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

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 718
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-03
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective 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-54777
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Shri Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.) with Parashar
Pandey,
Siddharth
Khare,
Tej
Bhanu
Pandey

Issue(s) for consideration
 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?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Basic Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981: Rule 2(q);
U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior
High
Schools)
(Recruitment
and
Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules,
11 All. State Of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Yashank Khandelwal & Ors.
719
1978: Rule 4; NCTE Act, 1993: Section
32(2);
National
Council
for
Teacher
Education
(Recognition
Norms
and
Procedure) Regulations, 2014: Regulation

## Text

_Characters 0–39,586 of 48,601. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39586 for what follows._

718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pending and as there are provisions
contained in FR-53, FR-54A and FR-54B
of Financial Handbook Volume II Part II to
IV which cover the subject, we are of the
opinion that in the facts of this case, instead
of issuing a direction to pay the dues
payable to the respondent for the period of
suspension, and/or for the period he
remained out of service based on an illegal
order of removal till his attaining the age of
superannuation/ retirement, the writ court
should
have
directed
the
competent
authority to take a decision as per the Rules
applicable. Accordingly, we direct the
appellant to take a decision in this regard
keeping in mind the observations/ findings
given hereinabove, but in accordance with
relevant Rules pertaining to the subject in
question such as FR-53, FR-54A and FR
54B of Financial Handbook Volume II Part
II to IV as may be applicable or such other
Rules as may be applicable. This exercise
is to be done within a period of three month
from the date of submission of a certified
copy of this order.

29. As regards payment of post
retiral dues, although
according to the
Counsel for the appellant, there is a
provision in CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
which contains an embargo regarding
payment of retiral dues where a criminal
trial is pending and the said Rules are
applicable to the C.I.S.F., in view of Rule
77 of the Rules, 2001, this aspect has not
been considered by ld Single Judge,
therefore, in this regard also a considered
decision should be taken by the competent
authority as per relevant rules and law
applicable within aforesaid three months.

30. We therefore, while sustaining the
judgement of the writ court to quash the
order of removal from service dated
17.12.2019 as also the appellate and
revisional orders in this regard, modify the
remaining portion of the judgement by
which dues for the period of respondent's
suspension and post retiral dues have been
ordered to be paid to him, in terms as
already mentioned earlier.

31. Subject to above, the appeal is
allowed but only in part.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 718
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 Defective No. 918 of 2024

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

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

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shri Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.) with Parashar
Pandey,
Siddharth
Khare,
Tej
Bhanu
Pandey

Issue(s) for consideration
 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?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Basic Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981: Rule 2(q);
U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior
High
Schools)
(Recruitment
and
Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules,
11 All. State Of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Yashank Khandelwal & Ors.
719
1978: Rule 4; NCTE Act, 1993: Section
32(2);
National
Council
for
Teacher
Education
(Recognition
Norms
and
Procedure) Regulations, 2014: Regulation
9.

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. 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. Rule 2(q) of
the Rules of 1981 has not been challenged
by the respondents and, therefore, the
definition of 'training' contained therein
shall be read as it is. (Para 27)

B. NEP, 1986 - Conditions of 'preservice'
and 'during service' cannot be segregated
but have to be carried together in order to
achieve aims of quality education 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.
The above aspect can also be seen in light of
the fact that the NCTE itself has provided
Curriculum Framework for Quality Teacher
Education". (Para 29)

C. A bare perusal of Rule 4 indicates that
minimum eligibility qualifications for the
post of Assistant Teacher of recognized
Junior High School shall be a graduation
degree from a University recognised by
U.G.C., and a teachers training course
recognized by the State Government or
NCTE. The description of various training
courses given in Rule 4 has to be read
along with graduation degree and not in
isolation.
Once
sub-Rule
(1)
specifically
provides a graduation degree as minimum
qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher,
making provision for a teachers training
course prescribed in Rule (1) itself is an
'additional
eligibility
qualification'
for
appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher.
Hence, even the eligibility prescribed in Rules
of 1978 does not come to the aid in challenge
to the GOs being in force since 1998 or the
GO
dated
09.09.2024
or
the
National
Education Policy. (Para 30, 31)

