1. The additional 5th respondent in W.P.(C)No.30780 of 2025, filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:

                  2.1. The 1st respondent-writ petitioner is a Bachelor of Arts in Arabic and passed the Degree of Bachelor of Arts Afzal-UL-Ulama from Calicut University in the year 2000. The post of Arabic Assistant (Full Time) in Pappinisseri Lower Primary School (‘School’ for short) had arisen with effect from 01.06.2005. The School is managed by the staff of the School under the second proviso to Rule VIII of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (‘KER’ for short). The 1st respondent was given appointment to the post of Arabic Assistant (Full Time) on 01.06.2005 by the Manager of the School, as per Ext.P2 appointment order of the said date. The 1st respondent had acquired B.Ed. and also passed account test lower and Kerala Education Act and Rules Test (KTET).

                  2.2. While so, the post of Headmaster (HM) had arisen in the School with effect from 01.06.2022, pursuant to the retirement of one Smt. Isamma M.C., on her attaining superannuation on 31.05.2022. Though six teachers are working in the School, except the appointment of the 1st respondent, no other appointments have been approved by the Assistant Educational Officer.

                  2.3. The 1st respondent was given charge of Headmaster (HM) with effect from 13.06.2022, by the Assistant Educational Officer as per Ext.P5 order dated 13.06.2022.

                  2.4. Subsequent to Ext.P5 order, the Manager submitted a proposal to approve the appointment of the 1st respondent as HM on 14.06.2022. However, the Assistant Educational Officer did not approve the appointment of the 1st respondent, raising three objections, viz. (1) approved seniority list as on 01.01.2022 is not produced, (2) the relevant page of S.S.L.C. book containing the date of birth of the 1st respondent is not uploaded and (3) Since the 1st respondent had obtained B.Ed. on 06.10.2001 and it is after the cut-off date fixed as 08.06.2000, appointment of persons with B.Ed. cannot be approved. The copy of the order of the Assistant Educational Officer dated 30.09.2022 is produced as Ext.P6 in the writ petition. Similarly, the Government Order dated 08.06.2000 referred to in Ext.P6 is produced as Ext.P7 in the writ petition.

                  2.5. Contending that Ext.P7 Government Order is inapplicable in the case of Arabic teachers, in view of Rule 4 of Chapter XXXI of the KER, the 1st respondent submitted Ext.P8 representation/revision dated 04.05.2023 before the Government. Since no decision was taken on Ext.P8 representation, the 1st respondent filed W.P.(C)No.43650 of 2024 before this Court, and as per Ext.P9 judgment dated 07.12.2024, this Court directed the Government to consider Ext.P8 representation within a period of three months. Thereafter, the Government passed Ext.P10 order dated 07.08.2025, rejecting the approval of the 1st respondent, stating that the 1st respondent is not qualified to be appointed as HM.

                  2.6. Meanwhile, the Assistant Educational Officer issued Ext.P13 letter dated 08.08.2025, directing the Manager to hand over the charge to the next senior-most teacher. The Assistant Educational Officer, thereafter, passed Ext.P14 order dated 18.08.2025, appointing the appellant as Drawing and Disbursing Officer (‘DDO’ for short), stating that she is the senior-most LPST of the School. After the receipt of Ext.P14 order, the appellant gave Ext.P16 letter dated 26.08.2025 directing the 1st respondent to hand over all the documents to her. The said letter was replied through Ext.P17 reply dated 27.08.2025 by the 1st respondent. Contending that, except the 1st respondent, there is no permanent staff approved by the department, and the appointment of the appellant is approved temporarily and therefore, being the seniormost teacher, the 1st respondent is legally entitled to hold the post of Headmaster, he filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

                  “i. To call for the records connected with the case leading to Exts.P6, P10 and P13 and quash the original of Exts.P6, P10 and P13 by issuing a writ of certiorari.

                  i (a) Call for the records connected with the case leading to Ext.P14 and

                  ii. Declare that in the light of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 4 of Chapter XXXI of KER petitioner is fully qualified to be appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant in Pappinissery LP school, Kannur and also entitled to get approved his appointment as HM w.e.f 14.06.2022 considering his 22 years of approved service as LPST.

                  iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 4th respondent to forthwith approve the appointment of petitioner as HM of Pappinissery LP School, Kannur w.e.f. 14.06.2022 and disburse all monetary benefits attached.”

