.Ed)

1. Preamble
11 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Yashank Khandelwal & Ors.
321

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 VIII. The aim of
elementary fulfill 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).

..............................

3. Intake, Eligibility, Admission
Procedure and Fees

.............................

3.2 Eligibility

(a) Candidates with at least 50%
marks in the higher secondary (+2) or its
equivalent examination are eligible for
admission.

................

3.3 Admission Procedure

Admission shall be made on merit
on the basis of marks obtained in the
qualifying examination and/or in the
entrance
examination
or
any
other
selection process as per the policy of the
State Government /UT Administration."

18. A bare perusal of Clause 1.1 of
Appendix-2 indicates that aim of the
Course is to prepare teachers for the
elementary stage of education, i.e, classes I
to VIII. Clause 1.2 indicates that NCTE
itself recognized D.El.Ed. as not a separate
or
new
course
but
a
'changed
nomenclature' of the earlier run courses
namely B.T.C., J.B.T, D.Ed. and (Diploma
in Education). Hence, despite the fact that
Clause 3.2 of the Appendix-2 prescribes at
least 50% marks in higher secondary (+2)
or its equivalent examination as eligibility
qualification for taking admission in the
said course, the matter has to be understood
in its entirety and not in ignorance of one or
the
other
stipulations
or
significant
components.

19. Further, Clause 3.3 provides that
admission shall be made on merit on the
basis of marks obtained in the qualifying
examination
and/or
in
the
entrance
examination or any other selection process
"as per the policy of the State/UT
administration". Therefore, the policy of
the State Government promulgated from
time to time vide Government Orders
cannot be given a go-bye and for the
purpose of achieving the aims and objects
of facilitating standard education, the
qualifications prescribed by NCTE have to
be read along with the policy laid down by
the State Government and not in isolation.

20. Once it is not in dispute that
B.T.C.
course
has
since
been
nomenclatured as D.El.Ed. course vide
Regulations of 2014, it needs examination
as to when the B.T.C. course was being run
since years and decades, what minimum
qualifications had been prescribed by the
State Government for making entry to the
said course. We may refer to Clause 3 of
the Government Order dated 19.05.1998
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
laying down eligibility criteria for entering
into B.T.C. course. The same reads as
under:-

"3- प्रवेश परीक्षा में बैठिे िी पात्रता
:- बी०टी ी० प्रवेश परीक्षा में ऐ े अभ्यथी आदद
पात्र होिे जो उ ी जिपद िे निवा ी हो जहााँ
प्रवेश पत्र हेतु आवेदि िर रहे हो तथा जजन्होंिे
फामा भरिे िे पूवा स्िाति परीक्षा अथवा
 मिक्ष परीक्षा उत्तीणा िर ली हो जजििी आयु
प्रसशक्षण प्रारम्भ होिे वाले वर्ा िी पहली जुलाई
िो 19 वर्ा े िम और 27 वर्ा े अगधि ि हो
तथा उ में ऐ ी शारीररि अक्षमता ि हो,
जज े
अध्यापि
िाया
बागधत
हो।
न्यूितम/आयु में कि ी प्रिार िी छूट देय ि
होगी/अिु ूगचत जानत/जिजानत वपछड़ी जानत /
स्वतिंत्रता िंग्राम ेिािी िे आगश्रतों तथा
 मस्त मदहला अभ्यगथायों िो निधााररत
अगधितम आयु ीमा में 5 वर्ा िी ामान्य
छूट रहेगी।"

21.
Clause
2(1)
of
another
Government
Order
dated
14.05.2010
prescribing minimum qualification for
admission in B.T.C. course reads as under:-

"2- इ िंबिंध में मुझे आप े यह
िहिे िा निदेश हुआ है कि प्रदेश में बी०टी० ी०
हेतु अभ्यगथायों िे चयि किये जािे िी अिुमनत
श्री राज्यपाल महोदय हर्ा निम्ि शतों एविं
प्रनतबन्धों िे अधीि प्रदाि िरते हैं।