D.
The
order
impugned
(dated
24.09.2024) passed by the learned Single
Judge holding Clause 4(1) of the GO 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 GOs issued from
time to time and NCTE Regulations vis-a-vis
Service Rules applicable for teaching in basic
education
institutions
and
also
significant
definitions and changed nomenclature of B.T.C.
course into D.El.Ed. course but carrying the
same eligibility criteria over more than two
decades. Further, the decision of the learned
Single Judge based upon alleged discrepancy in
between two courses i.e. D.El.Ed.' 2024 and
D.El.Ed.' 2024 (Special Education), is also found
contrary to record which does not indicate any
D.El.Ed.' 2024 (Special Education) course being
run by DIET, nor is the conclusion drawn in that
direction based upon case of the parties. (Para
32)

Special appeal allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
State of U.P. and others Vs. Bhupendra Nath
Tripathi and others, (2010) 13 SCC 203 (Para
25)

List of Acts
U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules,
1981; U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior
High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of
Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978; NCTE Act,
1993; National Council of Teacher Education
[Recognition
Norms
and
Procedure]
Regulations, 2009; National Council for Teacher
Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2014.
720 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Keywords
 Service,
recruitment,
teacher,
school,
education, eligibility, qualification, arbitrary,
discriminatory, unconstitutional.

Appearances for Parties
For
Appellant(s):
Shri
M.C.
Chaturvedi
(A.A.G.) with Sudhanshu Srivastava (A.C.S.C.),
Ankit Gaur (S.C.), Abhishek Srivastava
For Respondent(s): Shri Ashok Khare (Sr.
Adv.) with Parashar Pandey, Siddharth Khare,
Tej Bhanu Pandey

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

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
State-appellants 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
11 All. State Of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Yashank Khandelwal & Ors.
721
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.

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
722 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
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
11 All. State Of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Yashank Khandelwal & Ors.
723
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
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
724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
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
11 All. State Of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Yashank Khandelwal & Ors.
725
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
 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
726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
laying down eligibility criteria for entering
into B.T.C. course. The same reads as
under:-

 " 3- प्रवेश परीिा में बैठने की पात्रता :-
बी०टीसी० प्रवेश परीिा में ऐसे अभ्यथी आमद पात्र होने जो उसी
जनपद के मनवासी हो जहााँ प्रवेश पत्र हेतु आवेदन कर रहे हो तथा
मजन्होंने िामट भरने के पूवट स्नातक परीिा अथवा समकि परीिा
उत्तीणट कर ली हो मजनकी आयु प्रमशिण प्रारम्भ होने वाले वषट की
पहली जुलाई को 19 वषट से कम और 27 वषट से अमधक न हो
तथा उसमें ऐसी शारीररक अिमता न हो, मजससे अध्यापन कायट
बामधत हो। न्यूनतम/आयु में मकसी प्रकार की छूट देय न
होगी/अनुसूमचत जामत/जनजामत मपछड़ी जामत / स्वतांत्रता सांग्राम
सेनानी के आमितों तथा समस्त ममहला अभ्यमथटयों को मनधाटररत
अमधकतम आयु सीमा में 5 वषट की सामान्य 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- इस सांबांध में मुझे आपसे यह कहने का मनदेश
हुआ है मक प्रदेश में बी०टी०सी० हेतु अभ्यमथटयों के चयन मकये जाने
की अनुममत िी राज्यपाल महोदय सहषट मनम्न शतों एवां प्रमतबन्धों के
अधीन प्रदान करते हैं।
 1. राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक मशिा, पररषद द्वारा मनधाटररत
नामटस के अनुसार के अनुसार उच्च माध्यममक परीिा (+2) कम से
कम 50 प्रमतशत अांक पाने वाले अभ्यथी आवेदन के मलए पात्र
होंगे परन्तु चूाँमक उ०प्र० में बी०टी०सी० प्रमशिण के मलए न्यूनतम
अहटता स्नातक रखा गया है। अतएव बी०टी०सी० में प्रवेश हेतु
न्यूनतम
शैमिक
अहटता
उ०प्र०
माध्यममक
मशिा
पररषद/सी०बी०एस०सी० बोर्ट/आई०सी०एस०सी० बोर्ट द्वारा मान्य
इण्टरमीमर्एट/समकि परीिा तथा मवश्वमवद्यालय/महामवद्यालय से
स्नातक परीिा में 50 प्रमतशत अांकों के साथ उत्तीणट होना आवश्यक
है। इसी प्रकार अनुसूमचत जामत/जनजामत/अन्य मपछड़ा वगट के एवां
मवकलाांग तथा अन्य आरमित िेणी के अभ्यमथटयों के मलए
एन०सी०टी०ई० के मानक के अनुसार 5 प्रमतशत अांक की 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 बेमसक मशिा (अध्यापक) सेवा
(पाांचवाां सांशोधन) मनयमावली 1993 में अध्यापकों की मनयुमक्त
हेतु शैमिक अहटताएां मनधाटररत की गयी थी, मजसके प्रस्तर -8 (1)
में अहटता-बेमसक अध्यापक प्रमाण व या अन्य तथा राज्य सरकार
द्वारा उसके समि मान्यता प्राप्त मकसी अन्य प्रमशिण पाठ्यक्रम के
साथ माध्यममक मशिा पररषद उ०प्र० की इण्टरमीमर्एट परीिा या
राज्य सरकार द्वारा उसके समकि मान्यता प्राप्त कोई अन्य की गयी है
मजसके अनुसार बी०टी०सी० प्रमशिण (पूवट प्रचमलत नाम) हेतु
न्यूनतम अहटता इण्टरमीमर्एट मनधाटररत की गयी थी। उक्त मनधाटररत
शैमिक अहटता के अनुसार प्रदेश में बी०टी०सी० प्रमशिण (पूवट
प्रचमलत नाम) के प्रवेश/चयन की कायटवाही सम्पामदत करायी जाती
है।