3. The appellant filed a counter affidavit dated 01.11.2025 in the writ petition, opposing the relief sought for and producing therewith Exts.R5(a) to R5(c) documents. In the counter affidavit, the appellant contended that the 1st respondent is not eligible to be appointed as HM in the School as per Rule 45A of Chapter XIV A of the KER, since he does not possess the qualification of Teachers Training Course (TTC); and whereas the appellant was appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant (‘LPSA’ for short) on 01.11.2021, and she has TTC and KTET qualifications. Therefore, the appellant is fully qualified to be appointed as HM.

4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 26.11.2025 disposed of the writ petition. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge found that Ext.P7 Government Order dated 08.06.2000, referred to in Ext.P6 order of the Assistant Educational Officer, will not apply to the case of Arabic Teachers. The qualification for appointment of an Arabic teacher in a Lower Primary School is a Degree in Arabic as per Rule 4 of Chapter XXXI of the KER, and the 1st respondent is fully qualified to be appointed as an Arabic teacher in the Lower Primary School. The learned Single Judge further held that, as per Rule 45A of Chapter XIV A of the KER, when the post of HM is vacant, it shall be filled up from among the qualified teachers of the staff of the School under the educational agency. The learned Single Judge found that the 1st respondent, therefore, has the requisite qualification to be appointed as the HM, and he is the seniormost teacher. The learned Single Judge, by relying on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in SNDP LP School v. Roy [2006 (4) KLT 497], held that even if a teacher does not have TTC, it will be sufficient if he/she has any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as Primary School Assistant. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge set aside Exts.P6, P10 and P13 orders under challenge and the Assistant Educational Officer was directed to approve the appointment of the 1st respondent as HM, Pappinisseri LP School, Kannur, with effect from 14.06.2022. Being aggrieved, the appellant-5th respondent has filed the present writ appeal.

5. On 19.12.2025, when the writ appeal was taken up for consideration, this Court directed the learned Senior Government Pleader to get instructions from the Assistant Educational Officer as to whether the appellant is continuing as HM in the School and listed the matter on the very same day at 2.p.m. When the matter was taken up again at 3.15 p.m., the learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions from the Assistant Educational Officer, submitted that the appellant is presently working as Teacher-in-charge and she also held the post of DDO. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the 1st respondent had assumed charge as HM of the School based on the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. Based on the submission made by the learned Senior Government Pleader under the instructions received from the Assistant Educational Officer, this Court passed an interim order permitting the appellant to continue as Teacher-in-charge and also as the DDO of the School, for the time being, pending disposal of the writ appeal.

6. Heard Dr. George Abraham, the learned counsel for the appellant, Adv.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Smt. Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

7. By pointing out Rule 4 of Chapter XXXI of the KER, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, a degree in Arabic conferred or recognised by the universities in Kerala will be sufficient for appointment to the post of Lower Primary School Assistant. Therefore, the 1st respondent is qualified to be appointed as a Lower Primary School Assistant. By relying on Rule 45A of Chapter XIV A of the KER, the learned counsel argued that to get an appointment as HM in the L.P. School, the teacher shall have an equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as a Primary School Assistant. The training qualification prescribed therein is T.T.C, and the B.Ed. qualification of the 1st respondent cannot be treated as equivalent to that of T.T.C. By pointing out Rule 45C of Chapter XIV A of the KER, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the said provision, for temporary promotion, in the case of absence of qualified teacher to be promoted as HM, the qualification prescribed in Rule 45 or 45A of Chapter XIV A of the KER, should be acquired by the person concerned and therefore, the 1st respondent is not entitled to temporary promotion also. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that as per Gazette notifications dated 23.08.2010 and 29.07.2011 issued by the National Council for Teachers Education under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in class I to V, in a School referred to under Clause (n) of Section 2 of the said Act, with effect from the date of that notification prescribes along with other qualifications mentioned therein, a Diploma in elementary Education as a mandatory requirement. It is further argued by the learned counsel that, as per the Gazette notification dated 28.06.2018, the B.Ed. qualification also made an equivalent qualification for appointment of teachers in classes I to V, and the same was challenged before the Rajasthan High Court. When the matter reached the Apex Court, by the judgment in Devesh Sharma v. Union of India [AIR 2023 SC 3895], it was held that a B.Ed. degree cannot be equated with that of training in primary school teaching. As far as the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in SNDP L.P. School [2006 (4) KLT 497] relied by the learned Single Judge is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that at the time when that judgment was pronounced, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, as well as the amendment to Rule 45A of Chapter XIV A of the KER were not there. The learned counsel argued that by the judgment in Devesh Sharma [AIR 2023 SC 3895], the judgment of full Bench of this Court in SNDP L.P. School [2006 (4) KLT 497], relied by the learned Single Judge is impliedly overruled and the law as stated in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gopalakrishnan v. Director of Public Instruction [2005 (4) KLT 774] that B.Ed. cannot be treated as an equivalent training qualification to that of T.T.C., has now become operative.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent argued that, as per Rule 45A of Chapter XIV A of the KER, no independent qualification is prescribed for the appointment of the HM from the senior-most qualified L.P. School Assistant. It is admitted that the 1st respondent is qualified to be appointed as LPSA. The judgment in SNDP L.P. School [2006 (4) KLT 497] is squarely applicable to the case of the 1st respondent. By pointing out the grounds of appeal, the learned counsel argued that the findings of the learned Single Judge are not challenged in the appeal by raising any tenable contentions.