1. राष्रीय अध्यापि सशक्षा, पररर्द
द्वारा निधााररत िामा िे अिु ार िे अिु ार
उच्च माध्यसमि परीक्षा (+2) िम े िम 50
प्रनतशत अिंि पािे वाले अभ्यथी आवेदि िे
सलए पात्र होंगे परन्तु चूाँकि उ०प्र० में बी०टी० ी०
प्रसशक्षण िे सलए न्यूितम अहाता स्िाति रखा
गया है। अतएव बी०टी० ी० में प्रवेश हेतु
न्यूितम शैक्षक्षि अहाता उ०प्र० माध्यसमि
सशक्षा
पररर्द/ ी०बी०ए ० ी०
बोिा/आई० ी०ए ० ी०
बोिा
द्वारा
मान्य
इण्टरमीडिएट/ मिक्ष
परीक्षा
तथा
ववश्वववद्यालय/महाववद्यालय
 े
स्िाति
परीक्षा में 50 प्रनतशत अिंिों िे ाथ उत्तीणा होिा
आवश्यि
है।
इ ी
प्रिार
अिु ूगचत
जानत/जिजानत/अन्य वपछड़ा वगा िे एविं
वविलािंग तथा अन्य आरक्षक्षत श्रेणी िे
अभ्यगथायों िे सलए एि० ी०टी०ई० िे मािि
िे अिु ार 5 प्रनतशत अिंि िी छूट प्राप्त
होगी।"

22. Since the respondents have also
relied
upon
a
communication
dated
26.08.2022 made by Director, DIET to the
Special Secretary of the Basic Education
Department and pointed out the eligibility
criteria laid down in the Regulations of
2014 with reference to the requirement of
appointment as per the Service Rules of
1981, the same is reproduced as under:-

"उत्तर
प्रदेश
बेस ि
सशक्षा
(अध्यापि) ेवा (पािंचवािं िंशोधि) नियमावली
1993 में अध्यापिों िी नियुजक्त हेतु शैक्षक्षि
अहाताएिं निधााररत िी गयी थी, जज िे प्रस्तर -
8 (1) में अहाता-बेस ि अध्यापि प्रमाण व या
अन्य तथा राज्य रिार द्वारा उ िे मक्ष
मान्यता प्राप्त कि ी अन्य प्रसशक्षण पाठ्यक्रम
11 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Yashank Khandelwal & Ors.
323
िे ाथ माध्यसमि सशक्षा पररर्द उ०प्र० िी
इण्टरमीडिएट परीक्षा या राज्य रिार द्वारा
उ िे मिक्ष मान्यता प्राप्त िोई अन्य िी
गयी है जज िे अिु ार बी०टी० ी० प्रसशक्षण
(पूवा प्रचसलत िाम) हेतु न्यूितम अहाता
इण्टरमीडिएट निधााररत िी गयी थी। उक्त
निधााररत शैक्षक्षि अहाता िे अिु ार प्रदेश में
बी०टी० ी० प्रसशक्षण (पूवा प्रचसलत िाम) िे
प्रवेश/चयि िी िायावाही म्पाददत िरायी
जाती है।

पुिः उत्तर प्रदेश बेस ि सशक्षा
अध्यापि ेवा नियमावली 1981 (आिंठवािं
 िंशोधि) अगध ूचिा ददिािंि 9 जुलाई 1998 में
पररर्दीय प्राथसमि ववद्यालयों में हायि
अध्यापिों िी भती हेतु भारत में ववगध द्वारा
स्थावपत कि ी ववश्वववद्यालय े स्िाति
उपागध या रिार द्वारा उ िे मिक्ष
मान्यता प्राप्त उपागध िे ाथ- ाथ प्रसशक्षण
अहाता जज िे अन्तगात बेस ि अध्यापि
प्रमाण पत्र (बी०टी० ी०) एविं अन्य प्रसशक्षण
अहाताएिं निधााररत िी गयी है जज िे अिु ार
बी०टी० ी० प्रसशक्षण (पूवा प्रचसलत िाम) हेतु
न्यूितम अहाता स्िाति निधााररत िी गयी थी
उक्त निधााररत शैक्षक्षि अहाता िे अिु ार प्रदेश
में बी०टी० ी० प्रसशक्षण (पूवा िंचासलत िाम) िे
प्रवेश/चयि िी िायावाही म्पाददत िरायी
जाती है।

राष्रीय अध्यापि सशक्षा पररर्द िा
अगध ूचिा ददिािंि 28 िवम्बर 2014 िे
पररसशष्ट-2 िे प्रस्तर 3, 2 में िी०एल०एि०
(पूवा प्रचसलत िाम बी०टी० ी०) प्रसशक्षण हेतु
पात्रता िा निधाारण किया गया है जज में
उजल्लणखत है उच्च माध्यसमि (+2) अथवा
उ िे मिक्ष परीक्षा में िम े िम 50
प्रनतशत अिंिों वाले उम्मीदवार प्रवेश िे सलए
पात्र हैं।

