Allahabad High Court
State Of Up And 3 Others vs Yashank Khandelwal And 9 Others on 3 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on 26.08.2025 Delivered on 03.11.2025 A.F.R. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 918 of 2024 State of U.P. and 3 others ..Appellant(s) Versus Yashank Khandelwal and 9 others ..Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Shri M.C. Chaturvedi (A.A.G.) with Sudhanshu Srivastava (A.C.S.C.), Ankit Gaur (S.C.), Abhishek Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shri Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.) with Parashar Pandey, Siddharth Khare, Tej Bhanu Pandey Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
(Per: Kshitij Shailendra, J) Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2024
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 परीक्षा में बैठने की पात्रता :- बी०टीसी० प्रवेश परीक्षा में ऐसे अभ्यर्थी आदि पात्र होने जो उसी जनपद के निवासी हो जहाँ प्रवेश पत्र हेतु आवेदन कर रहे हो तथा जिन्होंने फार्म भरने के पूर्व स्नातक परीक्षा अथवा समकक्ष परीक्षा उत्तीर्ण कर ली हो जिनकी आयु प्रशिक्षण प्रारम्भ होने वाले वर्ष की पहली जुलाई को 19 वर्ष से कम और 27 वर्ष से अधिक न हो तथा उसमें ऐसी शारीरिक अक्षमता न हो, जिससे अध्यापन कार्य बाधित हो। न्यूनतम/आयु में किसी प्रकार की छूट देय न होगी/अनुसूचित जाति/जनजाति पिछड़ी जाति / स्वतंत्रता संग्राम सेनानी के आश्रितों तथा समस्त महिला अभ्यर्थियों को निर्धारित अधिकतम आयु सीमा में 5 वर्ष 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 संबंध में मुझे आपसे यह कहने का निदेश हुआ है कि प्रदेश में बी०टी०सी० हेतु अभ्यर्थियों के चयन किये जाने की अनुमति श्री राज्यपाल महोदय सहर्ष निम्न शर्तों एवं प्रतिबन्धों के अधीन प्रदान करते हैं।
1. राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा, परिषद द्वारा निर्धारित नार्मस के अनुसार के अनुसार उच्च माध्यमिक परीक्षा (+2) कम से कम 50 प्रतिशत अंक पाने वाले अभ्यर्थी आवेदन के लिए पात्र होंगे परन्तु चूँकि उ०प्र० में बी०टी०सी० प्रशिक्षण के लिए न्यूनतम अर्हता स्नातक रखा गया है। अतएव बी०टी०सी० में प्रवेश हेतु न्यूनतम शैक्षिक अर्हता उ०प्र० माध्यमिक शिक्षा परिषद/सी०बी०एस०सी० बोर्ड/आई०सी०एस०सी० बोर्ड द्वारा मान्य इण्टरमीडिएट/समकक्ष परीक्षा तथा विश्वविद्यालय/महाविद्यालय से स्नातक परीक्षा में 50 प्रतिशत अंकों के साथ उत्तीर्ण होना आवश्यक है। इसी प्रकार अनुसूचित जाति/जनजाति/अन्य पिछड़ा वर्ग के एवं विकलांग तथा अन्य आरक्षित श्रेणी के अभ्यर्थियों के लिए एन०सी०टी०ई० के मानक के अनुसार 5 प्रतिशत