9. The learned Senior Government Pleader argued that it is true that in Ext.P10 Government Order dated 07.08.2025, the 1st respondent was held as not qualified to be appointed as the HM. But the judgment of the Full Bench in SNDP L.P. School [2006 (4) KLT 497] was not considered while passing that order. The learned Senior Government Pleader further pointed out that, as per Rule 45A of Chapter XIV A of the KER, the training qualification prescribed is one for appointment as a Primary School Assistant. The word Primary School Assistant includes Upper Primary School Assistant also. As per Rule 3 of Chapter XXXI of the KER, B.Ed. Qualification is one of the prescribed training qualifications for Upper Primary School Teachers. The 1st respondent has more than twelve years of service and a TET qualification also. As far as the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant are concerned, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that those judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned Senior Government Pleader argued that as far as the judgment in Devesh Sharma [AIR 2023 SC 3895] is concerned, the said judgment is only prospective in nature. The learned Senior Government pleader pointed out the judgment of the Apex Court in Navin Kumar v. Union of India [AIR 2024 SC 4748] to fortify the argument that since the 1st respondent was appointed as HM prior to 11.08.2023, his appointment is saved, even though he has B.Ed. Qualification.

10. The post of Arabic Teacher had arisen in the School on 01.06.2005. The 1st respondent was appointed to that post on 01.06.2005 itself. Admittedly, he is having the qualification of Bachelor of Arts in Arabic and a B.Ed. Apart from that, he has also passed the KTET. The point to be decided on the basis of the rival contentions raised by the parties, in this writ appeal, is as to whether the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the 1st respondent is qualified to be appointed as HM of the Lower Primary School?

11. Though various contentions have been raised by the parties with regard to the qualification of the 1st respondent to be appointed as an LPSA, while going through Rule 4(2) of Chapter XXXI of the KER, it is devoid of doubt that the 1st respondent had sufficient qualifications to be appointed as an Arabic teacher in the L.P. School as on the date of 01.06.2005. Rule 4(2) of Chapter XXXI of the KER reads thus;

                  “4. Lower Primary School

                  xxx xxx xxx

                  (2) Arabic Teachers- A Degree in Arabic conferred or recognised by the Universities in Kerala or a Title of Oriental learning in Arabic awarded or recognised by the Universities in Kerala or a pass in the S.S.L.C. Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala with Arabic under part I and II first language; or

                  (a) A pass in S.S.L.C. Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala or its equivalent and

                  (b) A pass in Arabic Munshi Examination (Higher) conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations Kerala or

                  A pass in Arabic Munshi Examination (Lower) conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala or A pass in Arabic Teachers Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala or A pass in Arabic Entrance Examination of the Kerala and Calicut Universities”. (Underline supplied)

12. One of the qualifications prescribed for LPSA in the Arabic subject, as per Rule 4(2) of Chapter XXXI of the KER, is a degree in Arabic conferred or recognised by the universities in Kerala. The 1st respondent is admittedly a degree holder of Bachelor of Arts Afzal Ul Ulama from Calicut University. Evidencing the same, he has produced Ext.P1 degree certificate dated 30.12.2000 issued by the Vice Chancellor of Calicut University. Therefore, it can be concluded that the 1st respondent is qualified to be appointed as an Arabic teacher in the L.P. School.

