Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 299 (UTT)

Nandan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2022-09-14

R.C.KHULBE, VIPIN SANGHI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petitions to assail the communication / order bearing No. 236/XXIV-A/1/2021/18/2018 T.C. dated 10.02.2021, issued by the Secretary, Department of Elementary Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, whereby he recalled the earlier order bearing No. 103/XXIV-A-1/2-21-18/2018 T.C. dated 15.01.2021. 2. By the aforesaid order dated 15.01.2021, the said Secretary had conveyed the decision of the Government of Uttarakhand that such candidates, who have got the D.El.Ed training from the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) in the State through Open and Distance Learning (ODL) for eighteen months in the years 2017-19, and who have fulfilled other prescribed standards and eligibility conditions for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary), along with passing TET First, are also permitted to participate in the selection process of filling up the vacancies of Assistant Teachers (Primary) pursuant to the advertisements issued district-wise. The effect of the decision contained in the impugned communication dated 10.02.2021 was to render such candidates ineligible for participation in the process of selection to fill-up the vacancies of Assistant Teachers (Primary) in the State. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they were initially appointed as Assistant Teachers in private unaided Schools in different districts of the State of Uttarakhand. They were employed as Assistant Teachers during the period 2014-17. They state that they have experience of teaching students of primary schools from Classes 1 to 5. The petitioners possess Degree of graduation, and they have cleared the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET). They have also obtained the Diploma, as recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), in elementary education through ODL mode, conducted by NIOS. The petitioners, therefore, claim that they are eligible for being considered for appointment as Assistant Teachers (Primary) in Government Primary Schools situated in the State of Uttarakhand. They have assailed the impugned order, since the petitioners and other similarly situated persons, possessing of Diploma of D.El.Ed. from NIOS through ODL mode, have been barred from applying for the post of Assistant Teachers (Primary) to be employed in the Government Primary Schools. This action of the respondents is stated to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. from NIOS through ODL mode, have been barred from applying for the post of Assistant Teachers (Primary) to be employed in the Government Primary Schools. This action of the respondents is stated to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. At this stage itself, we may observe that the present dispute has arisen since the Diploma course of D.El.Ed, conducted by NIOS, undergone by the petitioners, was of the duration of eighteen months, and not two years, and the same was undergone through ODL mode, and not through the physical mode. While the petitioners claim that NCTE has recognized the said D.El.Ed course undergone by them as equivalent to the two-year Diploma in D.El.Ed, the respondent-State seeks to draw a distinction between the D.El.Ed. Diploma obtained by the petitioners, and the D.El.Ed. Diploma obtained by others in the normal course, which is a two-year course. On that premise, the petitioners are sought to be barred from participating in the process of recruitment as Assistant Teachers to be employed in the Government Primary Schools. 5. We may now take note of some of the background facts leading up to the present dispute. 6. Article 21A of the Constitution of India, which was inserted by way of the Eighty-sixth Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002, provided that the State should provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years, in such manner as the State may, by law, determine. In fulfillment of this Constitutional goal, the Parliament enacted ‘The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009’ (the Act). Section 3 of the Act states that every child of the age of six to fourteen years shall have the right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school till the completion of his or her elementary education. Section 3(2) guarantees that no child shall be liable to pay any kind of fee or charges or expenses, which may prevent him or her from pursuing and completing the elementary education. 7. To ensure that the elementary education provided to the targeted children is of a minimum standard, Section 23 of the Act, inter alia, stipulated that any person possessing such minimum qualification, as laid down by an academic authority authorized by the Central Government by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher. 7. To ensure that the elementary education provided to the targeted children is of a minimum standard, Section 23 of the Act, inter alia, stipulated that any person possessing such minimum qualification, as laid down by an academic authority authorized by the Central Government by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher. The academic authority notified by the Central Government, without dispute, is the NCTE. 8. The minimum qualification prescribed by the NCTE for teachers to be eligible for appointment to teach Classes 1 to 8 in a School referred to in Section 2(n) of the said Act was laid down by the NCTE vide Notification dated 23rd August, 2010. The minimum qualification prescribed for teachers to teach Classes 1 to 5 reads as follows:- “1. Minimum Qualifications.- (i) Classes I-V (a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known). OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002. OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.). OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Education (Special Education). AND (b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.” (emphasis supplied) 9. Being mindful of the fact that the Act seeks to address the needs of lacs and lacs of children all over the country, for which adequate human resource may not be readily available, Section 23(2) of the Act empowered the Central Government to relax the minimum qualification required for appointment as a teacher in certain circumstances, for a period not exceeding five years. The teachers, who were not possessed of the minimum qualifications, laid down under sub-section (1) at the commencement of the Act, were mandated to acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years. 10. It appears that despite extensions granted by the Central Government to enable the States to improve the lot of elementary school teachers, the States were not able to fulfill the requirements. They were not able to ensure that the teachers meet the laid down standards of minimum qualification. 10. It appears that despite extensions granted by the Central Government to enable the States to improve the lot of elementary school teachers, the States were not able to fulfill the requirements. They were not able to ensure that the teachers meet the laid down standards of minimum qualification. Consequently, the Government piloted, and the Parliament enacted ‘The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017’ (The Amendment Act, 2017), which was made effective retrospectively from 01.04.2015. By this amendment, the second proviso was inserted to Section 23(2), and a final outer limit of time was fixed, within which the in-service elementary school teachers-who did not possess the minimum qualification as laid down under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act, were mandated to obtain the minimum qualification, failing which they could not continue to serve as elementary school teachers. They were granted one last opportunity to acquire the same by 31st March, 2019. Post this amendment, Section 23 reads as follows:- “23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.