The Supreme Court has set aside an order directing the reinstatement of a Bihar teacher, holding that his eligibility had to be assessed under the recruitment rules governing his appointment in 2007. The fact that his teacher training certificate had been issued before the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) framework came into force did not, by itself, establish his eligibility under those rules.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu allowed the Bihar government’s appeal against the Patna High Court’s decision granting reinstatement with all consequential benefits, including monetary benefits.
Buy Now: 90+ Supreme Court Judgments – September 2026
Kumar obtained a Senior Teacher Training Certificate from Dr. B. C. Roy College of Education, Calcutta, in January 1995. The NCTE Act came into force on July 1, 1995.
He was subsequently appointed as a Trained Block Teacher on September 11, 2007, on the strength of that certificate.
In October 2015, the District Programme Officer found that the certificate had been issued by an unrecognised institution. A show-cause notice followed on November 26, 2015, asking Kumar and three other teachers to explain why their services should not be terminated.
In his response, Kumar argued that he had acquired the qualification before the NCTE Act became operational. He also submitted that the college was registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961, and that another teacher holding a certificate from the same institution continued in service.
His services were terminated on December 2, 2015.
Kumar initially approached the Patna High Court, which directed him to pursue the remedy available before the District Teacher Appellate Authority without examining the merits.
On February 20, 2016, the District Teacher Appellate Authority set aside the termination and directed his reinstatement with consequential benefits.
However, the State Appellate Authority reversed that decision on September 16, 2022. It relied on earlier judicial proceedings concerning the recognition and validity of certificates issued by the institution.
A Single Judge of the Patna High Court subsequently rejected Kumar’s challenge on November 10, 2022.
The High Court’s Division Bench took a different view. By its judgment dated July 8, 2025, it allowed his appeal and directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits, to be granted within four months.
The Division Bench reasoned that Kumar possessed the training certificate before the NCTE Act came into force. It also noted the absence of material from the competent authorities in West Bengal establishing that the institution was unrecognised or that the certificate was invalid.
The Bihar government challenged this reinstatement order before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the earlier litigation surrounding certificates issued by Dr. B. C. Roy College of Education and other institutions.
It noted that earlier judicial scrutiny had included observations about common certificate formats, identical signatures and overlapping institutional addresses. However, the Court also acknowledged that the High Court had lacked adequate assistance from the parties and cogent material to conclusively determine whether the certificates were fake.
The Bench referred to Seema Kumari & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2006) 12 SCC 215, in which the Supreme Court had set aside observations and findings made by the Jharkhand High Court concerning those institutions.
The present appeal was ultimately decided on a separate ground: whether Kumar possessed the statutory qualification required when he was appointed in 2007. The Supreme Court did not make a fresh finding that his certificate was forged.
The Bench examined Rule 8(a) of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006.
The rule prescribed, among the qualifying routes, a two-year teacher training diploma or certificate from an institution recognised by NCTE, or the other qualifications specified in the provision.
The reproduced rule also contained a provision for first employment covering certain candidates who had acquired qualifications before the NCTE Act came into force, referring to training obtained from a recognised training school or college.
On the facts before it, however, the Supreme Court held that Kumar did not satisfy the applicable eligibility requirement. It noted that his appointment was admittedly governed by the 2006 Rules and that his certificate was not from an NCTE-recognised institution.
The Court consequently found that he was ineligible on the date of his appointment as a Trained Block Teacher.
The Supreme Court rejected the Division Bench’s reasoning that the NCTE framework had no application merely because the certificate predated July 1, 1995.
It explained that eligibility for appointment to public office is assessed on the last date for submitting applications or, at the latest, on the date of appointment.
Kumar’s appointment took place in September 2007 under the 2006 Rules. His eligibility therefore had to be examined against the requirements applicable to that recruitment.
The Bench held that the High Court had erred in treating the date on which the certificate was issued as sufficient to remove the appointment from the governing qualification requirements.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