13. Now coming to the necessary qualification prescribed for the appointment of an HM in a lower primary school, Rule 45A of Chapter XIVA of the KER reads thus;

                  “45A. Subject to rule 44, when the post of Headmaster of a complete L.P. School is vacant or when an incomplete L.P. School becomes complete the post shall be filled up from among the qualified teachers on the staff of the school or schools under the Educational Agency. The person appointed as Headmaster shall have passed SSLC or equivalent Examination with TTC issued by the Board of Public Examination, Kerala or T.C.H. issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, Bangalore or a pass in Pre-degree Examination with pedagogy as an elective subject conducted by the University of Kerala or any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as primary school Assistant. In the case of those who are continuing as teachers with Standard VII or its equivalent with H.E.T.T.C. or its equivalent training qualification they shall have 12 years of continuous qualified service as Assistant for appointment as Headmasters of Lower Primary Schools.

                  Note:- The language / Specialist teachers according to their seniority in the combined seniority list of teachers shall also be appointed as Headmaster of L.P. School or schools under an Educational Agency, provided the teacher possesses the prescribed qualifications for promotion as Headmaster of L.P. Schools on the date of occurrence of vacancy”.

14. As per Rule 45A of Chapter XIV A of the KER, the post of HM of a complete L.P. School or when an incomplete L.P. School become complete, it shall be filled up from among the qualified teachers on the staff of the School or Schools under the educational agency. As extracted above, the said provisions says that the person appointed as Headmaster shall have passed S.S.L.C. or equivalent examination with T.T.C. issued by the Board of Public Examination, Kerala or T.C.H. issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, Bangalore, or a pass in pre-degree examination with pedagogy as an elective subject conducted by the University of Kerala or any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as Primary School Assistant. The said Rule also says that in the case of those who are continuing as teachers with standard VII or its equivalent with H.E.T.T.C. or its equivalent training qualification, they shall have twelve years of continuous qualified service as an assistant for appointment as headmasters of Lower Primary Schools. The note appended to the Rule says that the language/specialist teachers, according to their seniority in the combined seniority list of teachers, shall also be appointed as headmaster of L.P. School or Schools under an educational agency, provided the teacher possesses the prescribed qualifications for promotion as headmaster of L.P. Schools on the date of occurrence of vacancy. Therefore, the question is whether the B.Ed. qualification possessed by the 1st respondent is one of the qualifications prescribed under Rule 45A of Chapter XIV A of the KER. Admittedly, the 1st respondent has more than twelve years of continuous qualified service as LPSA as on the date of arising of vacancy of the HM, i.e., on 13.06.2022. It is pertinent to note that in Rule 45A, the training qualification prescribed is not only the T.T.C. but any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as Primary School Assistant. It does not state that the equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as ‘Lower Primary’ School Assistant. Therefore, the equivalent training qualification mentioned therein is inclusive of the one for appointment as ‘Upper Primary’ School Assistant also. Therefore, the question is whether the B.Ed. qualification is one of the equivalent training qualifications for appointment as a Primary School Assistant. The relevant portion of Rule 3 of Chapter XXXI of the KER which deals with the qualification of an Upper Primary School Assistant reads thus;

                  Upper Primary School Assistant

                  A pass in S.S.L.C. examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala or its equivalent or a pass in Pre-degree examination conducted by any of the Universities in Kerala or any examination recognised by any such Universities as equivalent to Pre-degree examination or a pass in a Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Board of Higher Secondary Examination, Kerala or any other examination recognised by Government as equivalent there to and a pass in T.T.C. Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala; OR a degree in any subject and B.Ed/ B.T/L.T. conferred by or recognised by the Universities in Kerala

                  Or a pass in Pre-degree Examination with Pedagogy as an elective subject conducted by the University of Kerala.

                  Or a pass in Basic TTC Examination (Malayalam) conducted by the Madras Government.

                  xxx  xxx  xxx”

15. The above extracted portion of Rule 3 of Chapter XXXI of the KER would make it clear that a Degree in any subject and the B.Ed conferred by or recognised by the Universities in Kerala is also one of the qualifications for an Upper Primary School Assistant. Therefore, by virtue of the provisions under, Rule 45A of Chapter XIVA and Rule 3 of Chapter XXXI of the KER, it can only be said that the B.Ed. training qualification is also one of the prescribed qualifications for appointment to the post of HM of a lower primary school.