—(1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher. (2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if it deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification: Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years. Provided further that every teacher appointed or in position as on the 31st March, 2015, who does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of four years from the date of commencement of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017. (3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teachers shall be such as may be prescribed.” (emphasis supplied) 11. (3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teachers shall be such as may be prescribed.” (emphasis supplied) 11. Soon after the Bill-which led to the enactment of the Amendment Act was passed by the parliament on 02.08.2017, on the following date i.e. 03.08.2017, the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India addressed a communication to all the States, wherein the Government stated, inter alia, as follows:- “This is regarding training of untrained in-service elementary teachers in the Govt./Govt. Aided/Unaided-Private Schools. It is apprised that the Amendment to the Section 23(2) of the RTE Act to extend the period for such training to 31st March, 2019 has been passed by the Parliament. 2. Further, it is reiterated that this will be the last chance to acquire the requisite minimum professional qualifications. Any teacher in the aforementioned schools, who does not have the minimum qualifications mandated under the RTE Act, 2009, would not be allowed to continue in-service beyond 1st April, 2O19, and procedure for dismissal shall be initiated against such teachers. 3. A broad strategy to complete the training of all such in-service untrained teachers by 31st March, 2019 is proposed by MHRD. The following action is required to be initiated urgently at your end: Action to be taken by States/UTs: i. States and UTs will be responsible for ensuring that all in-service untrained teachers (Government Schools and Private Schools) in the State and UTs acquire the minimum qualifications required under the RTE Act, 2009 within the proposed extended period till 31st March, 2019, through the ODL programme of NIOS. ii. … iii. … iv. It is mandatory for all in-service untrained teachers to undertake D.El.Ed. programme only through ODL on NIOS (unless already enrolled and undergoing training in a recognised Teacher Education Institute (TEI) prior to the amendment). v. State Govt. will reach out to the School Principals/concerned school authorities of all Govt./Govt. Aided/ Private Schools and inform them about this extension of deadlines and publish large scale advertisements for wider coverage. vi. States must undertake an awareness programme amongst the teachers also, clearly indicating that this would be the last opportunity for application and enrolment to the course failing which their services will be terminated w.e.f. 1st April, 2019 and also advertise about this last opportunity on a large scale. vii. … viii. … ix. .. x. … xi. vi. States must undertake an awareness programme amongst the teachers also, clearly indicating that this would be the last opportunity for application and enrolment to the course failing which their services will be terminated w.e.f. 1st April, 2019 and also advertise about this last opportunity on a large scale. vii. … viii. … ix. .. x. … xi. … xii. … xiii. … xiv. Teachers who do not fulfill the minimum eligibility requirement for taking admission in D.El.Ed. programme i.e., 50% in Class 12, will have to join NIOS and re-appear for the Class 12th exam to achieve the minimum qualification. They would however be eligible for provisional admission in D.El.Ed. programme of NIOS, subject to them acquiring 50% marks in Class 12 before completing the D.El.Ed programme of NI0S. This would facilitate such teachers to pursue the programmes concurrently. xv. … xvi. .. NIOS will do the following: xvii. NIOS will be disseminating clear guidelines and protocols for training of untrained teachers through the Online D.El.Ed. programme. xviii. NIOS has appointed a Nodal Officer for each State and UT and this Nodal Officer will be based in that particular State and UT only. xix. NIOS will contact the State/UT for structuring of Contact Classes. States/UTs are expected to facilitate this process. xx. NIOS will conduct a training programme/workshop by mid-August in order to guide and orient the States and UTs on translation of material, preparing audio-visual content on the material and all issues related to this training. xxi. NIOS will share the content of D.El.Ed. syllabus with the States by 1st September so that the translations of the content could begin at the state level. The course materials will be provided by NIOS but translation in local language will have to be done by the respective State and UT. xxii. For conduct of contact programmes, NIOS will provide necessary funds to the SCERTs who will be responsible for arranging the study centres and requisite teacher educators. 4. The timelines along with key milestones to ensure that the training of all in-service untrained teachers is completed by 31st March, 2019, are detailed in the table below: Timeline Key Milestones By 10th August, 2017 Appointment of a Nodal Officer by every State and UT and NIOS. NIOS has already appointed State-wise Nodal Officers and the list is enclosed. By 10th August, 2017 Development of the portal by NIOS. NIOS has already appointed State-wise Nodal Officers and the list is enclosed. By 10th August, 2017 Development of the portal by NIOS. Between 1st August, 2017 to 14th August, 2017 All States and UTs to issue advertisements in newspapers and conduct wide outreach programmes informing all teachers about the opportunity of acquiring the minimum qualifications provided through NIOS failing which their services will be terminated w.e.f. 1st April, 2019. By 16th August, 2017 Workshop by NIOS to orient States and UTs. By 20th August, 2017 States and UTs will submit complete database of all in-service untrained teachers in Government and Private Schools to NIOS. Between 16th August, 2017 to 15th September, 2017 Admission open-All Teachers to apply. 2nd October, 2017 Upload first batch of material by NIOS SWAYAM portal. 3rd October, 2017 Start of the Course. First term-3rd October, 2017 to 18th June, 2018. Second Term-25th June, 2017 to 31st March, 2019. 5. A copy of the Discussion paper on Strategy or training of untrained in-service teachers in elementary schools is enclosed for your reference. You are requested to take urgent and concerted action at your end in order to ensure that all in-service untrained teachers, acquire the minimum qualifications as prescribed by the NCTE, but within the stipulated time line i.e., 31st March, 2019. Your strategy with regard to its implementation may kindly be communicated to this office latest by 10th August, 2017.” 