Wife Exaggerating Husband's Income In Maintenance Affidavit Is Not Perjury: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Husband's Section 340 Application Candidate Cannot Be Faulted For Missing Disclaimers In Form-26 Supplied By Returning Officer: Bombay High Court Dismissal Without Departmental Enquiry Violates Natural Justice When Criminal Conviction Is Set Aside: Chhattisgarh High Court Orders Reinstatement Cipla MD Gets Relief: Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes Drug Prosecution For Absence of Specific Averment on Day-to-Day Role Mandatory Notice Under Section 106(3) Railways Act Applies To 'Overcharges', Not 'Illegal Charges': Gauhati High Court Insurer Can't Escape Paying Accident Victims Even With Invalid Licence Defence — Avoidance Clause In Policy Seals Liability: Gujarat High Court Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts — Once A Claim Is Founded On Fraud, The Entire Edifice Of The Claim Collapses And No Relief Can Be Granted: Supreme Court Like Cases Must Be Decided Alike": Orissa High Court Directs State To Pay Service Benefits To Deceased Employee's Heirs Claiming Parity Ancient Jain Idol Cannot Remain In Police Custody Under Treasure Trove Act: Allahabad High Court Orders Transfer To Museum Income Tax | Receivables For Warranty Reimbursements Constitute An 'Asset' Under Section 153A For Reopening Assessment: Delhi High Court Married Persons Cannot Claim Police Protection For Live-In Relationships Without First Obtaining Divorce: Allahabad High Court Breach Of Private Compromise Cannot Ipso Facto Trigger Cancellation Of Probation Granted On Legally Sustainable Grounds: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Interference Under Article 226 In Eviction Proceedings When Land Compensation Is Deposited In Competent Court: Kerala High Court "Immediately Preceding Three Years" For Land Compensation Must Be Calculated From Date Of Section 11 Notification, Not Calendar Year: Jharkhand High Court Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Attributed To Minor Children; State Strictly Liable For Unsecured Hazardous Reservoirs: J&K High Court Party Seeking Transfer Can't Hide Pending Transfer Petition From High Court: Karnataka HC Quashes Transfer Order Mother Can Represent Muslim Minor As 'Next Friend' In Civil Suit As CPC Provisions Are Secular And Not Tied To Personal Law: Calcutta High Court First Appellate Court Must Frame Points For Determination Under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, Cannot Remand Cryptically: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Recovery Of Stolen Property Cannot Be Sole Basis For Murder Conviction If Chain Of Circumstances Is Broken: Bombay High Court MP Constable's Shell Company, Rs.6.44 Crore Properties, Ghost Cooperative Society: HC Rejects PMLA Bail of Director Who Had 'No Financial Capability' To Buy What He Bought

18-Month NIOS Diploma Not Equivalent to 2-Year NCTE Diploma for Uttarakhand Teacher Posts: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India today overturned a High Court verdict concerning the eligibility criteria for Assistant Teacher posts in Uttarakhand. The apex court ruled that the 18-month Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) offered by the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) is not equivalent to the 2-year Diploma prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE).

The judgment, delivered by Justices B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, specifically addressed the appeals challenging the High Court of Uttarakhand’s decision. The High Court had previously directed the state to consider the candidatures of individuals holding the 18-month NIOS diploma for regular posts of Assistant Teachers (Primary).

In the detailed judgment, the Supreme Court observed, “We find that the High Court has erred in holding that the 18 months Diploma conducted by NIOS through ODL mode is equivalent to 2 years Diploma as provided in the notifications of NCTE dated 23rd August 2010 and 29th July 2011.” This observation formed the crux of the ruling, emphasizing the distinction between the two qualifications.

The Court further clarified the legal position regarding the interplay of statutory rules and administrative instructions. It stated, “It is a trite law that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions.” This statement underscored the Court’s reasoning that the State of Uttarakhand’s Service Rules, which mandate a 2-year diploma, could not be overridden by NCTE’s administrative instructions.

Date of Decision: 28th November 2023

JAIVEER SINGH AND OTHERS VS THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

Latest Legal News