Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Property Disputes: Calcutta High Court Quashes Trespass And Theft Case Victim’s Absence From WhatsApp Group Does Not Negate Insult To Modesty: Kerala High Court Refuses To Quash Case Over Obscene Posts Section 319 CrPC | Summoning Additional Accused Requires Evidence Stronger Than Prima Facie: Allahabad High Court Employer Cannot Plead Limitation When It Failed To Determine Gratuity: Bombay High Court On Employer’s Statutory Duty Under Section 7 Once Demand and Acceptance Are Proved, Burden Shifts to Accused: Delhi High Court Affirms Conviction of Police Officer in Bribery Case BUDS Act | Law Looks At The Substance Of The Transaction, Not Its Cosmetic Garb: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Digital Gold Platform Under Seniority Tied to Appointment, Not Selection: Delhi High Court Full Bench Resolves Long-standing Conflict in BSF Recruitment Seniority Disputes Calling Family Land "Ancestral" Is Not Enough — Must Trace Four Generations Of Male Lineage To Stop Father From Selling It: Punjab & Haryana HC Cannot Challenge a Document Bearing Your Own Signature By Staying Out of the Witness Box: Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Injunction Suit Solar Panel Installation Does Not Amount To Industrial Use, SIPCOT Can Resume Unutilised Land: Madras High Court Article 226 Is Not A Forum To Settle Boundary Wars: Kerala High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea For Retaining Wall In Munnar Landslide Dispute State Cannot Exploit A Workman For 30 Years And Deny Him Pension: Orissa High Court Orders Notional Regularisation Of DLR Watchman Wrote "Main Chor Hoon" On It With A Marker — And A Man Died: Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail Equivalency Cannot Override Statutory Mandate of Regular Study: Kerala High Court Sets Aside KAT Order on Librarian Recruitment No Saptapadi, No Marriage: Calcutta High Court Quashes Bigamy And Cruelty Case, Rules Stamp Paper Union Is Legal Nullity Under Hindu Marriage Act Revenue Authority Cannot Vest Land In State Under Section 79A, Suo Motu Proceedings After 11 Years Fatal: Gujarat High Court Campaigning During 48-Hour Silent Period Is Not 'Undue Influence' Under Section 123(2), Election Petition Must Plead How Result Was Materially Affected: Bombay High Court DVDs Carrying Encoded Data Infringe Patent Even If Stampers Are Outsourced: Delhi High Court in Philips’ DVD-ROM Patent Dispute Departmental Exoneration Does Not Bar Criminal Trial If Key Evidence Not Considered: Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash PSI’s Corruption Case Can't Claim Irrevocable License Under Section 60 Easements Act Without Pleading It First: Punjab & Haryana High Court Gurmeet Ram Rahim Acquitted in Journalist Murder Case, But Three Co-Accused Convicted: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Actual Shooters FSL Ballistic Evidence Cannot Be Discredited Years After Trial Merely Because Bullets Bear Different Seals: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

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