RAJASTHAN HIGH CHOURT CHIEF JUSTICE BENCH DECISION ON TET / and RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF TET EXAM PART - Z
*****************
2013 mein TET KE SAMBANDH MEIN RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT KI CHIEF JUSTICE KEE BENCH DWARA DIYA GAYA NIRNAY.
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT DECISION REGARDING TET EXAM AND RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF THIS EXAM
*****************
आजकल फेसबुक पर लोगो को चर्चा करते हुए की टेट मार्क्स 60 से कम वालों को अनआरक्षित वर्ग में रखना सही है कि नहीं ,
जिज्ञासा स्वरुप समाचार देखे ,
एक राजस्थान हाई कोर्ट की सिंगल बेंच की न्यूज़ देखी जिसमें 60 से कम लेकिन 55 से अधिक वालों को सिर्फ आरक्षित वर्ग में रखने की बात कही गयी थी ।
यह मामला चीफ जस्टिस की बेंच तक गया और उसने सिंगल बेंच को सही न मानते हुए सिर्फ उन लोगो को पास माना जिनके टेट मार्क्स 60 से ऊपर थे
70 पेजों का निर्णय है
********
आरटेट 2011: हाईकोर्ट ने कहा 60% से कम वाले शिक्षक बनने योग्य नहीं
जयपुर। हाईकोर्ट की खंडपीठ ने आरटेट 2011 के परिणाम को रद्द करते हुए दुबारा परिणाम जारी करने तथा इस आधार पर हुई तृतीय श्रेणी शिक्षक भर्ती की चयन सूची दुबारा बनाने का निर्देश दिया है। हाईकोर्ट ने आरटेट 2011 में आरक्षित वर्ग को न्यूनतम प्राप्तांकों में छूट देने तथा साठ प्रतिशत से कम अंक वालों को शिक्षक भर्ती के योग्य मानने को गलत ठहराते हुए यह आदेश दिए।अदालत ने स्पष्ट किया कि आरक्षित वर्ग के ऐसे अभ्यर्थी जो फीस के अलावा अन्य कोई छूट लेकर सामान्य वर्ग में चयनित हुए हैं, उन्हें चयन से बाहर किया जाए। मुख्य न्यायाधीश अमिताभ रॉय व न्यायाधीश निशा गुप्ता की खंडपीठ ने यह आदेश देते हुए राज्य सरकार व 28 अन्य की अपीलों को खारिज कर दिया।
अदालत ने स्पष्ट किया कि राज्य सरकार द्वारा विभिन्न श्रेणियों में दी गई दस से बीस प्रतिशत अंकों की छूट गलत है, जबकि एनसीटीई के नियमानुसार आरटेट में उत्तीर्ण होने के लिए न्यूनतम 60' अंक लाना जरूरी था। राज्य सरकार ने अपने जवाब में स्पष्ट किया कि आरक्षित वर्ग को जिस पांच प्रतिशत छूट की बात कही है वह टेट में शामिल होने के लिए शैक्षणिक योग्यता में छूट थी न कि टेट के न्यूनतम प्राप्तांक में। ऐसे में स्पष्ट है कि आरटेट में न्यूनतम प्राप्तांकों में छूट का कोई प्रावधान नहीं था
News Sabhaar : http://www.bhaskar.com/article/RAJ-JAI-rtet-2011-the-high-court-jaipur-rajasthan-news-4309130-PHO.html / Bhaskar (03.07.2013)
RAJASTHAN HIGH CHOURT CHIEF JUSTICE BENCH DECISION ON TET / and RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF TET EXAM - PART - Z
The aspect of migration of reserved category candidates availing fully or partially the benefits of
concession on account of fee, age and other norms to the quota otherwise allotted for the general category candidates next needs to be addressed. According to the respondents/writ petitioners, in view of the cumulative effect of concessions granted in the qualifying marks in the prescribed academic examinations and weightage of marks secured in the TET by them after availing the
relaxation in the percentage of pass marks therein, the allotments of the general category candidates have been usurped by their reserved category counterparts. Though this has not been denied by the State respondents, they justified the same on the yardstick of superior merit assessed in the process of recruitment comprised of two segments i.e.TET and recruitment test.