 पुनः उत्तर प्रदेश बेमसक मशिा अध्यापक सेवा
मनयमावली 1981 (आांठवाां सांशोधन) अमधसूचना मदनाांक 9
जुलाई 1998 में पररषदीय प्राथममक मवद्यालयों में सहायक
अध्यापकों की भती हेतु भारत में मवमध द्वारा स्थामपत मकसी
मवश्वमवद्यालय से स्नातक उपामध या सरकार द्वारा उसके समकि
11 All. State Of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Yashank Khandelwal & Ors.
727
मान्यता प्राप्त उपामध के साथ-साथ प्रमशिण अहटता मजसके अन्तगटत
बेमसक अध्यापक प्रमाण पत्र (बी०टी०सी०) एवां अन्य प्रमशिण
अहटताएां मनधाटररत की गयी है मजसके अनुसार बी०टी०सी० प्रमशिण
(पूवट प्रचमलत नाम) हेतु न्यूनतम अहटता स्नातक मनधाटररत की गयी
थी उक्त मनधाटररत शैमिक अहटता के अनुसार प्रदेश में बी०टी०सी०
प्रमशिण (पूवट सांचामलत नाम) के प्रवेश/चयन की कायटवाही
सम्पामदत करायी जाती है।

 राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक मशिा पररषद का अमधसूचना
मदनाांक 28 नवम्बर 2014 के पररमशष्ट-2 के प्रस्तर 3, 2 में
र्ी०एल०एर्० (पूवट प्रचमलत नाम बी०टी०सी०) प्रमशिण हेतु
पात्रता का मनधाटरण मकया गया है मजसमें उमल्लमखत है उच्च
माध्यममक (+2) अथवा उसके समकि परीिा में कम से कम 50
प्रमतशत अांकों वाले उम्मीदवार प्रवेश के मलए पात्र हैं।

 र्ी०एल०एर्० प्रमशिण मे इण्टरमीमर्एट उत्तीणट
अभ्यमथटयों को समम्ममलत कराये जाने हेतु उत्तर प्रदेश बेमसक मशिा
अध्यापक सेवा मनयमावली एवां तदनुसार र्ी०एल०एर्० प्रमशिण के
अन्तगटत प्रवेश/चयन प्रमक्रया में अहटता का मनधाटरण/सांशोधन मकये
जाने के अन्तगटत मनयुमक्त के मनयम एवां मशिक भती हेतु अन्य
शैमिक अहटताओां में भी पररवतटन की आवश्यकता होगी।
र्ी०एल०एर्० प्रमशिण के अन्तगटत प्रवेश/चयन प्रमकया में ही मात्र
अहटता सांशोमधत मकये जाने पर बेमसक मशिकों की मनयुमक्त में
कमठनाई/मवसांगमत उत्पन्न 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
portion of the Government Order dated
09.09.2024 is reproduced hereunder:-

