Devesh Sharma vs. Union of India and Ors.
Background
The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) issued a notification in 2018, on the Central Government's direction, making B.Ed. degree holders eligible for appointment as primary school teachers (Classes I-V) alongside candidates holding the traditional Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.). When Rajasthan advertised its teacher eligibility test in 2021, it excluded B.Ed. holders, and B.Ed.-qualified candidate Devesh Sharma challenged this exclusion before the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court instead struck down the underlying 2018 NCTE notification itself, holding B.Ed. candidates unqualified for primary teaching, which led to this batch of appeals and connected writ petitions from multiple states reaching the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Court held that the NCTE's 2018 notification was not an independent expert decision at all, but merely followed a Central Government policy direction under Section 29 of the NCTE Act, and even though policy decisions are ordinarily given deference, courts must intervene when a policy is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to the law it purports to serve. The Court found the decision to add B.Ed. as a qualification was self-contradictory on its face: the very notification also required B.Ed. holders to complete a mandatory six-month "Bridge Course" in elementary education, effectively admitting that a B.Ed. degree alone does not properly prepare a teacher for primary classes. It held this ran counter to the Right to Education Act's mandate of "quality" education and Article 21A of the Constitution, especially since sufficient properly-trained D.El.Ed. diploma holders were already available. The Rajasthan High Court's quashing of the 2018 notification was upheld, and all connected appeals were dismissed, though the Court also noted the Rajasthan government had itself erred by unilaterally ignoring the (then still valid) notification before it was judicially set aside, rather than seeking a stay.
Lesson Learnt
A government policy, even one framed through an expert regulatory body, is not immune from judicial review if it is internally inconsistent, arbitrary, or defeats the very statutory purpose it claims to serve; and a government authority cannot unilaterally disregard a still-valid official notification just because it disagrees with it. It must have the notification stayed or set aside first.