Subsequent Qualification Cannot Cure Invalid Appointment, Rules Patna HC

The Patna High Court has ruled that a teacher must possess the prescribed educational and training qualifications on the date of appointment and that such eligibility cannot be cured by acquiring the qualification at a later stage.

Dismissing a writ petition filed by a Lady Assistant Teacher whose appointment in a minority secondary school was not approved due to lack of B.Ed. qualification at the time of appointment, the Court held that executive instructions cannot override statutory rules and that appointments made in violation of mandatory eligibility criteria cannot be validated retrospectively.

Justice Nani Tagia, while dismissing the petition, upheld Memo No. 613 dated 12.07.2016 issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, rejecting approval of the petitioner’s appointment as Lady Assistant Teacher (Physics) in Ayub Urdu Girls High School-cum-Inter College, Patna.

The Court found that since the petitioner admittedly did not possess the required B.Ed. degree at the time of her appointment in October 2003, the rejection of approval did not suffer from any legal infirmity.

The petitioner had applied pursuant to an advertisement dated 30.03.2003 issued by the Managing Committee of Ayub Urdu Girls High School-cum-Inter College, Lalbagh, Patna.

The advertisement clearly prescribed the minimum qualification as B.Sc. (preferably in Physics) with B.Ed. After participating in the selection process, she was appointed on 15.10.2003 and joined service the following day. It was not disputed that at the time of appointment she did not hold a B.Ed. degree.

She subsequently acquired B.Ed. qualification in 2005 and continued to serve for approximately 13 years.

The Managing Committee forwarded proposals seeking approval of her appointment, but the Director, Secondary Education rejected the proposal on 12.07.2016 on the ground that she lacked the requisite teacher training qualification at the time of appointment.

Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that there was no mandatory requirement of teacher training qualification at the relevant time or, alternatively, that her subsequent acquisition of B.Ed. cured the defect. She relied on earlier judgments of the High Court including Chhathi Mishra and LPA No. 136 of 2015 (Subhash Kumar) to argue that subsequent qualification ought to validate her service and entitle her to approval with consequential benefits.

The Court examined the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over, Management & Control) Act, 1981 and the Bihar Government Secondary School (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983 framed thereunder. Rule 4(C) of the 1983 Rules specifically requires that an Assistant Teacher must possess a Bachelor’s degree along with B.Ed. or equivalent teacher training qualification.

The court noted that the advertisement itself mirrored this statutory requirement and made B.Ed. an essential qualification. Therefore, the condition was not optional or relaxable unless specifically provided.

Relying on settled Supreme Court precedents, including Dr. Prit Singh v. S.K. Mangal, Hoshiar Singh v. State of Haryana and District Collector v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, the Court reiterated that a candidate must possess the prescribed qualification on the date of appointment and that appointments made contrary to advertised criteria amount to a fraud on the public, particularly when other eligible candidates may have refrained from applying.

The Court observed that law on this point is well settled: eligibility must exist at the time of appointment and cannot be cured later unless the governing rules expressly permit such relaxation.

The petitioner had also relied heavily on a Government Resolution dated 05.03.1991 issued by the Human Resources Development Department, which stated that “the compulsion of training in teacher’s appointment is abolished.”

However, the Court held that the 1991 Resolution was in the nature of an executive instruction and could not override statutory rules framed under Section 9 of the 1981 Act.

Referring to decisions of the Supreme Court in B.N. Nagarajan, Jaiveer Singh, Bank of Baroda v. G. Palani and R. Ranjith Singh, the Court emphasised the settled principle that executive instructions may supplement statutory rules but cannot supplant or override them. Since Rule 4(C) of the 1983 Rules continued to mandate B.Ed. qualification, the executive resolution could not dilute that requirement.

Distinguishing the Division Bench judgment in Subhash Kumar, the Court observed that it turned on its own facts and interpretation of the 1991 Resolution.

In the present case, given the clear statutory prescription and the admitted absence of B.Ed. at the time of appointment, the petitioner could not claim parity. Similarly, the decision in Chhathi Mishra was found to be rendered in peculiar circumstances where services had already been approved during pendency of proceedings and requisite qualifications were subsequently acquired; it was not a declaration of law of universal application validating appointments made dehors statutory rules.

The Court concluded that possession of requisite teacher training qualification at the time of appointment is sine qua non for a valid appointment.

In the absence of any statutory provision permitting relaxation, the appointment made in violation of Rule 4(C) could not be approved merely because the petitioner later acquired B.Ed. or had served for several years.

Finding no legal infirmity in the Director’s order rejecting approval, the Court dismissed the writ petition without costs.

Case Title: Zubeire Nuzhat Jahan Hyder v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Bench: Justice Nani Tagia

Date of Judgment: 13.02.2026