16. While coming to the judgment in Devesh Sharma [AIR 2023 SC 3895], the Apex Court, on the issue of NCTE Gazette notification dated 28.06.2018 adding B.Ed. also as an equivalent qualification for classes 1 to 5 issued on 28.06.2018, which was set aside by the Rajasthan High Court, held thus:

                  “26. In Dilip Kumar v. Chairman [2005 (7) SCC 567], this Court had to decide on the question whether B.Ed degree candidate can be equated with a candidate who holds training in Primary School teaching or in other words who is trained specifically for Primary Schools. The Contention of the appellants (in the aforesaid case) who were B.Ed. candidates was that, their course (B.Ed.), equips them to teach Primary Classes. Their contention was rejected by this Court. In Para 9, it stated as under: "In B.Ed. curriculum such subjects like child psychology are not found. On the other hand, the curriculum is of a generic nature and deals with subjects like the principle of educational - curriculum studies, educational psychology, development of education in modern India, social organization and instructional methods, etc."

                  Then again in Para 10 it was stated as under:

                  "......For teaching in the primary school, therefore, one must know the child psychology and development of a child at a tender age. As already noticed, the candidates like the appellants who are trained in B.Ed. degree are not necessarily to be equipped to teach the students of primary class. They are not trained and equipped to understand the psychology of a child of tender age."

                  In P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala [2003 (3) SCC 541] the argument that B.Ed. qualification is a higher qualification than Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) was rejected. Again, it was a case before the Apex Court where B.Ed candidates, were claiming appointment as Primary School teachers on the basis of the claim that their educational qualification (i.e. B.Ed.) was even higher than the Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) which was held by the other candidates. In para 10 of the said case, it was stated as under:

                  "We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced by the respondents that B.Ed. qualification is a higher qualification than TTC and therefore, he B.Ed. candidates should be held to be eligible to compete for the post  "

                  These findings were reiterated by Supreme Court in Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT, Delhi [2003 (3) SCC 548], holding that though B.Ed. is a well - recognized qualification in the field of teaching, yet it is a training which equips a candidate to teach higher classes, not classes at primary level.

                  27. B.Ed. is not a qualification for teachers at Primary level of schooling. The pedagogical skills and training required from a teacher at Primary level is not expected from a B.Ed. trained teacher. They are trained to teach classes at higher level, post primary, secondary and above. For Primary level i.e. class I to class V the training is D.El.Ed or what is known as diploma in elementary education. It is a D.El.Ed. training course which is designed and structured to impart skills in a teacher who is to teach Primary level of students.

                  Therefore, by implication the inclusion of B.Ed. as a qualification amounts to lowering down of the 'quality' of education at Primary level. 'Quality' of education which was such an important component of the entire elementary education movement in this country, which we have discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this order.”

17. By holding as above, the Apex Court concurred with the finding of the Rajasthan High Court and did not interfere with the judgment whereby the notification dated 28.06.2018 was quashed and set aside.

18. Later, by the order dated 08.04.2024, the Apex Court clarified that B.Ed. qualified candidates who were selected and appointed prior to the decision in Devesh Sharma [AIR 2023 SC 3895] i.e. prior to 11.08.2023, shall not be disturbed as there was a special equity in their favour. Therefore, the Apex Court held that the judgment in Devesh Sharma [AIR 2023 SC 3895] would be prospective in nature, and will not disturb the appointments of such candidates who had already been appointed prior to the judgment in Devesh Sharma (supra) i.e. prior to 11.08.2023. In that order, the Apex Court held thus;

                  “As it appears that a large number of candidates with B.Ed. degree had already been appointed on the basis of eligibility criteria specified by the educational authorities, we do not think it to be equitable to effect their removal. We, accordingly hold that the judgment delivered by this Bench on 11th August, 2023 shall have prospective operation. But prospective operation of this judgment shall be only for those candidates who were appointed without any qualification or conditions imposed by any Court of Law to the effect that their appointment would be subject to final outcome of the case which might have had been instituted by them and such candidates were in regular employment without any disqualification and were appointed in pursuance of a notice of advertisement where B.Ed. was stipulated to be valid qualification. Services of only such candidates shall not be disturbed because of this judgment. We make it clear that this benefit is only for the candidates who were appointed prior to the date our judgment was delivered, on 11th August, 2023. Mere selection of such candidates or their participation in the process will not entitle them for a benefit under our present order.

