The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the eligibility of a candidate for appointment to a public office must be assessed as on the last date of submission of application forms or at latest by the date of appointment. Setting aside a Division Bench order of the Patna High Court that had directed the reinstatement of a Trained Block Teacher whose training certificate lacked recognition from the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), a Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that the candidate did not meet the statutory eligibility requirements in force at the time of his selection in 2007.
Background of the Case
The respondent, Nandeshwar Kumar, was issued a Senior Teacher Training Certificate by Dr. B. C. Roy College of Education, Calcutta, on January 2, 1995. Several months later, on July 1, 1995, the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act) was brought into force.
On September 11, 2007, the respondent was appointed as a Trained Block Teacher under the provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006.
However, on October 31, 2015, the District Programme Officer found that the respondent’s teacher training certificate had been issued by an unrecognized institution. A show-cause notice was subsequently issued to him on November 26, 2015, asking why his services should not be terminated.
The respondent replied on November 28, 2015, contending that his educational qualification was acquired before the NCTE Act came into force, that the college was registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961, and that another candidate holding a certificate from the same institution continued to serve in the post. Unpersuaded by the explanation, the authorities terminated the respondent’s services on December 2, 2015.
Procedural History
The respondent challenged his termination before the High Court of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No. 14676 of 2022. Earlier, in CWJC No. 19322 of 2015, the High Court had disposed of the matter without examining merits, directing the respondent to approach the District Teacher Appellate Authority.
On February 20, 2016, the District Teacher Appellate Authority set aside the termination and directed his reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
The State Appellate Authority reversed that order on September 16, 2022, placing reliance on:
- An order dated September 14, 2012, in LPA No. 244 of 2011, which found that Dr. B. C. Roy College of Education, Calcutta, was recognized neither by the NCTE nor by the Government of Bihar.
- A Division Bench decision of the Jharkhand High Court dated March 30, 2005, in LPA No. 235 of 2004, which had assessed certificates issued by nine institutes, including Dr. B. C. Roy College of Education, through a self-assessment exercise and noted that the institute existed only on paper, with identical certificate formats, principal signatures, and common examiner signatures across several institutes.
Aggrieved by the State Appellate Authority’s decision, the respondent approached a Single Bench of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 14676 of 2022, which dismissed his plea on November 10, 2022.
The respondent then preferred an intra-court appeal (LPA No. 669 of 2022). On July 8, 2025, the Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge’s order, and directed the respondent’s reinstatement with consequential and monetary benefits within four months. The Division Bench reasoned that the NCTE Act had prospective effect from July 1, 1995, and had no application to a certificate issued in January 1995, further observing that the State had not verified from the competent authorities in West Bengal whether the college was recognized or genuine.
The State of Bihar then appealed the Division Bench’s judgment before the Supreme Court.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that on two earlier occasions, courts had engaged in self-assessment regarding the validity of certificates issued by Dr. B. C. Roy College of Education due to lack of assistance from litigating parties. The Court referenced the decision in Seema Kumari & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (2006) 12 SCC 215, where the Apex Court had set aside observations and findings made by the Jharkhand High Court in LPA No. 235 of 2004 that expressed doubt regarding the genuineness of such institutions.
Notwithstanding that history, the Supreme Court emphasized a decisive statutory impediment that governed the respondent’s appointment. Under Rule 8(a) of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, the prescribed eligibility for a Block Teacher mandated:
“Two-year teacher training, diploma or certificate from a training institute recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (N.C.T.E.) or Graduate in Elementary Education (B.L. Ed.) Or B. Ed or equivalent qualification.”
The Court observed that although the respondent held a certificate, the issuing institute was not recognized by the NCTE because the NCTE Act had not yet come into force when the certificate was issued in January 1995. However, since the 2006 Rules governed the recruitment when the respondent was appointed in September 2007, possession of an NCTE-recognized qualification was a statutory requirement.
Critiquing the approach of the High Court Division Bench, the Supreme Court stated:
“This view taken in the impugned order is misplaced, inasmuch as, the eligibility of a candidate for appointment to any public office is seen on the last date of submission of application forms or at best latest by the date of appointment, which clearly stipulated that the same is being offered to respondent in terms of Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. It goes without saying that as mentioned above, the eligibility of becoming a Trained Block Teacher was diploma/certificate from an institute recognized by N.C.T.E., which the respondent at the relevant point of time did not possess.”
The Bench concluded that:
“Be that as it may, we are of the considered opinion that the candidature of respondent could not have been considered as eligible under the 2006 Rules at the time of his appointment in 2007.”
Decision
Holding that the respondent failed to satisfy the statutory eligibility conditions prevailing at the time of his appointment, the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench judgment rendered in LPA No. 669 of 2022.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 13079 of 2026 filed by the State of Bihar and dismissed the respondent’s Letters Patent Appeal.
Case Title: The State of Bihar and Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 13079 of 2026
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
Date: October 07, 2026