िी०एल०एि०
प्रसशक्षण
मे
इण्टरमीडिएट उत्तीणा अभ्यगथायों िो जम्मसलत
िराये जािे हेतु उत्तर प्रदेश बेस ि सशक्षा
अध्यापि ेवा नियमावली एविं तदिु ार
िी०एल०एि० प्रसशक्षण िे अन्तगात प्रवेश/चयि
प्रकक्रया में अहाता िा निधाारण/ िंशोधि किये
जािे िे अन्तगात नियुजक्त िे नियम एविं
सशक्षि भती हेतु अन्य शैक्षक्षि अहाताओिं में भी
पररवताि िी आवश्यिता होगी। िी०एल०एि०
प्रसशक्षण िे अन्तगात प्रवेश/चयि प्रकिया में ही
मात्र अहाता िंशोगधत किये जािे पर बेस ि
सशक्षिों िी नियुजक्त में िदठिाई/वव िंगनत
उत्पन्ि होगी।"

23. It, therefore, infers that even in the
communication dated 26.08.2022 made by
Director, DIET, the Rules of 1981 were
also thought of significance while referring
to the higher secondary (+2) as minimum
qualification prescribed under Appendix-2
of NCTE Regulations of 2014 and it was
observed that permitting admission in
D.El.Ed. course based upon qualification
prescribed under Appendix-2 would create
difficulty in appointment of teachers in
Basic
Education.
After
the
said
communication
was
made,
the
State
Government came up with the latest
Government
Order
dated
09.09.2024,
Clause 4(1) whereof has been quashed by
the learned Single Judge under the order
impugned in this appeal. The relevant
324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
portion of the Government Order dated
09.09.2024 is reproduced hereunder:-

 िंख्या-941/अर ठ-4-2024-2067/2013
प्रेर्ि,

यतीन्र िुमार,

ववशेर् गचव,

उ०प्र० शा ि।
 ेवा में,
1-निदेशि,
2- गचव,
राज्य
शैक्षक्षि
अिु िंधाि
एविं
परीक्षा नियामि प्रागधिारी
प्रसशक्षण पररर्द, उ०प्र०, लखिऊ।
 उ०प्र० प्रयागराज।
बेस ि सशक्षा अिुभाग-4
लखिऊः ददिािंि 09 स तम्बर, 2024

ववर्यः- िी०एल०एि०(बी०टी० ी०)-2024
ऑिलाइि आवेदि एविं प्रवेश/चयि प्रकक्रया िे
 िंबिंध में।

महोदय,

उपयुाक्त ववर्यि गचव परीक्षा
नियामि प्रागधिारी, उ०प्र० प्रयागराज िे पत्र
 िंख्या-िी०एल०एि/2879-81/2024-25 ददिािंि
23 अगस्त, 2024 एविं पत्र िंख्या-गोप०/
िी०एल०एि०-24/3085-88/2024-25 ददिािंि 06
स तम्बर, 2024 िा िृपया न्दभा ग्रहण िरें,
जज िे द्वारा िी०एल०एि० (बी०टी० ी०)-
2024 ऑिलाइि आवेदि एविं प्रवेश/चयि
प्रकिया िे िंबिंध में शा िादेश निगात किये
जािे तथा िी०एल०एि० प्रसशक्षण-2024 हेतु
 मय- ारणी जारी किये जािे िा अिुरोध
किया गया है।

2- इ िंबिंध में मुझे यह िहिे िा
निदेश हुआ है कि शा ि द्वारा म्यि
ववचारोपरान्त यह निणाय सलया गया है कि
िी०एल०एि० (बी०टी० ी०) प्रसशक्षण में चयि
हेतु आिलाईि आवेदि/चयि प्रकिया िे िंबिंध
में पूवा में निगात शा िादेश िं० 390/अर ठ-42023-2067/2013, ददिािंि 26.05.2023 िो
अनतक्रसमत
िरते
हुए
िी०एल०एि०
(बी०टी० ी०)-2024 व आगामी त्रों में चयि /
प्रवेश हेतु ऑिलाईि आवेदि / चयि प्रकक्रया
निम्िवत् ददशा निदेशों िे अिु ार िी जायेगी
:-