Attention of this Court has been drawn to circular No.F-7(2) DOP/A-II/96 dated 17.6.1996 of the
Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel (AGr.II). The relevant excerpt thereof hereinbelow:-
“ CIRCULAR – ORDER
Sub : Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other backward Classes in posts/services under the Government.
According to the existing rule and circulars issued by the Government from time to time,
reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes have been
made to the extent of 16%, 12% and 21% respectively in the matter of direct recruitment.
The matter under consideration of this department is as to whether:-
(1) the candidates belonging Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes who get selected on general merit shall be counted against the reserve vacancies or general vacancies;
and
(2) Whether those who get in the merit list as a result of special concession given to them in terms of age and attempts should be considered against general vacancies or reserve vacancies.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The matter has against been examined in consultation with Law Deptt. and the Law Deptt.
have advised that the quota of post for which every citizen is eligible to compete in entirely
different to reserve quota and for recruitment to the post falling in open competition quota, the
condition of eligibility can be different to the conditions of eligibility for recruitment to the
post of reserve quota. Therefore, the candidates belonging to SC/ST and OBC who get selected
fulfilling the conditions of eligibility regarding age limit and attempts prescribed for general
candidates can be placed on general merit list and those who get placement in the merit list as
a result of special concession given to them in terms of age and attempts should not be
considered as the general candidates but should be considered against reserve vacancies.”
By a later circular No.F.7(1) DOP/A-2/99 dated 4.3.2002 issued on the same issue by the same
department, it was provided that the candidates belonging to the aforementioned reserved categories, if do not avail concession except on fee and secure marks above the last general category candidate, he/she would be accommodated against the vacancies for general category and not for the reserved categories.
Vide circular No.F.15(24) DOP/AII/75 dated 24.6.2008 again of the same department, it was clarified
in this regard as hereunder:-
“6.2 In the state, members of the SC/ST/OBC can compete against non-reserved vacancies and be counted against them, in case they have not taken any concession (like that of age, etc)
available to them other than that relating to payment of examination fee in case of direct
recruitment. On the other hand, women, persons with disabilities, sportspersons, inservicemen or non-gazetted employees and exservicemen are counted against their respective category, even if they are suitable for selection against non-reserved or open competition vacancy/post. But it may be noted that if any remaining candidate of these categories after providing the vacancies/posts reserved for them are more meritorious than the last person of the open competition category, such candidate will
be selected even if it leads to selection of more candidates than that provided by virtue of
reservation.”
The more or less consistent notion on the issue of migration of reserved category candidates to general quota that emerges from these circulars is that it is permissible, if such candidates compete without availing any special concession in terms of age, attempts and otherwise except on fee. Admittedly, this had been the accepted dictum on the issue, on 30.3.2011 on which
advertisement was published for the RTET- 2011.
However, vide circular No.F.7(1) DOP/A-II/99 dated 11.5.2011, it was provided, in supersession of the aforementioned circular dated 4.3.2002, as follows:-
“(a) If a candidate belonging to BC/SBC/SC/ST irrespective of whether he has availed of or not
any of the special concessions which are available to the candidate belonging to these categories and he secures more marks than the marks obtained by the last Unreserved category candidates who is selected, such a candidate belonging to BC/SBC/SC/ST shall be counted against the unreserved category vacancies and not the vacancies reserved for the BC/SBC/SC/ST, as the case may be.”
This circular evidently had been applied by the State respondents for effecting migration of reserved category candidates availing the benefits of concessions, narrated hereinabove, to enable them to migrate to the unreserved category vacancies.
Incidentally, the circular dated 11.5.2011 was not in existence on 11.2.2011 whereunder in terms of clause 9(b) thereof, weightage of marks in the TET in the recruitment process was mandated. Performance in the TET to follow, was thus, envisaged to be a constituent in the overall process of evaluation of merit of a candidate belonging to the reserved category or otherwise. Patently, therefore, as on that date i.e.11.2.2011 and hence the circular dated 24.6.2008 on the issue of migration of reserved category candidates into general quota, the vacancies, was in force. This circular, to reiterate, did not permit such migration except in the eventuality of relaxation in the matter of payment of examination fee in case of direct recruitment. Such migration was however, prohibited in case other concessions had been availed.