अंक 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 बेसिक शिक्षा (अध्यापक) सेवा (पांचवां संशोधन) नियमावली 1993 में अध्यापकों की नियुक्ति हेतु शैक्षिक अर्हताएं निर्धारित की गयी थी, जिसके प्रस्तर -8 (1) में अर्हता-बेसिक अध्यापक प्रमाण व या अन्य तथा राज्य सरकार द्वारा उसके समक्ष मान्यता प्राप्त किसी अन्य प्रशिक्षण पाठ्यक्रम के साथ माध्यमिक शिक्षा परिषद उ०प्र० की इण्टरमीडिएट परीक्षा या राज्य सरकार द्वारा उसके समकक्ष मान्यता प्राप्त कोई अन्य की गयी है जिसके अनुसार बी०टी०सी० प्रशिक्षण (पूर्व प्रचलित नाम) हेतु न्यूनतम अर्हता इण्टरमीडिएट निर्धारित की गयी थी। उक्त निर्धारित शैक्षिक अर्हता के अनुसार प्रदेश में बी०टी०सी० प्रशिक्षण (पूर्व प्रचलित नाम) के प्रवेश/चयन की कार्यवाही सम्पादित करायी जाती है।
पुनः उत्तर प्रदेश बेसिक शिक्षा अध्यापक सेवा नियमावली 1981 (आंठवां संशोधन) अधिसूचना दिनांक 9 जुलाई 1998 में परिषदीय प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में सहायक अध्यापकों की भर्ती हेतु भारत में विधि द्वारा स्थापित किसी विश्वविद्यालय से स्नातक उपाधि या सरकार द्वारा उसके समकक्ष मान्यता प्राप्त उपाधि के साथ-साथ प्रशिक्षण अर्हता जिसके अन्तर्गत बेसिक अध्यापक प्रमाण पत्र (बी०टी०सी०) एवं अन्य प्रशिक्षण अर्हताएं निर्धारित की गयी है जिसके अनुसार बी०टी०सी० प्रशिक्षण (पूर्व प्रचलित नाम) हेतु न्यूनतम अर्हता स्नातक निर्धारित की गयी थी उक्त निर्धारित शैक्षिक अर्हता के अनुसार प्रदेश में बी०टी०सी० प्रशिक्षण (पूर्व संचालित नाम) के प्रवेश/चयन की कार्यवाही सम्पादित करायी जाती है।
राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद का अधिसूचना दिनांक 28 नवम्बर 2014 के परिशिष्ट-2 के प्रस्तर 3, 2 में डी०एल०एड० (पूर्व प्रचलित नाम बी०टी०सी०) प्रशिक्षण हेतु पात्रता का निर्धारण किया गया है जिसमें उल्लिखित है उच्च माध्यमिक (+2) अथवा उसके समकक्ष परीक्षा में कम से कम 50 प्रतिशत अंकों वाले उम्मीदवार प्रवेश के लिए पात्र हैं।
डी०एल०एड० प्रशिक्षण मे इण्टरमीडिएट उत्तीर्ण अभ्यर्थियों को सम्मिलित कराये जाने हेतु उत्तर प्रदेश बेसिक शिक्षा अध्यापक सेवा नियमावली एवं तदनुसार डी०एल०एड० प्रशिक्षण के अन्तर्गत प्रवेश/चयन प्रक्रिया में अर्हता का निर्धारण/संशोधन किये जाने के अन्तर्गत नियुक्ति के नियम एवं शिक्षक भर्ती हेतु अन्य शैक्षिक अर्हताओं में भी परिवर्तन की आवश्यकता होगी। डी०एल०एड० प्रशिक्षण के अन्तर्गत प्रवेश/चयन प्रकिया में ही मात्र अर्हता संशोधित किये जाने पर बेसिक शिक्षकों की नियुक्ति में कठिनाई/विसंगति 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:-
संख्या-941/अरसठ-4-2024-2067/2013 प्रेषक, यतीन्द्र कुमार, विशेष सचिव, उ०प्र० शासन।
सेवा में, 1- निदेशक, 2- सचिव, राज्य शैक्षिक अनुसंधान एवं परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी प्रशिक्षण परिषद, उ०प्र०, लखनऊ। उ०प्र० प्रयागराज। बेसिक शिक्षा अनुभाग-4 लखनऊः दिनांक 09 सितम्बर, 2024
विषयः- डी०एल०एड०(बी०टी०सी०)-2024 ऑनलाइन आवेदन एवं प्रवेश/चयन प्रक्रिया के संबंध में।
महोदय, उपर्युक्त विषयक सचिव परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी, उ०प्र० प्रयागराज के पत्र संख्या-डी०एल०एड/2879-81/2024-25 दिनांक 23 अगस्त, 2024 एवं पत्र संख्या-गोप०/ डी०एल०एड०-24/3085-88/2024-25 दिनांक 06 सितम्बर, 2024 का कृपया सन्दर्भ ग्रहण करें, जिसके द्वारा डी०एल०एड० (बी०टी०सी०)-2024 ऑनलाइन आवेदन एवं प्रवेश/चयन प्रकिया के संबंध में शासनादेश निर्गत किये जाने तथा डी०एल०एड० प्रशिक्षण-2024 हेतु समय-सारणी जारी किये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है।
2- इस संबंध में मुझे यह कहने का निदेश हुआ है कि शासन द्वारा सम्यक विचारोपरान्त यह निर्णय लिया गया है कि डी०एल०एड० (बी०टी०सी०) प्रशिक्षण में चयन हेतु आनलाईन आवेदन/चयन प्रकिया के संबंध में पूर्व में निर्गत शासनादेश सं० 390/अरसठ-4-2023-2067/2013, दिनांक 26.05.2023 को अतिक्रमित करते हुए डी०एल०एड० (बी०टी०सी०)-2024 व आगामी सत्रों में चयन / प्रवेश हेतु ऑनलाईन आवेदन / चयन प्रक्रिया निम्नवत् दिशा निर्देशों के अनुसार की जायेगी :-
प्रदेश में डी०एल०एड० प्रशिक्षण 2023 एवं आगामी सत्रों में ऑनलाइन आवेदन/चयन प्रक्रिया के सम्बन्ध में शासनादेश सं० 390/अरसठ-4-2023-2067/2013 दिनांक 26.05.2023 निर्गत किया गया था। डी०एल०एड० प्रशिक्षण में प्रवेश हेतु ऑनलाइन आवेदन / काउसंलिग की कार्यवाही एवं जनपदों में अभिलेखीय जाँच / चयन की कार्यवाही के अन्तर्गत उत्पन्न होने वाली व्यावहारिक कठिनाईयों, शत प्रतिशत सीटों को भरे जाने के उद्देश्य से अन्य राज्यों को अभ्यर्थियों को प्रवेश में सम्मिलित किये जाने एवं नवीनतम प्रणाली से ऑनलाइन शुल्क जमा करने की व्यवस्था में परिवर्तन के दृष्टिगत उक्त शासनादेश दिनांक 26.05.2023 के कतिपय बिन्दुओं में संशोधन किये जाने की आवश्यकता है। अतः वर्तमान में डी०एल०एड० प्रशिक्षण 2024 एवं आगामी प्रशिक्षण सत्रों में चयन/प्रवेश प्रक्रिया के सम्बन्ध में पूर्व में निर्गत शासनादेश दिनांक 26.05.2023 को अतिक्रमित करते हुए डी०एल०एड० (पूर्व नाम बी०टी०सी०) आगामी सत्रों में चयन/प्रवेश हेतु ऑन-लाईन आवेदन / चयन प्रक्रिया निम्नवत् दिशा निर्देशों के अनुसार की जाएगी :--
1. डी०एल०एड० (D.El.Ed.) प्रशिक्षण-
प्रदेश में प्राथमिक स्तर पर शिक्षक प्रशिक्षण का सेवापूर्व दो वर्षीय प्रशिक्षण कोर्स होगा, जिसे पूर्व में प्रदेश में बेसिक टीचर सर्टीफिकेट (बी०टी०सी०) प्रशिक्षण के नाम से जाना जाता था, एन०सी०टी०ई० विनियमावली 2014 परिशिष्ट-2 के अनुसार अब इस कोर्स को डिप्लोमा इन एलीमेन्ट्री एजूकेशन (D.El.Ed.) कहा जाता है। ऑन-लाइन आवेदन पत्र के प्रारूप को e-आवेदन पत्र कहा जायेगा।
