Any Degree Pertaining To Teacher’s Training Obtained From Institution Not Enjoying NCTE Recognition Has No Legal Effect: Supreme Court

The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Telangana High Court.

The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held, “We have perused the NCTE Act. In view of the provisions of Sections 14, 16 and 17(4) of the NCTE Act, any degree pertaining to teacher’s training obtained from an institution not enjoying the recognition of the NCTE has no legal effect; thus, the consequence is, no candidate can be appointed as a teacher without obtaining B.Ed. degree or any other teacher’s training degree, which is an essential qualification, from an institution recognised by the NCTE. In fact, any such degree from an unrecognised institution is not worth the paper on which it is printed. Viewed in such perspective, the first respondent did not have any legal right to claim that she should have been continued on the post of a Teacher without a valid B.Ed. degree.”

AOR D. Bharathi Reddy represented the Appellant while AOR Venkateswara Rao Anumolu represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant initially appointed the first respondent as a teacher on an ad hoc basis in 2003. Subsequently, by an order dated January 25, 2006, the first respondent was placed on probation for a period of one year. The order of appointment made it clear that the first respondent would continue to be on probation till December 31, 2006 and her appointment would not be effective thereafter, unless a fresh order is issued extending the period of probation. Correspondence was exchanged between the appellant and the first respondent on the point of genuineness of the certificates of qualifications submitted by the latter.

Through an order dated March 7, 2007, the appellant School informed the first respondent that she was allowed to continue as Primary Grade Teacher up to the end of the academic year 2006-2007 and the appellant did not require the first respondent’s service thereafter. Challenging the order, the first respondent invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court and the petition was allowed. In appeal, the Division Bench upheld the order of the Single Judge and observed that the appellant ought to have obtained prior permission from the competent authority before discontinuing the respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed the appeal before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench held that the first respondent did not have any legal right to claim that she should have been continued on the post of a Teacher without a valid B.Ed. degree. Considering that the respondent was on probation and she came to be relieved from service by an order of discharge, which is non-stigmatic, the Bench stated that the lack of a B. Ed. degree of the first respondent from a recognised institution could be attributed as a motive for her discharge and not the foundation therefor.

The Bench explained that Section 79 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982, on its own terms, does not carve out any distinction and applies to all teachers in position in an institution. “If any teacher misconducts himself/herself and he/she has to be disciplined by imposing punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, an enquiry in the manner ordained is a sine qua non. Therefore, it would indeed seem to be imperative that a teacher cannot be punished, including dismissal from service, unless an enquiry has been conducted in the manner ordained by Section 7”, it added.

The Bench stated that Section 79 postulates an opportunity of defence to the teacher sought to be proceeded against. “It has to be remembered that audi alteram partem is not a ritual to be followed in every case; it is flexible and not cast in a rigid mould. Its application depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The principles of natural justice can be invoked only in such cases where, granting an opportunity to defend the allegation could have affected the result and prevented the allegation from being proved. But where, given the attending circumstances, the allegation was bound to be proved in any event, the mere failure to grant an opportunity will not be decisive. To invalidate the final decision, the aggrieved must at least demonstrate that he/she had a defence which, if properly considered, could have led to a different outcome”, the Bench explained.

The Bench also noticed that even if an enquiry were conducted granting opportunity to the first respondent to defend the allegation that the B.Ed. degree obtained by her is not a valid degree, and that the same had no effect in law, she could not have persuaded the enquiry officer to hold in her favour. Noting that the first respondent had not been subjected to any harm or prejudice by reason of the failure of the appellant to hold an enquiry in the manner ordained by Section 79, the Bench held that Section 83 would also not come to the aid of the first respondent.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered, “The impugned judgment, in which the Single Judge’s order has merged, is set aside.”

Cause Title: M/S Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan’s Public School v. M. Vimala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 833)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR D. Bharathi Reddy, Advocates Nishant Sharma, D.Tejaswi Reddy, Adviteeya

Respondent: AOR Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Advocates Sunny Kumar, Puneet Agarwal, Manoranjan Gupta, Shwetangani Raj, Aparna Raj

Click here to read/download Judgment