RAJASTHAN HIGH CHOURT CHIEF JUSTICE BENCH DECISION ON TET / and RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF TET EXAM PART -U
Rajasthan Highcourt Chief Justice Bench Decision, Rajasthan Highcourt,
PART -U
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH:JAIPUR
(1) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1484/2012
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal &
Ors.
(2) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1329/2012
Hemlata Kanojia vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(3) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1333/2012
Sunita Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(4) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1470/2012
Mukesh Kumar Jitarwal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors.
(5) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1476/2012
Vikas Sankhala & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(6) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1496/2012
Sumer Singh Rajawat & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors.
(7) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1502/2012
Manju Kumari Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(8) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1512/2012
Mahesh Chand Nekela & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal &
Ors.
(9) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1518/2012
Smt. Mamta Kumari & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal &
Ors.
(10) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1532/2012
Babita vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
(11) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1533/2012
Bhanwari Kharia vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
(12) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1541/2012
Kuldeep Meena & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(13) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1542/2012
Shiv Raj Meena & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(14) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1556/2012
Mukesh Kumar Meena & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal &
Ors
(15) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1558/2012
Hari Singh Meena & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(16) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1567/2012
Manoj Kumari & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(17) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1573/2012
Ramesh Kumar Meena & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal &
Ors.
(18) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1575/2012
Rajesh Kumar Raigar & Anr. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal &
Ors.
(19) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1576/2012
Priyanka Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(20) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1580/2012
Bhanwar Lal Somarwal & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal &
Ors.
(21) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1597/2012
Anita Meena & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(22) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1615/2012
Reena Chourasia vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(23) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1631/2012
State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Shimbhu Dayal Khateek &
Anr.
(24) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1633/2012
State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Mohit Dixit
(25) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1638/2012
Anil Kumar & Anr. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
(26) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1646/2012
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Sunayna Dadich
(27) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1666/2012
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Vijay Singh
(28) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1667/2012
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Sanwar Mal Rakshawat
(29) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.59/2013
Rakhi Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors
Date when the judgment
was reserved ::- 29.3.2013
Date of pronouncement
of judgment ::- 2.7.2013
PRESENT
Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Amitava Roy
Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Nisha Gupta
Mr.S.N.Kumawat, AAG )
Mr.Tanveer Ahmed )
Mr.Raghunandan Sharma )
Mr.Kuldeep Aswal )
Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma )
for Rajendra Yadav )
Mr.R.D.Meena )
Mr.Aswani Chobisa )-for the appellants.
Mr.A.R.Meena )
Mr.Gajendra Sharma )
Mr.J.S.Rathore )
Mr.Rajendra Soni )
Mr.Vijay Poonia )
Mr.V.B.Srivastava )
Mr.Sanjay Srivastava )
Mr.Vigyan Shah )
Mr.Shantanu Sharma )
Mr.Anand Sharma ) -for the respondents.
Mr.V.K.Gupta )
JUDGMENT
BY THE COURT (Per Hon'ble Amitava Roy, CJ)
The commonality of the issues and the identicalness of impeachments cobble the proceedings and arguments having been advanced in an analogous hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the instant adjudication would answer the surging debate. The dissension centres around the relaxation granted by the State Government in the minimum pass marks to the
reserved category candidates in the Rajasthan Teachers Eligibility Test (for short, hereafter referred to as “the RTET”) allegedly in contravention of the norms to that effect embodied in the notification dated 29.7.2011 of the National Council for Teacher Education (for short, hereafter referred to as “the NCTE”), the weightage accorded on the basis thereof in the eventual evaluation of the contending candidates and the final results of the recruitment to the post of Teacher in Level (I) Class I to V
and Level (II) Class VI to VIII in the School (s) as declared vide notification/circular dated 25.8.2012 under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2009”).
We have heard Mr.S.N.Kumawat, AAG, Mr.Tanveer Ahmed, Mr.Raghunandan Sharma, Mr.Kuldeep Aswal, Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma for Rajendra Yadav, Mr.R.D.Meena,Mr.Aswani Chobisa, Mr.A.R. Meena, Mr.Gajendra Sharma, Mr.J.S.Rathore, Mr.Rajendra Soni, Mr.Vijay Poonia, Mr.V.B.Srivastava and Mr.Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Vigyan Shah, Mr.Shantanu Sharma, Mr.Anand Sharma and Mr.V.K.Gupta, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents.
The factual canvass with fringe variations qua the writ petitioners (Respondents in the appeals) as available in the pleadings of S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13488/2012 Vikas Kumar Agrawal V/s The State of Rajasthan & ors. (D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1484/2012) would suffice. The assailment of the unsuccessful candidates having been sustained in the original proceedings, the State-respondents and several selectee candidates being aggrieved seek redress.
Referring to the Act of 2009, the writ petitioners have admitted that the NCTE in terms of Section 23 thereof is the designated Nodal Agency to prescribe the minimum qualifications of eligibility for appointment as Teacher for Class I to VIII in all Schools including those
administered by the State Government, Local Bodies as well as those which are Government aided and non-aided.