प्रदेश में िी०एल०एि० प्रसशक्षण
2023 एविं आगामी त्रों में ऑिलाइि
आवेदि/चयि
प्रकक्रया
िे
 म्बन्ध
में
शा िादेश
 िं०
390/अर ठ-4-20232067/2013 ददिािंि 26.05.2023 निगात किया
गया था। िी०एल०एि० प्रसशक्षण में प्रवेश हेतु
ऑिलाइि आवेदि / िाउ िंसलग िी िायावाही
एविं जिपदों में असभलेखीय जााँच / चयि िी
िायावाही िे अन्तगात उत्पन्ि होिे वाली
व्यावहाररि िदठिाईयों, शत प्रनतशत ीटों िो
भरे जािे िे उद्देश्य े अन्य राज्यों िो
अभ्यगथायों िो प्रवेश में जम्मसलत किये जािे
एविं िवीितम प्रणाली े ऑिलाइि शुल्ि जमा
िरिे िी व्यवस्था में पररवताि िे दृजष्टगत
उक्त शा िादेश ददिािंि 26.05.2023 िे
िनतपय त्रबन्दुओिं में िंशोधि किये जािे िी
आवश्यिता है। अतः वतामाि में िी०एल०एि०
11 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Yashank Khandelwal & Ors.
325
प्रसशक्षण 2024 एविं आगामी प्रसशक्षण त्रों में
चयि/प्रवेश प्रकक्रया िे म्बन्ध में पूवा में निगात
शा िादेश ददिािंि 26.05.2023 िो अनतक्रसमत
िरते हुए िी०एल०एि० (पूवा िाम बी०टी० ी०)
आगामी त्रों में चयि/प्रवेश हेतु ऑि-लाईि
आवेदि / चयि प्रकक्रया निम्िवत् ददशा निदेशों
िे अिु ार िी जाएगी :--

1.
िी०एल०एि०
(D.El.Ed.)
प्रसशक्षण-

प्रदेश में प्राथसमि स्तर पर सशक्षि
प्रसशक्षण िा ेवापूवा दो वर्ीय प्रसशक्षण िो ा
होगा, जज े पूवा में प्रदेश में बेस ि टीचर
 टीकफिेट (बी०टी० ी०) प्रसशक्षण िे िाम े
जािा
जाता
था,
एि० ी०टी०ई०
ववनियमावली 2014 पररसशष्ट-2 िे अिु ार
अब इ िो ा िो डिप्लोमा इि एलीमेन्री
एजूिेशि (D.El.Ed.) िहा जाता है। ऑि-
लाइि आवेदि पत्र िे प्रारूप िो e-आवेदि
पत्र िहा जायेगा।

2. प्रसशक्षण हेतु आवेदि-

िी०एल०एि० प्रसशक्षण 2024 एविं
आगामी होिे वाले प्रसशक्षण त्रों िे अन्तगात
प्रवेश/ चयि हेतु अभ्यगथायों े ऑिलाइि
आवेदि पत्र आमिंत्रत्रत किये जायेंगे। ऑिलाइि
आवेदि िी अिंनतम नतगथ ति अभ्यथी िो
आवेदि हेतु निधााररत न्यूितम शैक्षक्षि एविं
आयु म्बजन्धत अहाता पूणा िरिा अनिवाया है।
आवेदि शुल्ि िे भुगताि िे त्रबिा आवेदि िो
अस्वीिार िर ददया जायेगा। ऑि लाइि
आवेदि िे अनतररक्त कि ी अन्य माध्यम े
आवेदि पत्र स्वीिार िहीिं किये जायेंगे। िाि
द्वारा कि ी माध्यम े आवेदि स्वीिार /
मान्य िहीिं होंगे।

आवेदिों द्वारा कि ी भी एि
जिपद अथवा गृह जिपद े एि ही आवेदि
किया जायेगा। उ िे द्वारा किया गया आवेदि
प्रदेश िे मस्त जिपदों िे राजिीय (िायट)
एविं निजी िी०एल०एि० प्रसशक्षण िंस्थािों में
प्रवेश हेतु मान्य होगा।

3. ीटों पर चयि -

i.
िी०एल०एि०
प्रसशक्षण
हेतु
एि० ी०टी०ई०
द्वारा
िायट
एविं
निजी
 िंस्थािों हेतु अिुमन्य ीटों पर िला/ववज्ञाि,
पुरुर् / मदहला िा ववभाजि किये त्रबिा मस्त
आवेदिों िा चयि मेररट द्वारा किया जायेगा।

ii. एि० ी०टी०ई० े मान्यता तथा
प्रदेश शा ि े म्बद्धता प्राप्त ऐ ी निजी
 िंस्थायें, जो िेवल मदहलाओिं हेतु हैं, में मदहला
अभ्यथी ही चयनित िी जायेंगी।

