18‑Month D.El.Ed. Holders Entitled to Consideration in Ongoing Uttarakhand Teacher Recruitment; State Directed to Act Within Three Months

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih heard transfer petitions and an interlocutory application in which applicants sought a direction that the State of Uttarakhand permit candidates holding the 18‑month D.El.Ed. diploma from the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) under the Open and Distance Learning (ODL) mode to participate in ongoing counselling and be appointed to vacant Assistant Teacher (Primary) posts. The petitions arose from the State’s refusal to recognise the 18‑month NIOS qualification under the Uttarakhand Government Elementary Education (Teacher) Service Rules, 2012.

The Court directed the State to consider the applicants’ claims in light of earlier clarifications and to appoint eligible candidates in accordance with law within three months, without reopening selection processes already finalized. The Court reiterated that the One Time Scheme framed by the Government of India was intended to protect in‑service teachers who were employed as on 10.08.2017 and who completed the 18‑month diploma. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “However, to avoid any confusion, we again clarify that the 18 months diploma obtained by such persons, who were in employment as on 10.08.2017 and who have completed the diploma course of 18 months, would be treated as valid diploma holders for the purpose of applying in other institutions or for promotional avenues.” The Court further clarified that this understanding was effective from the date of pronouncement of the earlier judgment and that “the ‘other institutions’ would also include the schools run by the State Governments.”

The Court noted earlier observations that the 18‑month D.El.Ed. conducted through ODL by NIOS “cannot be said to be a lower or inferior qualification” for the limited purpose intended by the one‑time measure, while also recording that the State’s 2012 Rules requiring a two‑year diploma were otherwise valid. The application was disposed of in terms of the signed judgment and the transfer petitions were accordingly disposed.

Background The dispute traced to amendments to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 by the 2017 Amendment, which was made retrospectively applicable from 31.03.2015 and required teachers to possess specified minimum qualifications. The MHRD issued directions giving in‑service teachers time to acquire qualifications until 31.03.2019. To meet that deadline, the NCTE recognised an 18‑month D.El.Ed. programme through NIOS (ODL) for in‑service teachers and reduced the diploma duration from two years to 18 months as a one‑time measure.

Uttarakhand’s 2012 Rules, however, prescribed a two‑year diploma as the eligibility criterion for appointment. The State initially allowed candidates with the 18‑month NIOS diploma to apply but withdrew that concession, prompting writ petitions before the Uttarakhand High Court. The High Court held on 14.09.2022 that the 18‑month NIOS diploma could not be treated as inferior and was valid for applying to Assistant Teacher (Primary) posts. Appeals reached the Supreme Court, which in Jaiveer Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (28.11.2023) upheld the 2012 Rules but clarified that the One Time Scheme was meant for teachers in employment as on 10.08.2017 and that the 18‑month diploma was not equivalent generally to the two‑year diploma.

Following review petitions and further clarification, this Court on 10.12.2024 reiterated that holders of the 18‑month diploma who were employed as on 10.08.2017 and who completed the course would be treated as valid diploma holders for applying to “other institutions.” The present applicants contended that advertisements issued on 29.05.2024 fell after the 28.11.2023 judgment and sought consideration; the State resisted on the ground that selections were near completion. The Supreme Court found the applicants covered by the December 2024 clarification, directed consideration within three months, and clarified that already finalized selections need not be reopened. The transfer petitions and the connected writ petitions before the High Court were disposed in terms of the order.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 365; Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 42‑43 of 2025 Case Title: Vishwanath v. The State of Uttarakhand and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Advocate; Mr. Mandeep Kalra, AOR; Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Advocate; Ms. Anushna Satapathy, Advocate; Ms. Radhika Jalan, Advocate; Mr. Yashas J, Advocate; Ms. Widaphi Lyngdoh, Advocate; Ms. Anchita Nayyar, Advocate; Ms. Shefali Tripathi, Advocate; Mr. Tushar Shrivastava, Advocate; Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR; Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Advocate; Mr. Ajay Bahuguna, Advocate; Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Advocate.