Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Mallika Pradhan vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 February, 2026
Author: J.K. Maheshwari
Bench: J.K. Maheshwari
1
ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.3 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 12223/2025
MALLIKA PRADHAN & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Respondent(s)
[ HIGHER ON BOARD ]
(IA No. 159529/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT IA No. 293463/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No.
133799/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 159530/2023 -
EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 293462/2024 – INTERVENTION/
IMPLEADMENT IA No. 133798/2024 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA
No.122707/2024 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 54076/2024 –
INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 11141/2026 – INTERVENTION/
IMPLEADMENT IA No. 167675/2025 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT)
WITH
C.A. No. 12224-12229/2025 (XVI)
(IA No. 172120/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT IA No. 172122/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
C.A. No. 12230/2025 (XVI)
(IA No. 172098/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT IA No. 172101/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No.
64703/2024 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 59393/2024 –
INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 54058/2024 – INTERVENTION/
IMPLEADMENT)
C.A. No. 11078/2025 (XVI)
(IA No. 208888/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT IA No. 208890/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
C.A. No. 11079-11084/2025 (XVI)
(FOR INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT ON IA 53119/2025 IA No. 213542/2023 -
EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No.
213543/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 53119/2025 -
INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT)
Diary No(s). 47430/2024 (XVI)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2026.03.09
16:48:17 IST
Reason:
2
Date : 25-02-2026 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv.
Mr. Mohsin Rahim, Adv.
Ms. Tania Tamanna, Adv.
Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR
Mr. Sanjiv Narang, AOR
Ms. Karuna Nandy, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Devranjan Das, Adv.
Mr. Gouranga Debnath, Adv.
Mr. Nripendra Nath Bain, Adv.
Mr. Ishan Karki, Adv.
Ms. Rishika Rishab, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mrs. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ratul Biswas, Adv.
Mr. Soumya Dutta, AOR
Mr. Somesh Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Siddhant Upmanyu, Adv.
Mr. Abhijeet Pandey, Adv.
Mrs. Indrani Dey, Adv.
Mr. Parag Chaturvedi, Adv.
Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR
Ms. Nandini Sen Mukherjee, AOR
Ms. Manisha T Karia, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, AOR
Ms. Ananya Arora, Adv.
Ms. Shreya Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Deepin Deepak Sahni, Adv.
Mr. Varun Khetwani, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Navale, Adv.
Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR
Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR
Mr. Subhasish Mohanty, AOR
Mr. Dibyadyuti Banerjee, Adv.
3
Ms. Sumedha Halder, Adv.
Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR
Mr. Navneet Singh, Adv.
Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya, Adv.
Mr. Tavish B. Prasad, AOR
Mr. Saikat Sarkar, Adv.
Ms. Reena Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Anurag Pandey, AOR
Mr. Anas Tanwir, AOR
Mr. Ebad Ur Rahman, Adv.
Ms. Zainab Shaikh, Adv.
Mr. Fakhre Alam, Adv.
Mr. Subhasish Mohanty, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties for quite
some time and asked for clarity in the matter.
2. The initial advertisement was issued on 31.08.2009 to which
the examination was conducted on 04.07.2010. On account of non-
declaration of the result, Writ Petition No. 9739 of 2012 was
filed. On the date of hearing, i.e., 22.06.2012 of the said writ
petition, a notification dated 21.06.2012 issued by the State
Government cancelling the said process of selection was passed.
Relying upon the said notification, the High Court directed to
start de novo selection process.
3. In the meantime, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) came into force on 01.10.2010 and
4
National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) issued notification
regarding minimum standard of qualification required by the
teachers for their appointment.
4. As such the subsequent examination conducted by the NCTE
and the appointment made in furtherance thereto is an issue for
determination before us. The pretext being had to the contention
are twofold, (i) after NCTE Act 1993, the minimum standard of
qualification has been prescribed for the teachers. However, the
qualification of the State Government is not akin to the said
minimum standard. Therefore, the advertisement and the
recruitment in furtherance thereto is not justified.
4.1 In this regard, learned counsel for the other side had
objected and contended that the NCTE Act and its qualifications
do not apply to the teachers recruited to the primary schools
prior to 2011. In this regard, parties are at liberty to file
the relevant material.
4.2 Another issue is that after commencement of the RTE Act and
the notification issued under Section 23, by the NCTE the
appointment can be made by the State Government to the persons
who do not possess the qualification as prescribed in the NCTE
notification. For the clarity, it is required that after holding
an examination, in furtherance to the advertisement, how many
persons had been appointed, the details be provided on affidavit.
5
The NCTE/State Government is at liberty to clarify that after
NCTE notification which applies to the pending advertisements
also, how the appointment of the persons who do not possess the
qualification in terms of the NCTE notification can be made. All
these details are essential either by the Council or by the State
Government. In the interest of justice, we grant an opportunity
to file an additional affidavit clarifying the aforesaid.
5. Needful be done within three weeks.
6. List on 08.04.2026. The matter be treated as part-heard.
(GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA) (NAND KISHOR) DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR