'Eligibility Cut-Off Is Application Deadline When Not Specified' : Supreme Court Grants Relief To D.El.Ed Candidates Of 2020-22 In WB

The Supreme Court granted relief to several candidates who pursued the Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) course in the 2020-2022 batch in West Bengal by overturning a Calcutta High Court judgment which held them ineligible to apply for the post of Assistant Teachers in primary schools.

The High Court had held that since these candidates had not obtained the course completion certificates when the notification for the posts was issued on 29.09.2022, they were ineligible.

Terming the High Court's interpretation to be erroneous, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra placing reliance on the recent constitution bench decision of Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, (2025) 2 SCC 1 observed that in the absence of cut-off date provided in the Rules, the eligibility would be determined based on the date appointed in the advertisement inviting applications.

"Cut-off date with reference to which eligibility has to be determined is the date appointed by the relevant service rules; where no such cut-off date is provided in the rules, then it will be the date appointed in the advertisement inviting applications; and if there is no such date appointed, then eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications were to be received.", the court observed in Tej Prakash Pathak's case.

The Case

The main issue concerned the interpretation of Rule 6(2) of the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016, which adopts NCTE-prescribed qualifications without specifying a cut-off date.

The 2020-2022 D.El.Ed course was delayed due to COVID-19 pandemic and it could not get completed by the usual date of June 30.

The candidates, anxious that they might get overaged for appointments, sought High Court intervention to ensure timely result declarations or to postpone recruitment.

The Single Judge allowed them to participate, based on the Board's assurance of prompt result declaration.

On 29.09.2022, the Board announced results and issued a notification indicating upcoming recruitment. The notification issued on 29.09.2022 expressly permitted candidates pursuing the 2020-22 course to apply.

A detailed recruitment notification followed on 21.10.2022, permitting candidates like the appellants to apply. The candidates received course completion certificates on 29.11.2022.

However, respondents who had obtained their D.El.Ed. qualification before 29.09.2022 challenged this before the Division Bench, arguing the appellants were ineligible as of the recruitment notification date.

The Division Bench accepted and allowed the Respondents-Writ Appeals, treating 29.09.2022 as the cut-off and overturning the Single Judge's decision.

Being aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Issue

The question before the Supreme Court was whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in treating 29.09.2022 as the cut-off date for determining the Appellant's eligibility for the post, despite the fact that the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) had not prescribed any such date, and Rule 6(2) of the 2016 Recruitment Rules incorporated the NCTE's qualifications without specifying a deadline.

Rule 6(2) of the 2016 Recruitment Rules says:

“The candidate shall possess the minimum educational and training qualification as prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education prevailing as on date of publication of recruitment notification.”

Decision

Dismissing the impugned findings, the judgment authored by Justice Narasimha observed that the Division Bench erred in treating 29.09.2022 as the cut-off date, as the actual recruitment notification was issued later (21.10.2022) making it the date of eligibility in absence of cut-off dates in the Recruitment Rules.

“The facts of this case reveal a rather extraordinary situation where the Board and also the High Court (Single Judge) sought to resolve the problem that had arisen due to late conduct of the 2020-22 of D.El.Ed. examination immediately after the Covid-19 pandemic. We are of the opinion that there is no illegality and arbitrariness in the actual recruitment notification dated 21.10.2022 and that the recruitment process commenced under the relevant rules and also as per the directions of the single Judge of the High Court disposing of the writ petition. It is important to note that the recruitment notification dated 21.10.2022 was not challenged by anyone.”, the court observed.

“The principles laid down by this Court in Bhupinderpal Singh (supra) and the subsequent decisions as referred to in Rakesh Kumar Sharma (supra) and also that of the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash (supra) hold that the qualifications must be possessed as per those prescribed in the rules or the notification and in the absence of both, by reference to the last date appointed for receiving the applications. The recruitment notification dated 21.10.2022 indicated that the appellants' will be given an opportunity, and that intendment must inure to their benefit.”, the Court added.

The Court also held that it was a case fit to invoke the extraordinary powers under Article 142.

In light of the aforesaid, the Court held the recruitment notification dated 21.10.2022 was legal and valid also, and directed that “the recruitment process which commenced in the notification dated 21.10.2022 must proceed further and the Board must take immediate steps for concluding the recruitment process as expeditiously as possible.”

Accordingly, the appeals were allowed.

Case Title: SOUMEN PAUL & ORS. VERSUS SHRABANI NAYEK & ORS. (and connected matters)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 398

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv.(Arguing counsel) Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR Mr. Soham Datta, Adv.AR-CUM-PS Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv.(Arguing counsel) Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Aranya Moulick, Adv. Mr. Namya Rishi, Adv. Mr. Nishant Singh, AOR Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv.(Arguing counsel) Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Aranya Moulick, Adv. Mr. Namya Rishi, Adv. Mr. Nishant Singh, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. (Arguing counsel) Mr. Subir Sanyal, Sr. Adv.(Arguing counsel) Mr. Gaurav Jain, Adv. Ms. Abha Jain, AOR Mr. Somesh Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Chhittapriya Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Mandeep Kalra, Adv. Mr. Chitrangada Singh, Adv. Mr. Radhika Jalan, Adv. Mr. Madhav Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Biswajit Deb, Sr. Adv.(Arguing counsel) Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Shwetank Singh, Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv.(Arguing counsel) Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Ms. Manisha T Karia, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR Ms. Shreya Gupta, Adv. 3 Ms. Ananya Arora, Adv. Mr. Deepin Deepak Sahni, Adv. Mr. Devendra Kumar Shukla, AOR Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR Mr. Dibyadyuti Banerjee, Adv.(Arguing counsel) Mrs. Sumedha Halder, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR Mr. Paras Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Navneet Kansal, Adv. Mr. Amar Nath Singh, Adv. Mr. Navneet Singh, Adv.