4. आवेदि िे सलए अहाता, आयु एविं
निवा -

i. शैक्षक्षि अहाता - िी०एल०एि०
प्रसशक्षण 2024 एविं आगामी प्रसशक्षण वर्ों में
चयि हेतु ऐ े अभ्यथी ऑि-लाइि आवेदि
िरिे िे पात्र होंगे, जजन्होंिे आवेदि पत्र भरिे
िे पूवा माध्यसमि सशक्षा पररर्द, उत्तर प्रदेश,
प्रयागराज / CBSE ( ी.बी.ए .ई.) / ICSE
(आई. ी.ए .ई.) े मान्यता प्राप्त िंस्थािों े
हाईस्िूल एविं इन्टरमीडिएट व उ िे मिक्ष
घोवर्त परीक्षा एविं ववगध द्वारा स्थावपत एविं
यू०जी० ी० े मान्यता प्राप्त ववश्वववद्यालय
/महाववद्यालय े स्िाति परीक्षा न्यूितम 50
326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
प्रनतशत अिंिों िे ाथ उत्तीणा िी हो। अिु ूगचत
जानत/अिु ूगचत जिजानत/अन्य वपछड़ा वगा /
वविलािंग / स्वतिंत्रता िंग्राम ेिािी आगश्रत
/भूतपूवा ैनिि (स्वयिं) िे अभ्यगथायों िो
न्यूितम अिंिों में 05 प्रनतशत िी छूट होगी।"

24. A bare perusal of the Government
Order dated 09.09.2024 indicates that the
State
Government
has
made
communication to the Director, DIET to the
effect that D.El.Ed. course was previously
known as B.T.C. and nomenclature has
been changed as per Appendix-2 of
Regulations of 2014 and regards the
minimum educational qualification, clause
4(1) provides that in D.El.Ed. course 2024
and for future years, only those candidates
would be eligible for admission who have
passed higher and intermediate or its
equivalent examination from the Board
recognized by Secondary Education Board,
U.P./Central Board of Secondary Education
(C.B.S.E.)/Indian Certificate of Secondary
Education (I.C.S.E.) and graduation with
minimum
50%
marks
from
any
University/Degree College established by
law and recognized by the University
Grants Commission.

25.
As
to
whether
prescribing
'graduation'
as
minimum
qualification
beyond what has been prescribed under
Clause 3.2 of Appendix-2 forming part of
Regulations of 2014 is rational or irrational,
to understand this, we cannot ignore the
National Policy of Education as well as
service Rules under which Assistant
Teachers for imparting education in Basic
Schools recognized by Government are
appointed. Here we may reiterate that no
dispute was raised, either before the learned
Single Judge or before us, to the effect that
State is competent to prescribe higher
qualification which aspect is implicit even
in Appendix-2, Clause 3.3 of which
provides that the admission has to be made
as per the policy of the State Government.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
U.P. and others vs. Bhupendra Nath
Tripathi and others : (2010) 13 SCC 203
concerning the B.T.C. course itself, after
discussing the provisions of NCTE Act,
1993, found no quarrel with the proposition
that the State in its discretion is entitled to
prescribe such qualifications as it may
consider appropriate for candidates seeking
admission into B.T.C. course so long as the
qualifications so prescribed are not lower
than those prescribed by law under the
NCTE Act, 1993 and that the State can
always prescribe higher qualification.

26. In this background, when we
examine
definition
of
'training'
as
contained in Rule 2(q) of the Rules of
1981, we find that it is the graduation
degree that has been recognized as eligible
qualification even for a training or a
training course. Rule 2(q) of the said Rules
is reproduced hereunder:-

"(q).
"Training"
means
a
training
course
recognized
by
the
Government or any training qualification
notified by National Council for Teacher
Education (NCTE) from time to time to
teach children from Class I to VIII for
which
graduates
are
eligible
for
admission."

27. In view of above position, though
service rules, at first instance, appear to be
meant
for
appointment
of
Assistant
Teachers in Basic Schools, 'training' itself
has been given due weightage and the
intention of law is that even for a training
course recognized by the Government or
any training qualification notified by NCTE
11 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs.