CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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