Same exam, same degree, different outcome: the B.Ed. question in the 69000 recruitment
This article presents one side's argument. It is not legal advice. Please ask your own advocate about your case.
Imagine two candidates. Both hold a B.Ed. degree. Both sat the same exam in January 2019, under the same advertisement.
The first was appointed in 2020. The second should have been too, but reservation was applied wrongly and he was left off the list. In 2023 the law on B.Ed. changed. Today the first candidate is in service and protected. The second may never get the job.
There is only one difference between the two: the error that the State itself has admitted. The full sequence of events is in the timeline article.
Both groups were eligible at the time of selection
The NCTE notification of 28 June 2018 made B.Ed. holders eligible for primary teacher posts. In Ram Sharan Maurya v. State of U.P. (18 November 2020, (2021) 15 SCC 401) the Supreme Court said this about this very recruitment:
- Para 43: the eligibility was "already conferred by Notification dated 28.06.2018".
- Para 46: "the B.Ed. candidates were rightly allowed to participate in the instant selection process."
- Para 69: the State may fill all the posts from the result of 12 May 2020.
Later, in para 36 of Devesh Sharma (11 August 2023), the Court also accepted that the notification "was binding ... till it was declared illegal".
Where the line was drawn
In Devesh Sharma v. Union of India (11 August 2023) the Supreme Court held that B.Ed. is not a qualification for primary teachers.
In its clarification of 8 April 2024 the Court protected teachers appointed before 11 August 2023. The reason given was 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" and removing them would not be "equitable".
These teachers have to complete a bridge course. NIOS started this course on 16 September 2026.
The numbers
| Group | Number | Source |
|---|---|---|
| B.Ed. teachers in service from this recruitment | About 32,000 to 40,000. There is no official count | A union leader's statement; counsel's submission in court (according to a blog) |
| Candidates in the State's 2026 list who were selected earlier but not appointed | 4,946: 2,649 B.Ed. and 2,297 BTC | Blog summary of the State's affidavit |
| B.Ed. holders in the list of 8,270 names | About 4,766 | Count from the circulated annexure |
These figures do not come from any court order. Read them as estimates.
Why the two groups are treated differently
- The State has admitted that reservation was applied wrongly in the 2020 lists.
- Had reservation been applied correctly, these candidates would have been appointed in 2020, three years before the Devesh Sharma judgment.
- They relied on the same eligibility rules as the teachers who are protected today.
- Article 14 of the Constitution speaks of equality. The argument is that a distinction resting only on the State's own error has no rational basis.
This argument depends on the appointments of serving B.Ed. teachers being valid. Their appointments are not questioned here.
What these candidates are asking for
- That they be treated as part of the 2020 batch for the purposes of the order of 8 April 2024.
- That they be appointed subject to completing the bridge course, as a one-time measure.
Two examples are cited for this:
- U.T. of J&K v. Saba Wani (30 April 2026, 2026 INSC 439): teacher candidates stuck because of litigation, who did not hold the minimum qualification, were appointed on the condition that they acquire it within 3 years.
- The NCTE notification of 23 August 2010: B.Ed. holders could be appointed for classes 1 to 5 provided they completed a 6-month programme after appointment.
The other side
This argument faces difficulties too, and they need to be known.
- The order of 8 April 2024 says: "mere selection ... will not entitle them for a benefit".
- Navin Kumar v. Union of India (28 August 2024), para 10: "What is important is the date of appointment."
- BTC and D.El.Ed. candidates argue that these vacancies should go to them.
- The State's position on B.Ed. is not yet clear. Reports about its affidavit do not match one another.
No court has so far ruled on a situation where candidates were left out because of an error the State has admitted, in a recruitment the Supreme Court had already upheld. The argument rests on that gap. Whether the Court accepts it is not yet decided.