12. On the same day, the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of India addressed another communication to the Chairman, NIOS, conveying the decision that NIOS will be over all in-charge of conducting the online D.El.Ed. programme through the SWAYAM portal. The course will start from 3rd October, 2017, and would continue till 31st March, 2019-which was the extended period under the amended Act to acquire the minimum qualifications. The responsibilities that NIOS was expected to discharge, and the time schedule were also clearly set-out in the said communication. In tandem with the decision taken by the Government to ensure fulfillment of the legislative intent reflected in the Amendment Act, the NCTE on 22nd September, 2017 issued a recognition order. The responsibilities that NIOS was expected to discharge, and the time schedule were also clearly set-out in the said communication. In tandem with the decision taken by the Government to ensure fulfillment of the legislative intent reflected in the Amendment Act, the NCTE on 22nd September, 2017 issued a recognition order. The relevant extract thereof reads as follows:- “TO BE PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE OF INDIA PART-III, SECTION-IV File No. NRC/NCTE/NIOS/Recognition/275th (Part-3) Meeting/2017 Dated: 22nd September, 2017 RECOGNITION ORDER WHEREAS, the matter of recognition of the Project Proposal of National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) Noida for D.El.Ed. (ODL) programme through SWAYAM Portal of MHRD for training of in-service untrained teachers was considered by NRC and NRC overserved as follows:- AND WHEREAS, the NCTE has received directions under Section-29 of the NCTE Act, 1993 from the Ministry of Human Resource Development vide their letters no. 11-15/2017-EE-10 dated 21.08.2017 and 04.09.2017. The project proposal for recognition of Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) programme through ODL mode has been submitted by National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) to NCTE Headquarter). The proposal is for conducting on-line D.El.Ed. programme through the SWAYAM portal of the Ministry of HRD for the in-service untrained teachers at elementary level working in Government / Government-aided and unaided private schools in the country. AND WHEREAS, the said project proposal has been considered by an expert committee constituted by NCTE vide order dated 19.09.2017. The Committee considered the project and found that the NIOS is adequately prepared to conduct the programme and the curriculum proposed therein meets the requirement of the D.El.Ed. (ODL) programme of NCTE. AND WHEREAS, in view of above mentioned directions of the Ministry of Human Resource Development under Section-29 of the NCTE Act, 1993 and after considering the recommendation of the Expert Committee, Chairperson NCTE in exercise of his powers under clause 12 of the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014, granted relaxation vide NCTE Hqrs letter No. NCTE-Regul011/166/2017-US(Regulation)-HQ dated 21/09/2017 & letter dated 22.09.2017 to the following provisions in the NCTE Regulations-2014 for ensuring that the directives of the MHRD for implementing the amendment to the RTE Act, 2009 are duly fulfilled. I. Any provision related to on-line submission of the application on NCTE Application portal; II. I. Any provision related to on-line submission of the application on NCTE Application portal; II. Any provision related to the duration of the programme so as to reduce it to 18 months instead of 2 years and the requirement of 6 months internship to be subsumed within the duration of 18 months; III. Any requirement of minimum eligibility for admission to D.El.Ed. programme, i.e. 50% marks in class 12, to the extent that those who do not fulfill this requirement shall be allowed to take provisional admission to the programme subject to their acquiring 50% marks before completion of the D.El.Ed. programme of NIOS. IV. Any provision in the Regulations to enable NIOS to administer the programme through SWAYAM portal of MHRD; V. Any provision prescribing the number and nature of study centres to enable NIOS to cater to around 11 lakh untrained teachers; VI. Allow NIOS to operate study centres manned by staff (academic and others) as per instructions of MHRD to enable NIOS to complete the training of in-service teachers numbering around 11 lakh by 31.03.2019. VII. Any provision in Regulations restricting the intake capacity in D.El.Ed. (ODL) programme to enable NIOS to train the any required number of untrained teachers. VIII. Since almost all the states and union territories of the country are involved in the exercise of training untrained teachers, there shall be no requirement of seeking no objection certificates from individual States / UTs. IX. Besides the above relaxation, NRC may also consider imposing a condition of regular inspection / monitoring of the programme through a mechanism of inspection of centers by senior NIOS personnel or any agency deployed for the purpose, on random basis during the entire duration of the project, so as to cover all states at least once every 9 months. Report of such inspections must be submitted to the MHRD. AND WHEREAS, After having considered all the above facts and figures, the NRC considered the case in its 275th (Part-3) decided that recognition be granted to the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS), Noida for D.El.Ed. (ODL) programme through SWAYAM Portal of MHRD for training of in-service untrained teachers under Section 14 of NCTE Act, 1993 and clause 7(16) of NCTE Regulations, 2014 subject to fulfilling the following conditions. I. The duration of the said programme shall be 18 months instead of 2 years including the 6 months internship. II. (ODL) programme through SWAYAM Portal of MHRD for training of in-service untrained teachers under Section 14 of NCTE Act, 1993 and clause 7(16) of NCTE Regulations, 2014 subject to fulfilling the following conditions. I. The duration of the said programme shall be 18 months instead of 2 years including the 6 months internship. II. The requirement of minimum eligibility for admission to D.El.Ed. programme, i.e. 50% marks in class 12, to the extent that those who do not fulfill this requirement shall be allowed to take provisional admission to the programme subject to their acquiring 50% marks before completion of the D.El.Ed programme of NIOS. III. NIOS to administer the programme through SWAYAM Portal of MHRD. IV. NIOS shall operate study centres manned by staff (academic and others) as per instructions of MHRD to enable NIOS to complete the training of in-service untrained teachers numbering around 11 lakh by 31.03.2019 all over India. V. There shall be no restriction to the number and nature of study centres to enable NIOS to train the required number of untrained teachers. VI. The intake capacity at each centre shall be maximum 100. VII. Regular inspection / monitoring of the programme shall be conducted through a mechanism of inspection of centres by senior NIOS personnel or any agency deployed for the purpose, on random basis during the entire duration of the project, so as to cover all states at least once every 9 months. Report of such inspections must be submitted to the MHRD. VIII. This programme shall be only for those in-service untrained teachers in Govt. / Govt. Aided / Private unaided Schools appointed on or before 10/08/2017. IX. All the provisions in the NCTE Act & Regulations, 2014 other than those relaxed under clause 12 of NCTE Regulations, 2014, will be applicable. NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers vested under Section 14(3)(a)/15(3)(a) of the NCTE Act, 1993, the Northern Regional Committee hereby grants recognition to National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) Noida, U.P. under clause 7(16) of NCTE (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2014 for D.El.Ed. (ODL) programme through SWAYAM Portal of MHRD for training of in-service untrained teachers subject to fulfillment of the conditions mentioned above. By order (Satish Gupta) Regional Director (I/C) The Manager Govt. of India Press, Department of Publication, (Gazette Section) Civil Lines, Delhi—110 054.” (emphasis supplied) 13. (ODL) programme through SWAYAM Portal of MHRD for training of in-service untrained teachers subject to fulfillment of the conditions mentioned above. By order (Satish Gupta) Regional Director (I/C) The Manager Govt. of India Press, Department of Publication, (Gazette Section) Civil Lines, Delhi—110 054.” (emphasis supplied) 13. Thus, by the recognition order aforesaid, what the NCTE did was to grant recognition to the NIOS for conducting D.El.Ed. (OD) programme through SWAYAM Portal of MHRD for training of in-service untrained teachers subject to certain conditions. The salient conditions with which we are concerned were the following:- “I. The duration of the said programme shall be 18 months instead of 2 years including the 6 months internship. VIII. This programme shall be only for those in-service untrained teachers in Govt. / Govt. Aided / Private unaided Schools appointed on or before 10/08/2017.” 14. In the same vain, NIOS issued an office order on 16.02.2018 to conduct D.El.Ed. Project for the in-service teachers. The office order shows that about 13,63,865 trainee teachers undertook the training at an expenditure of over Rs. 68.19 crores. 