 "सांख्या-941/अरसठ-4-2024-2067/2013

 प्रेषक,

यतीन्र कुमार,

मवशेष समचव,

उ०प्र० शासन।

 सेवा में,

1- मनदेशक,

 2- समचव,

राज्य शैमिक अनुसांधान एवां

परीिा मनयामक प्रामधकारी

प्रमशिण पररषद, उ०प्र०, लखनऊ।

 उ०प्र० प्रयागराज।

बेमसक मशिा अनुभाग-4 लखनऊः

मदनाांक 09 मसतम्बर, 2024

 मवषयः-
र्ी०एल०एर्०(बी०टी०सी०)-2024
ऑनलाइन आवेदन एवां प्रवेश/चयन प्रमक्रया के सांबांध में।
महोदय,

 उपयुटक्त मवषयक समचव परीिा मनयामक प्रामधकारी,
उ०प्र०
प्रयागराज
के
पत्र
सांख्या-र्ी०एल०एर्/287981/2024-25 मदनाांक 23 अगस्त, 2024 एवां पत्र सांख्या-
गोप०/ र्ी०एल०एर्०-24/3085-88/2024-25 मदनाांक 06
मसतम्बर, 2024 का कृपया सन्दभट ग्रहण करें, मजसके द्वारा
र्ी०एल०एर्० (बी०टी०सी०)-2024 ऑनलाइन आवेदन एवां
प्रवेश/चयन प्रमकया के सांबांध में शासनादेश मनगटत मकये जाने तथा
र्ी०एल०एर्० प्रमशिण-2024 हेतु समय-सारणी जारी मकये जाने
का अनुरोध मकया गया है।

 2- इस सांबांध में मुझे यह कहने का मनदेश हुआ है
मक शासन द्वारा सम्यक मवचारोपरान्त यह मनणटय मलया गया है मक
र्ी०एल०एर्० (बी०टी०सी०) प्रमशिण में चयन हेतु आनलाईन
आवेदन/चयन प्रमकया के सांबांध में पूवट में मनगटत शासनादेश सां०
390/अरसठ-4-2023-2067/2013,
मदनाांक
728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
26.05.2023 को अमतक्रममत करते हुए र्ी०एल०एर्०
(बी०टी०सी०)-2024 व आगामी सत्रों में चयन / प्रवेश हेतु
ऑनलाईन आवेदन / चयन प्रमक्रया मनम्नवत् मदशा मनदेशों के
अनुसार की जायेगी :-

 प्रदेश में र्ी०एल०एर्० प्रमशिण 2023 एवां
आगामी सत्रों में ऑनलाइन आवेदन/चयन प्रमक्रया के सम्बन्ध में
शासनादेश सां० 390/अरसठ-4-2023-2067/2013 मदनाांक
26.05.2023 मनगटत मकया गया था। र्ी०एल०एर्० प्रमशिण में
प्रवेश हेतु ऑनलाइन आवेदन / काउसांमलग की कायटवाही एवां
जनपदों में अमभलेखीय जााँच / चयन की कायटवाही के अन्तगटत
उत्पन्न होने वाली व्यावहाररक कमठनाईयों, शत प्रमतशत सीटों को
भरे जाने के उद्देश्य से अन्य राज्यों को अभ्यमथटयों को प्रवेश में
समम्ममलत मकये जाने एवां नवीनतम प्रणाली से ऑनलाइन शुल्क
जमा करने की व्यवस्था में पररवतटन के दृमष्टगत उक्त शासनादेश
मदनाांक 26.05.2023 के कमतपय मबन्दुओां में सांशोधन मकये जाने
की आवश्यकता है। अतः वतटमान में र्ी०एल०एर्० प्रमशिण
2024 एवां आगामी प्रमशिण सत्रों में चयन/प्रवेश प्रमक्रया के
सम्बन्ध में पूवट में मनगटत शासनादेश मदनाांक 26.05.2023 को
अमतक्रममत करते हुए र्ी०एल०एर्० (पूवट नाम बी०टी०सी०)
आगामी सत्रों में चयन/प्रवेश हेतु ऑन-लाईन आवेदन / चयन
प्रमक्रया मनम्नवत् मदशा मनदेशों के अनुसार की जाएगी :--