2. प्रशिक्षण हेतु आवेदन-
डी०एल०एड० प्रशिक्षण 2024 एवं आगामी होने वाले प्रशिक्षण सत्रों के अन्तर्गत प्रवेश/ चयन हेतु अभ्यर्थियों से ऑनलाइन आवेदन पत्र आमंत्रित किये जायेंगे। ऑनलाइन आवेदन की अंतिम तिथि तक अभ्यर्थी को आवेदन हेतु निर्धारित न्यूनतम शैक्षिक एवं आयु सम्बन्धित अर्हता पूर्ण करना अनिवार्य है। आवेदन शुल्क के भुगतान के बिना आवेदन को अस्वीकार कर दिया जायेगा। ऑन लाइन आवेदन के अतिरिक्त किसी अन्य माध्यम से आवेदन पत्र स्वीकार नहीं किये जायेंगे। डाक द्वारा किसी माध्यम से आवेदन स्वीकार / मान्य नहीं होंगे।
आवेदकों द्वारा किसी भी एक जनपद अथवा गृह जनपद से एक ही आवेदन किया जायेगा। उसके द्वारा किया गया आवेदन प्रदेश के समस्त जनपदों के राजकीय (डायट) एवं निजी डी०एल०एड० प्रशिक्षण संस्थानों में प्रवेश हेतु मान्य होगा।
3. सीटों पर चयन -
i. डी०एल०एड० प्रशिक्षण हेतु एन०सी०टी०ई० द्वारा डायट एवं निजी संस्थानों हेतु अनुमन्य सीटों पर कला/विज्ञान, पुरुष / महिला का विभाजन किये बिना समस्त आवेदकों का चयन मेरिट द्वारा किया जायेगा।
ii. एन०सी०टी०ई० से मान्यता तथा प्रदेश शासन से सम्बद्धता प्राप्त ऐसी निजी संस्थायें, जो केवल महिलाओं हेतु हैं, में महिला अभ्यर्थी ही चयनित की जायेंगी।
4. आवेदन के लिए अर्हता, आयु एवं निवास-
i. शैक्षिक अर्हता - डी०एल०एड० प्रशिक्षण 2024 एवं आगामी प्रशिक्षण वर्षों में चयन हेतु ऐसे अभ्यर्थी ऑन-लाइन आवेदन करने के पात्र होंगे, जिन्होंने आवेदन पत्र भरने के पूर्व माध्यमिक शिक्षा परिषद, उत्तर प्रदेश, प्रयागराज / CBSE (सी.बी.एस.ई.) / ICSE (आई.सी.एस.ई.) से मान्यता प्राप्त संस्थानों से हाईस्कूल एवं इन्टरमीडिएट व उसके समकक्ष घोषित परीक्षा एवं विधि द्वारा स्थापित एवं यू०जी०सी० से मान्यता प्राप्त विश्वविद्यालय /महाविद्यालय से स्नातक परीक्षा न्यूनतम 50 प्रतिशत अंकों के साथ उत्तीर्ण की हो। अनुसूचित जाति/अनुसूचित जनजाति/अन्य पिछड़ा वर्ग / विकलांग / स्वतंत्रता संग्राम सेनानी आश्रित /भूतपूर्व सैनिक (स्वयं) के अभ्यर्थियों को न्यूनतम अंकों में 05 प्रतिशत 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 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 Honble 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 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. We may also observe that 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.
28. We cannot also ignore the significance of NEP, 1986. Clauses 9.4, 9.5 and 9.6 contained in para 9 of the policy needs reproduction as under:-
" भाग IX शिक्षक .