                  xxxx   xxxx   xxxx

                  We also make it clear that the directions contained in this order shall not be confined to the applicant state only and shall cover all cases which may be pending in different judicial fora in any State or Union territory on the same point of law”. [Underline supplied]

19. Later, in Navin Kumar [AIR 2024 SC 4748], while considering a batch of petitions, arising out of a judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court dated 02.04.2024, by following the judgment in Devesh Sharma [AIR 2023 SC 3895] declared that all such candidates, having B.Ed. qualification to be ineligible and disqualified for selection to the post of primary school teachers, the Apex Court held thus;

                  “10. One of the arguments of the learned senior counsel (Mr. Shrivastava) for the petitioners before this Court is that this Court in Devesh Sharma (supra) had opened a small window for B.Ed. candidates who were called for selection as B.Ed. was one of the qualifications in the 2019 Rules as also in the notification of NCTE and till it was set aside such candidates cannot be called as ineligible. All we had said in Devesh Sharma (supra) was that since the law, making B.Ed. as qualification, was not struck down by any Court (as was the position in Rajasthan when recruitment to the post of teachers were taking place in 2019) such candidates ought to have been called at least. This is exactly what was said:

                  "Having made the above determination we, all the same, are also of the considered opinion that the State of Rajasthan was clearly in error in not calling for applications from B.Ed. qualified candidates, for the reasons that till that time when such an advertisement was issued by the Rajasthan Government, B.Ed. candidates were included as eligible candidates as per the statutory notification of NCTE, which was binding on the Rajasthan Government, till it was declared illegal or unconstitutional by the Court." As we know when recruitment to the post of teachers was being made in Rajasthan, B.Ed. was a qualification for teachers as per the NCTE notification. The above observation made by us was only to affirm the findings of the Rajasthan High Court which had although held that B.Ed. was not a valid "qualification" for primary teachers, yet cautioned that the Government could not have ignored the notification of the NCTE till it was declared illegal by a Competent Court. That was all. In Chhattisgarh, this was not the case. B.Ed. qualified candidates were called by the State in the selection process, yet as they were held to be non - qualified by a judgment of this Court, which is the law now and by logic has to be implemented, they were rightly held to be disqualified. How does our observations in Devesh Sharma (supra) help the petitioners, we simply fail to understand. This argument is totally misconceived. B.Ed. is not a qualification for a teacher in a Primary School. Moreover, this aspect has already been clarified in the order dated 08.04.2024, where only such candidates have been saved who were selected and appointed prior to our order dated 11.08.2023 in Devesh Sharma (supra). Since the petitioners in the present case were appointed post 11.08.2023 and their appointments were also subjected to the final outcome of the pending writ petition before High Court, they cannot get any benefit. The completion of the selection process prior to 11.08.2023 is not material. What is important is the date of appointment which is certainly after the cut - off date. They will stand disqualified, as they do not have the essential qualification for appointment as primary school teachers”.

                  [Underline supplied]

20. In the case in our hand, the appointment of the 1st respondent as HM was on 13.06.2022, much prior to the judgment in Devesh Sharma [AIR 2023 SC 3895]. Therefore, in view of the later clarification given by the Apex Court in the order dated 08.04.2024, as well as from the judgment in Navin Kumar [AIR 2024 SC 4748], it is only to be held that the 1st respondent is qualified to be appointed as an HM of the Lower Primary School herein.

21. Yet another submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments is the appointment of the appellant as the DDO by Annexure D order dated 18.08.2025 by the Assistant Educational Officer. It is true that the 1st respondent did not challenge Annexure D order till date. But the claim of the 1st respondent is that he is qualified to be appointed as the HM. It may be due to that reason he has not raised any objection against Annexure D order till date. We are not entering into that aspect in this judgment since that issue had not arisen for consideration in the writ petition based on the pleadings.

22. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, in the light of the provisions and judgments referred to supra, we find no patent illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, which warrants interference by exercising appellate jurisdiction.

In the result, this writ appeal stands dismissed.