15. The petitioners are also amongst those in-service teachers, who undertook the said D.El.Ed. course for untrained in-service teachers, through the ODL mode, and they have been awarded the Diploma in D.El.Ed. 16. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned decision taken by the Government of Uttarakhand is contrary to the decision of the Central Government, whereunder in-service elementary teachers were granted the opportunity to attain the qualification of two-year D.El.Ed. Programme of NIOS while continuing with their service. 17. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the impugned decision is also in the teeth of the recognition order issued by the NCTE on 22nd September, 2017. The NCTE granted relaxation to the provisions of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 for ensuring that the directives of the MHRD for implementing the amendment to the RTE Act, 2009 are fulfilled. One of the relaxations, pointedly granted, was “any provision related to the duration of the programme so as to reduce it to 18 months instead of 2 years and the requirement of 6 months internship to be subsumed within the duration of 18 months”. The recognition order makes reference to the 275th meeting of the Northern Regional Committee, wherein it decided that the recognition be granted to the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS), Noida for D.El.Ed. The recognition order makes reference to the 275th meeting of the Northern Regional Committee, wherein it decided that the recognition be granted to the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS), Noida for D.El.Ed. (ODL) programme through SWAYAM Portal of MHRD training of in-service untrained teachers under Section 14 of NCTE Act, 1993 and clause 7(16) of NCTE Regulations, 2014, subject to fulfillment of several conditions, including, that “the duration of the said programme shall be 18 months instead of 2 years including the 6 months internship”. He further submits that this recognition order was also marked to the Manager, Government of India Press, Department of Publications, (Gazette Section) for being gazetted. 18. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the stand taken by the respondent-Government of Uttarakhand was also the stand taken by the State of Bihar, and the State of Tripura, which has already been judicially considered and rejected by the two High Courts, namely, the Patna High Court and the Tripura High Court. He has placed on record these decisions. He submits that in Sanjay Kumar Yadav and others vs. State of Bihar and others, CWJC No. 19842 of 2019, decided on 21.01.2020 by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court, the said High Court rejected and quashed a similar order / letter issued by the Government of Bihar, which stated that service of teachers / candidates working in Government Schools / Government aided/ private unaided Schools, who have completed D.El.Ed. training through National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) during their service, will not be valid / considered for selection of primary teachers in the Government of Bihar on the basis of the letter issued by the NCTE on 06.09.2019. The Patna High Court, after referring to the aforesaid Recognition Order dated 22.09.2017, proceeded to hold as follows:- “15. Thus, I find that on such misrepresentation and misreading of the clarification issued by the NCTE, the Director, Primary Education has illegally issued direction that the persons who had obtained D.El.Ed. course duly run for 18 months by NIOS are not eligible for appointment on the post of teachers in primary schools and thus, the letter as contained in Annexure-11 is illegal, unsustainable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly, Annexure-11 is set aside. 16. The writ petitions are allowed. course duly run for 18 months by NIOS are not eligible for appointment on the post of teachers in primary schools and thus, the letter as contained in Annexure-11 is illegal, unsustainable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly, Annexure-11 is set aside. 16. The writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to apply within one month and consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on the post of primary teachers.” 19. In Sri Raju Nama and others vs. the State of Tripura and others, W.P.(C) No. 87 of 2020, decided along with W.P.(C) Nos. 88 of 2020 and 102 of 2020 on 12/13.03.2020, the then Chief Justice of the Tripura High Court dealt with the same issue. The petitioners before the Tripura High Court, inter alia, sought a direction for issuance of Tripura Teachers’ Eligibility Test 2018 Certificate in their favour. The Authorities in the State of Tripura had the same reservations, as were entertained by the State of Bihar-and are also entertained by the State of Uttarakhand, namely, that the duration of the D.El.Ed. course undergone by the in-service elementary teachers through ODL mode with NIOS was of 18 months, whereas, for being eligible to undertake the TTET course, the D.El.Ed. course must be of minimum duration of 24 months. The decision of the Patna High Court in Sanjay Kumar Yadav (supra) was relied upon by the petitioners before the Tripura High Court. The learned Judge referred to the recognition order issued by the NCTE dated 22.09.2017 granting recognition to NIOS, Noida for conduct of the D.El.Ed. (ODL) programme for training of in-service untrained teachers, subject to fulfillment of the stipulated conditions. The learned Judge went on to observe as follows:- “15. From the above materials, it can be clearly seen that the body authorized to prescribe the minimum standards of education qualifications for a trained teacher and one authorized to prescribe the minimum norms for imparting education in such programme, has recognized the ODL programme offered by NIOS for D.El.Ed. course. This was subject to certain specific conditions including that the duration of the said programme would be of 18 months instead of two years including 6 months of internship. course. This was subject to certain specific conditions including that the duration of the said programme would be of 18 months instead of two years including 6 months of internship. The background leading to such recognition order would indicate that such limited relaxation was granted in the duration of the course particularly, bearing in mind the decision of the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development to specify NIOS as the agency to impart the training in the said course and to complete the training of in-service teachers numbering to close to 11 lakhs across the country latest by 31.03.2019. 16. NCTE was thus dealing with an extraordinary situation where on one hand the Government of India had declared its decision not to extend the period for acquiring minimum educational qualifications for a trained teacher beyond 31.03.2019. At the same time, across the country there were lakhs of teachers, who had yet not completed such training. The time left before 31.03.2019 would not permit imparting such training over full two years of duration. It was therefore that while granting permission to NIOS to crunch the programme within 18 months, other safeguards w ere provided. 