अध्यापकों की शिक्षा 9.4 अध्यापकों की शिक्षा एक सतत प्रक्रिया है और इसके सेवापूर्व और सेवाकालीन अंशों को अलग नहीं किया जा सकता। पहले कदम के रूप में अध्यापकों की शिक्षा की प्रणाली को आमूल बदला जाएगा।
9.5 अध्यापकों की शिक्षा के नये कार्यक्रम में सतत शिक्षा पर और इस शिक्षा-नीति की नई दिशाओं के अनुसार आगे बढ़ने की आवश्यकता पर बल होगा।
9.6 जिला शिक्षा और प्रशिक्षण संस्थान स्थापित किए जाएंगे जिनमें प्राथमिक विद्यालयों के अध्यापकों की और अनौपचारिक शिक्षा और प्रौढ़ शिक्षा के कार्यकर्ताओं के सेवा पूर्व एवं सेवा के दौरान पाठ्यक्रमों के जरिए प्रशिक्षण की व्यवस्था होगी। इन संस्थानों की स्थापना के साथ ही बहुत सी घटिया प्रशिक्षण संस्थाओं को बन्द कर दिया जाएगा। कुछ चुने हुए माध्यमिक अध्यापक प्रशिक्षण कालेजों का दर्जा बढ़ाया जाएगा ताकि वे राज्य शैक्षिक अनुसंधान और प्रशिक्षण परिषदों के पूरक के रूप में काम कर सकें। राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद को सामर्थ्य और साधन दिए जाएंगे, जिससे यह परिषद अध्यापक शिक्षा की संस्थाओं को मान्यता देने के लिए आधिकारिक हो और उनके शिक्षाक्रम और पद्धतियों के बारे में मार्ग-दर्शन कर सकें। अध्यापक-शिक्षा की संस्थाओं और विश्वविद्यालयों के शिक्षा-विभागों में आपस में मिलकर काम करने की व्यवस्था की जाएगी।"
29. On reading the above extract of NEP, 1986, we find force in the submission made on behalf of the appellants that conditions of pre-service 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 which reflects following features covered by Clause 1.2:-
1.2 Scenario of Teacher Education The need for improved levels of educational participation for overall progress is well recognised. The key role of educational institutions in realising it is reflected in a variety of initiatives taken to transform the nature and function of education-both formal as well as non-formal. Universal accessibility to quality education is considered essential for development. This has necessitated improvement in the system of teacher education so as to prepare quality teachers.
.........................................
The Programme of Action (POA), 1992, emphasised on teacher education as a continuous process, its pre-service and in-service components being inseparable. The POA, among others, has pointed out the following in respect of teacher education :
- Professional commitment and overall competencies of teachers leave much to be desired ;
- The quality of pre-service education has not only not improved with recent developments in pedagogical science, but has actually shown signs of deterioration;
- Teacher education programmes consist mainly of pre-service teacher training, with practically no systematic programmes of in-service training facilities for which are lacking;
- There has been an increase in sub-standard institutions of teacher education and there are numerous reports of gross malpractices; and
- The support system provided by the State Councils of Educational Research and Training (SCERTs) and the University Departments of Education has been insufficient and there is no support system below the State level.
30. In the last, we examine the argument of Shri Khare to the effect that since Rule 4 of the UP Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 prescribes two-year Diploma in Elementary Education as a permissible qualification for admission, therefore, prescribing graduation as minimum eligibility qualification for entering into a D.El.Ed. Course is discriminatory and unsustainable. For a ready reference, Rule 4 (1) of the Rules of 1978 is reproduced hereunder:-
4. Minimum qualification - (1) The minimum qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher of a recognised 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 National Council for Teacher Education as follows-
Two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name called) Or Graduation with at least 50% marks and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) Or Basic Teaching Certificate (B.T.C.) Or Four year Degree in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) Or Four year B.A./B.Sc. Ed. or B.A. Ed./B.Sc. Ed.
Or B.A./B.Sc. with atleast 50% marks and 1 year B.Ed. (Special Education) and Teacher Eligibility Test (Upper Primary Level) passed conducted by the State Government or by the Government of India.
(2) .......................................
31. 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 Government Orders being in force since 1998 or the Government Order dated 09.09.2024 or the National Education Policy and, hence, the argument advanced by Shri Khare based upon Rules of 1978 also stands discarded.
CONCLUSION
32. We are, therefore, of the opinion that 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 co-relation 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. 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.
33. Accordingly, the special appeal is allowed.
34. The impugned judgement and order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-C No.24528 of 2024 is hereby set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondents stands dismissed.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) November 3, 2025 Jyotsana