As by guidelines dated 11.2.2011, the TET, for all practical purposes, was made an integral part of the
recruitment process, the norms on the issue of migration as stipulated by the circular dated 24.6.2008 could not have been altered by one dated 11.5.2011 for their application to the exercise already underway. The permissibility of migration facilitated thereby, for all practical purposes, introduced a selection criteria subsequent to the initiation of the process vide the advertisement dated 30.3.2011, which was impermissible as has been propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court times out of number and amongst others in K.Manjusree (supra).
In Jitendra Kumar Singh and anr. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court while dwelling on the true purport of reservation in favour of social and educationally backward classes as contemplated, in particular, in Article 16 of the Constitution of India rejected the plea that relaxation in
fee or age ought to deprive the candidates belonging to the reserved category of opportunity to compete against general category candidates. It was held that concession in fee and age relaxation only enables certain candidates belonging to the reserved category who fall within the
zone of consideration and that such concession do not, in any manner, tilt balance in favour of the reserved category candidates in the preparation of final merit/select list. Their Lordships observed that concessions and relaxations in fee or age provided to the reserved category candidates are to enable them to compete with the general category candidates and it is only thereafter that the merit of the candidates is to be determined without any further concession in favour of the reserved category candidates. This view was reiterated by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Mangla
Ram Vishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2011(1)WLC (Raj.) 148. This view has since been endorsed also by a Single Bench of this Court in its judgment and order dated 27.4.2012 rendered in batch of writ petitions, the leading case being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.15152/2011 Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. In Dr.Preeti Srivatava (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court did sound a caveat that norms for admission do have a direct impact on the standards of education. Qua reservation in the higher echelons of education, it was emphasized that dilution in qualifying marks between the reserved category candidates ought to be limited to a reasonable extent, bearing in mind the supervening public interest, so much so that the concept of merit is not wiped out in its entirety. That while considering the segments of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for appointment, maintenance of efficiency of administration has been stressed upon by Article 335, was underlined as well.
The same concern reverberated in Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (supra). While dilating on the scope and content of Articles 15, 16 and 335 of the Constitution of India, it was observed that vacancies are not to be filled up by way of charity as the constitutional scheme is to have candidates who would be able to serve the society and discharge the functions attached to the
post. Emphasis on merit was highlighted as well. While acknowledging inability of the disadvantaged groups or the socially backward people to compete with those in the general category, it was observed that the same did not denote that they (disadvantaged groups) would not be required to meet the basic minimum criteria laid down therefor. It was underscored as well that relaxation of marks for candidates belonging to reserved category candidates was not a constitutional mandate at the threshold and was permissible only for the purpose of promotion.
In all thus, in the attendant facts, the circular dated 11.5.2011 was inapplicable to the recruitment process.
Even otherwise, the reserved category candidates having availed a variety of relaxations and concessions, their migration to the general quota vacancies was invalid in view of the pronouncement in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra).
In the wake of the determinations made hereinabove, the appeals fail and are dismissed. To
reiterate, the results of the RTET 2011 are set aside to the extent of participation of the reserved category candidates benefited by the relaxation granted by the State Government in excess of its extant reservation policy. The results of RTET 2011 has, therefore, to be re-cast. The participation of the reserved category candidates in the final recruitment test, who would thus have to be declared
unsuccessful in the RTET 2011, has also to be declared illegal. Consequently, the eventual final results in the selection process have to be prepared afresh and declared accordingly. In undertaking this exercise to prepare the final results, the decision recorded herein on the aspect of migration of reserved category candidates into the quota of general category candidates would also be complied
with.
(Nisha Gupta)J. (Amitava Roy)CJ.
Parmar/skant
All the corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated
in the judgment/order being emailed.
Shashi Kant Gaur, PA