1. र्ी०एल०एर्०
(D.El.Ed.)
प्रमशिण-

 प्रदेश में प्राथममक स्तर पर मशिक प्रमशिण का
सेवापूवट दो वषीय प्रमशिण कोसट होगा, मजसे पूवट में प्रदेश में बेमसक
टीचर सटीमिकेट (बी०टी०सी०) प्रमशिण के नाम से जाना जाता
था, एन०सी०टी०ई० मवमनयमावली 2014 पररमशष्ट-2 के अनुसार
अब इस कोसट को मर्प्लोमा इन एलीमेन्री एजूकेशन (D.El.Ed.)
कहा जाता है। ऑन-लाइन आवेदन पत्र के प्रारूप को e-आवेदन
पत्र कहा जायेगा।
 2. प्रमशिण हेतु आवेदन-

 र्ी०एल०एर्० प्रमशिण 2024 एवां आगामी होने
वाले प्रमशिण सत्रों के अन्तगटत प्रवेश/ चयन हेतु अभ्यमथटयों से
ऑनलाइन आवेदन पत्र आमांमत्रत मकये जायेंगे। ऑनलाइन आवेदन
की अांमतम मतमथ तक अभ्यथी को आवेदन हेतु मनधाटररत न्यूनतम
शैमिक एवां आयु सम्बमन्धत अहटता पूणट करना अमनवायट है। आवेदन
शुल्क के भुगतान के मबना आवेदन को अस्वीकार कर मदया जायेगा।
ऑन लाइन आवेदन के अमतररक्त मकसी अन्य माध्यम से आवेदन
पत्र स्वीकार नहीं मकये जायेंगे। र्ाक द्वारा मकसी माध्यम से आवेदन
स्वीकार / मान्य नहीं होंगे।

 आवेदकों द्वारा मकसी भी एक जनपद अथवा गृह
जनपद से एक ही आवेदन मकया जायेगा। उसके द्वारा मकया गया
आवेदन प्रदेश के समस्त जनपदों के राजकीय (र्ायट) एवां मनजी
र्ी०एल०एर्० प्रमशिण सांस्थानों में प्रवेश हेतु मान्य होगा।

 3. सीटों पर चयन -

 i. र्ी०एल०एर्० प्रमशिण हेतु एन०सी०टी०ई० द्वारा
र्ायट एवां मनजी सांस्थानों हेतु अनुमन्य सीटों पर कला/मवज्ञान, पुरुष
/ ममहला का मवभाजन मकये मबना समस्त आवेदकों का चयन मेररट
द्वारा मकया जायेगा।

 ii. एन०सी०टी०ई० से मान्यता तथा प्रदेश शासन से
सम्बद्धता प्राप्त ऐसी मनजी सांस्थायें, जो केवल ममहलाओां हेतु हैं, में
ममहला अभ्यथी ही चयमनत की जायेंगी।

 4. आवेदन के मलए अहटता, आयु एवां मनवास-

 i. शैमिक अहटता - र्ी०एल०एर्० प्रमशिण 2024
एवां आगामी प्रमशिण वषों में चयन हेतु ऐसे अभ्यथी ऑन-लाइन
आवेदन करने के पात्र होंगे, मजन्होंने आवेदन पत्र भरने के पूवट
माध्यममक मशिा पररषद, उत्तर प्रदेश, प्रयागराज / CBSE
(सी.बी.एस.ई.) / ICSE (आई.सी.एस.ई.) से मान्यता प्राप्त
सांस्थानों से हाईस्कूल एवां इन्टरमीमर्एट व उसके समकि घोमषत
परीिा एवां मवमध द्वारा स्थामपत एवां यू०जी०सी० से मान्यता प्राप्त
मवश्वमवद्यालय /महामवद्यालय से स्नातक परीिा न्यूनतम 50 प्रमतशत
अांकों के साथ उत्तीणट की हो। अनुसूमचत जामत/अनुसूमचत
जनजामत/अन्य मपछड़ा वगट / मवकलाांग / स्वतांत्रता सांग्राम सेनानी
आमित /भूतपूवट सैमनक (स्वयां) के अभ्यमथटयों को न्यूनतम अांकों में
05 प्रमतशत की 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
11 All. State Of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Yashank Khandelwal & Ors.
729
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.