17. If we accept the opposition of the State Government to the validity of the qualifications acquired by the petitioners on the ground that the programme duration was 18 months against that envisaged of a full term of 24 months, the entire purpose of the NCTE in recognizing such course as onetime extraordinary measure looking to the unusual emergent situation, would frustrate. In plain terms, the State Government has no authority to overrule or discard the decision of NCTE in the field. In any case, the State Government policy cannot be at loggerheads with that of the Union Government and its statutorily constituted body in the legislative field which falls in the concurrent list.” 20. The learned Judge further observed that in anticipation that the petitioners would acquire the minimum qualifications of D.El.Ed. certificate, they were allowed to undertake the T-TET course. They have duly completed the D.El.Ed. certificate course. They must therefore be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their having cleared the T-TET examination also. The objection of the State Government that the basic qualification of D.El.Ed. certificate, they were allowed to undertake the T-TET course. They have duly completed the D.El.Ed. certificate course. They must therefore be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their having cleared the T-TET examination also. The objection of the State Government that the basic qualification of D.El.Ed. was obtained by the petitioners from an Institute, which offered the course over duration of 18 months instead of 24 months envisaged as per the Regulations, was overruled. 21. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the Communication dated 16.12.2020, issued by the Ministry of Education, Department of School Education and Literacy, addressed to the Chairperson, NCTE on the subject “Request of TET, D.El.Ed. by NIOS cleared candidates of Uttarakhand State to allow them to apply for new vacancies of Assistant Teachers declared by the state in line of the State of Bihar”. The said communication was issued in the light of the representation / letter dated 16.11.2020, received from an Association of elementary teachers, like the petitioners, who had completed the D.El.Ed. from NIOS through ODL mode, while they were in service. The said Association sought the relief that they may be made eligible to apply for the new vacancies declared by the State in line with the State of Bihar. After making reference to the aforesaid decision of the Patna High Court, which the Government of India and the NCTE had accepted and decided not to appeal against, the NCTE was requested “to issue a clarification to all states and UTs those candidates who have completed the D.El.Ed. course of NIOS (ODL mode) may be given opportunity to apply for fresh recruitment at par with the other D.El.Ed. candidates subject to adherence to all the other criteria and qualification requirements, such as passing of TET etc., as per the NCTE notification dated 23.08.2010 (as amended from time to time) and any other as mandated by the State. This would avoid unnecessary future references /court cases on this issue. A copy of the clarification issued may also be forwarded to this Ministry.” (emphasis supplied) 22. In pursuance of the aforesaid communication from the Government of India, the NCTE issued a Communication on 06.01.2021, addressed to the Chief Secretaries of all States/ Union Territories Government, stating that “the NCTE has already decided to accept the verdict of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Yadav & Ors. In pursuance of the aforesaid communication from the Government of India, the NCTE issued a Communication on 06.01.2021, addressed to the Chief Secretaries of all States/ Union Territories Government, stating that “the NCTE has already decided to accept the verdict of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19842 of 2019). Therefore you are request to consider all those candidates who have completed the D.El.Ed course of NIOS (ODL mode) and may be given opportunity to apply for fresh recruitment at par with the other D.El.Ed candidates subject to adherence to all the other criteria and qualification requirements, such as passing of TET etc., as per the NCTE notification dated 23.08.2010 (as amended from time to time) and any other as mandated by the State.” (emphasis supplied) 23. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Government of Uttarakhand also accepted the decision conveyed by the NCTE in its letter dated 06.01.2021 vide its communication bearing No. 103/XXIV-A-1/2021-18/2018 T.C. dated 15.01.2021. The said communication was addressed to the Director, Primary Education, Uttarakhand. Learned counsel submits that on 29.12.2020, the Government of Uttarakhand issued an advertisement inviting applications from the eligible candidates to fill-up the vacancies of Assistant Teacher-Grade-III (Pay-scale 35400-112400 Level-6) in Government Primary Schools of District Pauri under the provisions prescribed in the Government Primary Education (Teacher) Service Rules, 2012 in continuation of the letter No. /Prav.Shi.-Two(2)/419-2019/9950/2020-21 dated 9th November, 2020 of the Director, Primary Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. This communication, inter alia, states that every kind of selection process would be done as per the provisions prescribed in the Uttarakhand Primary Education (Teacher) Service Rules, 2012 (as amended). 24. The petitioners submitted their applications in response to the aforesaid advertisement. However, on 10.02.2021, the respondent-Government of Uttarakhand issued the impugned order cancelling the earlier order dated 15.01.2021 on the same ground, namely, that the in-service elementary teachers had undergone only of 18 months and not of 24 months’ D.El.Ed. programme conducted by NIOS through ODL mode. Therefore, they were not treated to be eligible. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the Government of Uttarakhand is bound by the decision taken by the Central Government to authorize NIOS to conduct the D.El.Ed. programme conducted by NIOS through ODL mode. Therefore, they were not treated to be eligible. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the Government of Uttarakhand is bound by the decision taken by the Central Government to authorize NIOS to conduct the D.El.Ed. 18 months’ programme through ODL mode, and is also bound by the recognition granted to the said course by the NCTE. He submits that “education” is covered by Entry-25 of List-III to the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Since the Parliament has not only legislated by framing the NCTE Act, but the Central Government has also taken an executive decision on the subject, the State Government cannot act contrary to the said decision of the Central Government. Learned Senior Counsel has referred to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Uttarakhand and others vs. Harish Chandra and another, Special Appeal No. 2389 of 2018, decided on 27.04.2018. In this case, the writ petitioners-who were the respondents in the Special Appeal, had undergone the two-year D.El.Ed. programme with TET qualification. They challenged the condition imposed by the Government of Uttarakhand with the insertion of Rule 9(ka)(ii) and Rule 15(i) in the Uttarakhand Government Elementary Education School (Teachers) Service Rules, 2012, and Rule 9(ka)(ii)-as amended by Uttarahand Government Elementary Education School (Teachers) Service (Amendment) Rules, 2013 dated 20.07.2013. The effect of the impugned Rule was that, to be eligible to apply for a post of elementary teacher in the State of Uttarakhand, the candidate should have obtained two-year D.El.Ed. Diploma from the Institutes in the State of Uttarakhand. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, and directed that the applications of the writ petitioners, who had obtained the D.El.Ed. Diploma from outside the State of Uttarakhand, be accepted. The Division Bench rejected the Special Appeal preferred by the State of Uttarakhand, while observing as follows:- “4. …NCTE is a body under Section 23 of the Right to Education Act. It has laid down qualifications. There is no requirement in the qualifications, which have been prescribed, that the same should be one, which is obtained only from institutions in the State. As long as it is recognized by NCTE, it may not be open to the State to stipulate, by its Rules, that only the qualifications obtained from the State alone will be accepted. There is no requirement in the qualifications, which have been prescribed, that the same should be one, which is obtained only from institutions in the State. As long as it is recognized by NCTE, it may not be open to the State to stipulate, by its Rules, that only the qualifications obtained from the State alone will be accepted. The learned Single Judge has noticed that this is not a case, where a higher qualification is fixed. In such circumstances, it may not be open to the State to stipulate for the matter as provided. Therefore, on this basis, we see no reason to interfere.” 25. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak, (2018) 12 SCC 595. The Supreme Court was examining the question of validity of the decision taken by the State of U.P. in prescribing qualifications for recruitment of teachers at variance with the guidelines of the NCTE dated 11th February, 2011 under Section 12(d) read with Section 12A of the NCTE Act, 1993 and Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 on the ground of repugnancy of State law with the Central law on a subject falling in concurrent list. The State of U.P. took a decision on 26th July, 2012, which also led to amendment of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 on 31st August, 2012, to the effect, that instead of giving weightage to the TET marks (in tune with the guidelines issued by the NCTE for conduct of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) and for providing weightage to the marks in the said test for recruitment of teachers), the criteria of “quality point marks” as prevalent earlier, was adopted. This amendment was challenged as it rendered the rules inconsistent with the NCTE guidelines. The writ petitions preferred by the petitioners were dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench, however, allowed the intra-Court Appeals. This is how the matter landed before the Supreme Court. 26. This amendment was challenged as it rendered the rules inconsistent with the NCTE guidelines. The writ petitions preferred by the petitioners were dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench, however, allowed the intra-Court Appeals. This is how the matter landed before the Supreme Court. 26. It was contended on behalf of the State of U.P. before the Supreme Court that “while it was permissible for the Central Government to lay down eligibility qualification for appointment of a teacher for elementary education by virtue of Section 23 of the RTE Act, the NCTE could not lay down any guideline so as to affect the power of a State to prescribe norms for selection of a teacher consistent with the qualifications under Section 23 of the RTE Act”. 27. The original writ-petitioners, however, relied upon on the fact that the subject of education falls under Entry 25 of List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Therefore, by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution, the law made by the Parliament would prevail over any law made by the State. The NCTE Act had been enacted by the Parliament to achieve ‘planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system’. The NCTE was empowered to issue guidelines under Sections 12 and 12A for ensuring planned and coordinated development of teacher education and also to lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher. Under Section 23 of the Right to Education Act, the Central Government had authorised the NCTE as the “academic authority” to lay down minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal preferred by the State of U.P. while observing as follows:- “16. There is no manner of doubt that the NCTE, acting as an ‘academic authority’ under Section 23 of the RTE Act, under the Notification dated 31st March, 2010 issued by the Central Government as well as under Sections 12 and 12A of the NCTE Act, was competent to issue Notifications dated 23rd August, 2010 and 11th February, 2011. The State Government was under obligation to act as per the said notifications and not to give effect to any contrary rule. The State Government was under obligation to act as per the said notifications and not to give effect to any contrary rule. However, since NCTE itself has taken the stand that notification dated 11th February, 2011 with regard to the weightage to be given to the marks obtained in TET is not mandatory which is also a possible interpretation, the view of the High Court in quashing the 15th Amendment to the 1981 Rules has to be interfered with. Accordingly, while we uphold the view that qualifications prescribed by the NCTE are binding, requirement of weightage to TET marks is not a mandatory requirement.” (emphasis supplied) 28. Thus, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners concluded his submission by submitting that in the light of the aforesaid well settled legal position, the action of the respondent-State in recalling its earlier decision dated 15.01.2021 was illegal. 29. On the other hand, the submission of Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, who appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, is that the minimum qualifications are required to be notified by the Central Government under Section 23(1) of the Act. He submits that the Central Government has not published in the Official Gazette the minimum qualification, namely, D.El.Ed. obtained from NIOS through the ODL mode under the 18 months’ programme as the minimum qualification for an Assistant Teacher (Primary). 30. We may, at this stage itself, deal with this submission. Section 23 of the Act has been reproduced here-in-above. At the cost of repetition, we reproduce Sub-section (1) of Section 23, which reads as follows : “23(1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher”. 31. On a plain reading of the above provision, it is clear that the reference to the Notification by the Central Government is not to the minimum qualifications, but to the academic authority authorised by the Central Government which is empowered to lay down the minimum qualifications to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. This is the plain meaning of Section 23(1) of the Act. It is not even the respondents’ case that the NCTE is not the authorised academic authority under Section 23(1) of the Act. This is the plain meaning of Section 23(1) of the Act. It is not even the respondents’ case that the NCTE is not the authorised academic authority under Section 23(1) of the Act. The above submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is contrary to the observations of the Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak (supra), which we have quoted above. The minimum qualification has to be laid down by the academic authority authorized by the Central Government, and not by the Central Government itself. It is the academic authority which has to be authorized by notification. It does not stand to reason that when an academic authority has been authorized by the Central Government, the Central Government should lay down the minimum qualification of teachers, and not the authorized academic authority. Therefore, we reject this submission of the respondents. 32. The next submission of leaned Deputy Advocate General for the State is that the Recognition Order dated 22.09.2017 has not been published in the Official Gazette, and consequently, the relaxation of the NCTE Regulations -2014 qua the 18 month D.El.Ed. programme conducted by NIOS through the ODL mode has not taken effect. He submits that the NCTE had earlier issued the Notification under Section 23(1) of the Act laying down the minimum qualifications required for a teacher to teach Classes I to VIII, and the minimum qualifications for teachers to be eligible to teach Classes I to V were those set out in the Notification dated 23.08.2010, which have been extracted in para 8 here-in-above. His submission is that if the minimum qualifications have to be relaxed, the same can be done only through a Notification published in the Gazette. It is, thus, argued that the State Government is not obliged to take cognizance of the Recognition Order dated 22.09.2017, and it is the Notification dated 23.08.2010, which is binding and enforceable. That notification prescribes the minimum qualification as a 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education. 33. Learned counsel for the interveners has also opposed the present petition. He submits that the NCTE framed the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Persons to be recruited as Education Teachers and Physical Education Teachers in Pre-primary, Primary, Upper Primary, Secondary, Senior Secondary and Intermediate Schools or Colleges) Regulations, 2014. 33. Learned counsel for the interveners has also opposed the present petition. He submits that the NCTE framed the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Persons to be recruited as Education Teachers and Physical Education Teachers in Pre-primary, Primary, Upper Primary, Secondary, Senior Secondary and Intermediate Schools or Colleges) Regulations, 2014. He submits that under Regulation 4 of these Regulations, the qualification for recruitment of teachers in any recognised school imparting Pre-primary, Primary, Upper Primary, Secondary, Senior Secondary and Intermediate Schools or Colleges imparting Senior Secondary education shall be as given in the First and Second Schedules annexed to these Regulations. Regulation 5 contains the power to relax. It states that where the Council is satisfied, on receipt of reference from the concerned State Government that special circumstances exist warranting relaxation of some of the provisions of the Regulations, it may grant relaxation of that provision to such extent, for such time period and subject to such conditions and limitations as it may consider necessary, in a just and equitable manner, provided that no relaxation shall be granted under these Regulations with regard to the minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers for Level 3 (Classes I to VIII) as specified in the First Schedule. Thus no relaxation can be granted by the Council in respect of the minimum qualifications required of teachers of Level 3, who have to teach Classes I to VIII, as specified in First Schedule. He also places reliance on Section 14(4) of the NCTE Act. Section 14 deals with the aspect of recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education, and Sub-section (4) thereof states that every order granting recognition to an institution for a course or training in a teacher education shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government. 34. Learned Senior Counsel for the interveners has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Satyapal Reddy and others Vs Government of A.P. and others, (1994) 4 SCC 391 , to submit that it is open to the State Government to prescribe higher qualification for appointment of elementary school teachers in the State of Uttarakhand. 34. Learned Senior Counsel for the interveners has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Satyapal Reddy and others Vs Government of A.P. and others, (1994) 4 SCC 391 , to submit that it is open to the State Government to prescribe higher qualification for appointment of elementary school teachers in the State of Uttarakhand. His submission is that the eligibility qualifications prescribed by the NCTE are the minimum qualifications, and it is, therefore, open to the State of Uttarakhand to prescribe that the D.El.Ed. education / programme should have been undergone for a minimum period of two years, and that the D.El.Ed. programme undergone by the in-service teachers through ODL mode, conducted by NIOS, is not considered sufficient. 35. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the Regulations framed by the NCTE, called the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014, dated 28.11.2014. Regulation 9 stipulates that every institution offering the programmes shown in the table shall have to comply with the norms and standards for various teacher education programmes as specified in Appendix 1 to Appendix 15. At serial No. 9 of the table “Diploma in elementary education programme through Open and Distance Learning System leading to Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.)” is enlisted which refers to Appendix 9, where in the norms and standards for the said programme, and the qualifications have been laid down. Regulation 12 of these Regulations contains the power to relax, which reads as follows : “12. Power to relax. –(1) On the recommendations of the Central Government, or State Government, or Union Territory Administration concerned, or in cases for removal of any hardship caused in adhering to the provisions in these regulations, keeping in view the circumstances peculiar to the said Governments or Union Territory, it shall be open to the Chairperson, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to relax any of the provisions of these regulations, in respect of any class or category of institutions, in the concerned State or Union Territory, or of Central Government institutions to such a extent and subject to such conditions, as may be specified in the order and decisions shall be brought to the notice of the Council in the next meeting. In exceptional cases and for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Chairperson, shall be competent to relax any of the provisions of these regulations and the related norms and standards subject to its ratification by the Council.” (emphasis supplied) 36. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the duration of the aforesaid course is stipulated in Clause 3 of Appendix 9, which is two years or more. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Recognition Order dated 22.09.2017 specifically refers to Clause 12 of the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014, and, therefore, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the interveners on the Notification dated 12.11.2014, notifying the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Persons to be recruited as Education Teachers and Physical Education Teachers in Pre-primary, Primary, Upper Primary, Secondary, Senior Secondary or Intermediate Schools or Colleges) Regulations 2014, is of no avail. The Recognition Norms and Procedure Regulations, 2014, framed by NCTE, are later in point of time, and specifically deal with the situation at hand, and, therefore, they are the Regulations, which are applicable and attracted to the situation. 37. The submission of the learned Deputy Advocate General that the recognition order dated 22.09.2017 has not been published in the official gazette and, consequently, the relaxation of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 qua the 18 months’ DLED programme conducted by the NIOS through the ODL mode, has not taken effect, has no merit. 38. Section 29 of the NCTE Act states that the Council shall, in the discharge of its functions and duties under this Act, be bound by such directions on questions of policy as the Central Government may give in writing to it from time to time, and the decision of the Central Government as to whether a question is one of policy or not shall be final. One cannot lose sight of the fact that it was the Central Government, which piloted the Bill in the Parliament for amendment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which led to the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017. One cannot lose sight of the fact that it was the Central Government, which piloted the Bill in the Parliament for amendment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which led to the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017. It was the policy of the Central Government, which received Parliamentary assent to mandate that every teacher appointed, or in position as on the 31st March, 2015, who does not possess minimum qualifications, as laid down by the academic authority, namely the NCTE, shall acquire such minimum qualifications by 31st March, 2019. 39. With a view to achieve the said objective, the Central Government addressed the Communication dated 03.08.2017 to all States as taken note of hereinabove in Paragraph 11. The Central Government rolled-out a complete roadmap with a view to achieve the objective of the in-service teachers acquiring the minimum qualifications prescribed by the NCTE-the authorised academic authority. The minimum qualifications prescribed by the NCTE for Assistant Teachers (Primary), qualified to teach Classes 1 to 8, include the two-year Diploma in Elementary Education. On the same day, i.e. on 03.08.2017, the Central Government also directed the NIOS to conduct the online DLED programme through the Swayam portal, which would start from 3rd October, 2017, and continue till 31st March, 2019. Thus, the policy of the Central Government to enable the acquisition of the minimum qualification by the in-service teachers by providing 18 months’ training through the ODL mode by the NIOS was binding on the NCTE. The Recognition Order dated 22nd September, 2017 refers to the directions received by the NCTE from the Ministry of Human Resource Development vide its letter dated 21.08.2017. It refers to the proposal for recognition of Diploma in Elementary Education (D.EL.ED. Programme) through the ODL mode submitted by the NIOS. The Expert Committee of the NCTE considered the said proposal, and found that the NIOS is adequately prepared to conduct the programme and the curriculum proposed therein meets the requirement of the D.El.Ed. (ODL) programme of NCTE. The Chairperson of the NCTE exercised his powers under Regulation 12 of the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 to grant relaxation in the provisions of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 for ensuring that the directives of the MHRD for implementing the amendment to the RTE Act, 2009 are duly fulfilled. 40. (ODL) programme of NCTE. The Chairperson of the NCTE exercised his powers under Regulation 12 of the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 to grant relaxation in the provisions of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 for ensuring that the directives of the MHRD for implementing the amendment to the RTE Act, 2009 are duly fulfilled. 40. We have already quoted hereinabove Regulation 12 of the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014. The said Regulation contains the power to relax vested in the Chairperson of the NCTE. Reading of Regulation 12 does not reveal that there is any prescription that the order of relaxation, or, for that matter, an order of recognition, should be notified in the official gazette. 41. We find force in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that it is the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014, which are relevant for the present purpose. Regulation 9 thereof stipulates that every institution offering the programme shown in the table shall have to comply with the norms and standards for various teacher education programme as specified in Appendix 1 to Appendix 15. At Serial No. 9 of the table “Diploma in elementary education programme through Open and Distance Learning System leading to Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.)” is enlisted, which refers to Appendix 9, wherein the norms and standards for the said programme / qualifications have been laid down. 42. For the aforesaid reasons, reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the interveners on the Notification dated 12.11.2014, which notified the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Persons to be recruited as Education Teachers and Physical Education Teachers in Pre-primary, Primary, Upper Primary, Secondary, Senior Secondary or Intermediate Schools or Colleges) Regulations, 2014, is of no avail. The NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 having been framed on 28.11.2014 are later in point of time to the Regulations relied upon by the learned counsel for the interveners, which were framed on 12.11.2014. 43. In our view, it is the later Notifications, which would prevail, also because, they specifically deal with the D.El.Ed. qualification. 44. Thus, merely because the Recognition Order may not have been notified in the official gazette, it does not lose its force. 45. 43. In our view, it is the later Notifications, which would prevail, also because, they specifically deal with the D.El.Ed. qualification. 44. Thus, merely because the Recognition Order may not have been notified in the official gazette, it does not lose its force. 45. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the interveners on Section 14(4) of the NCTE Act is misplaced, since that deals with the aspect of Notification in the official gazette of an order granting recognition to the institution for conduct of a course or training in teacher education. This is not the issue before us. 46. The submission of the learned counsel for the interveners, founded upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Satyapal Reddy (supra), is also misplaced. This is for the reason that the 18 months’ D.El.Ed. programme undergone by the petitioners, and other in-service teachers through the ODL mode as conducted by the NIOS is not, and cannot be considered as a lower qualification when compared to the two-years’ D.El.Ed. programme. The Recognition Order, inter alia, states that “Any provision related to the duration of the programme so as to reduce it to 18 months instead of 2 years and the requirement of 6 months internship to be subsumed within the duration of 18 months;” 47. Thus, what the Recognition Order dated 22nd September, 2017 does is to recognize the 18 months’ D.El.Ed. programme undergone by the in-service untrained teachers of Government /Government aided / private unaided Schools, through the ODL mode conducted by the NIOS as equivalent to and same as the two-year D.El.Ed. programme. 48. Consequently, it cannot be said that the 18 months’ D.El.Ed. programme undergone by in-service teachers through the ODL mode as conducted by the NIOS is a lower or inferior qualification as compared to the two-year D.El.Ed. programme. The two-year D.El.Ed. programme cannot be considered as a higher qualification. 49. We also find merit in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the matter is squarely covered by the decisions of the Patna High Court and the Tripura High Court taken note of hereinabove. We respectfully agree with the said decisions. 50. programme. The two-year D.El.Ed. programme cannot be considered as a higher qualification. 49. We also find merit in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the matter is squarely covered by the decisions of the Patna High Court and the Tripura High Court taken note of hereinabove. We respectfully agree with the said decisions. 50. We are also of the view that in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak (supra), the State Government is bound to act as per the directions and orders issued by the NCTE, which is constituted under a Central legislation, and is recognized by the Central Government as the academic authority under Section 23 of the RTE Act. The qualifications prescribed by the NCTE for teachers, inter alia, teaching primary classes are binding on the State Government and, therefore, the State Government cannot insist that the Assistant Teachers (Primary) in the State should have undergone the two-years’ D.El.Ed. programme. In respect of the in-service teachers, who have undergone the 18 months’ D.El.Ed. programme conducted by the NIOS through the ODL mode, the State Government cannot seek to discriminate by debarring them from offering their candidatures for the posts of Assistant Teachers (Primary) in the State of Uttarakhand. The impugned Communication / Order bearing No. 236/XXIV-A/1/2021/18/2018 T.C. dated 10.02.2021, issued by the Secretary, Department of Elementary Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, therefore, cannot be sustained, and we, accordingly, quash the same. 51. We allow all the writ petitions, and hold that the 18 month D.El.Ed. Training Diploma conducted through the ODL mode in elementary education by the NIOS is a valid Diploma for applying against the regular posts of Assistant Teachers (Primary) in the State of Uttarakhand. The respondents shall, therefore, consider the candidatures of the petitioners for the said posts on the basis of the applications made by them pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Department of Elementary Education, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. The petitioners shall be entitled to the costs quantified at Rs. 2,000/- each to be paid by the respondent No. 1, i.e. the State of Uttarakhand within four weeks.