The NCTE vide its notification dated 23.8.2010 published on 25.8.2010 in the Gazette of India in invocation of its powers under the aforementioned legal provision, laid down the minimum qualifications for appointment as Teacher, obligating a pass of Teacher Eligibility Test (fo
short, hereinafter referred to as “the TET”) to be an inalienable pre-qualification thererfor. The TET was to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with its (NCTE) guidelines prescribed for the purpose.
Clause 1(i)(b) and 1(ii)(b) of this notification laid down the requirement of a pass in the TET in the following terms:-
“Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to be conducted by the appropriate Government in
accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.”
The guidelines for conducting the TET were thereafter forwarded by NCTE to all Secretaries/Commissioners of Education of State Governments/UTs vide its letter No.76-
3/2010/NCTE/Acad dated 11.2.2011. Whereas in the uidelines, the minimum passing percentage for TET was 60%, liberty in terms of Clause 9(a) of the aforementioned guidelines was accorded to the School managements (Government, Local Bodies, Government aided and unaided) to grant concession to persons belonging to SC/ST/OBC/differently abled persons etc., in accordance with their extant reservation policy. Clause 9 (b) provided that weightage should be given to TET scores in the recruitment process.
According to the writ petitioners, neither in the notification dated 23.8.2010 nor in the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 of NCTE, the extent of percentage to which relaxation could be granted in the qualifying marks for appointment to the post of Teacher or for qualifying in the TET examination, was mentioned.
In purported response to Clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, as the writ petitioners
contend, the State Government issued letter dated 23.3.2011 to the Secretary and Coordinator, Rajasthan, Teacher Eligibility Test, Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer conveying its decision to grant relaxation in minimum pass marks in the TET examination to reserved category candidates as encapsulated hereunder:
“(a) 10% to persons belonging to SC, ST, OBC, SBC and all women belonging to the general category.
(b) 15% to all women belonging to SC, ST, OBC,SBC and widowed and divorced women.
(c) 20% to persons covered under the definition of “persons with disability” under Clause(t) of Section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.”
It was, thereafter, that the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer (Nodal Agency for conducting TET examination in the State of Rajasthan) issued advertisement No.1/11 dated 30.3.2011 wherein it was inter-alia provided that a person, who scores 60% marks in the TET examination would qualify in it. However, relaxation on this prescription was granted to the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC etc. as contained in Clause 4(a), (b) & (c) of Part-II of the advertisement.
Subsequent thereto, the NCTE vide notification dated 29.7.2011 amended its earlier notification dated 23.8.2010 modifying the minimum qualifications for recruitment to the post of Teacher at both Levels I and II.
Under the reservation policy referred to therein, it was prescribed that relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks to the candidates belonging to reserved category such as SC/ST,OBC/PH would be extended. According to the writ petitioners, in view of this notification dated 29.7.2011,
though the State Government ought to have revoked its letter dated 23.3.2011 patently repugnant thereto or ought to have limited the relaxation in minimum qualifying marks in TET examination upto 5% to the reserved category candidates as identified, results were declared and TET certificates were issued to them by illegally adhering to the relaxation announced vide its letter dated 23.3.2011.
The writ petitioners have further asserted that recruitment of Teachers for primary and upper primary
schools is made by the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan under the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”) and vide notification dated 11.5.2011, Rule 286 of the
Rules of 1996 had been amended and qualification for appointment of such Teachers had been predicated to be that specified by the NCTE in exercise of its power under Section 23 of the Act of 2009. From this point of view as well, the writ petitioners have insisted that relaxation in
excess of 5% in the minimum pass marks in the TET examination could not have been granted to the reserved category candidates and thus, only those amongst them, who had scored 55% (60% - 5%) or more could have been declared to have passed the said examination.
Noticeably, the writ petitioners include those belonging to the general category, who claim to have
secured more than 60% marks in RTET examination, 2011 at both the Levels. They have alleged that in view of this unwarranted and impermissible relaxation ranging from 10% to 20% to different categories of candidates of reserved status in violation of the notification date 29.7.2011 of the NCTE, whereas only 33% candidates of general category could succeed in the TET examination, their pass percentage of 60% having remained undiluted, the percentage of successful OBC candidates has soared to 61%, which according to them, is not only a patent phenomena of reversed discrimination but is also subversive of the underlying objective of TET examination
i.e. national bench mark of quality for securing higher level of academic excellence.
In this backdrop, the advertisement (s) for recruitment as Teacher Gr.III (Levels I and II) by
conducting district level examination (s) was/were issued for various districts and applications were also invited district-wise. The writ petitioners' perception is that thereby relaxation of 5% to reserved category candidates vis-a-vis eligibility norms pertaining to academic qualification and pass percentage of TET was accorded.
The advertisement further mentioned that in the assessment of merit for preparing the select list, 20% of the marks secured by the candidate (s) in RTET would be added to that obtained in the examination to be held.
Following the examination that was conducted on 2.6.2012 for both the levels, the results were declared for Level II on 25.8.2012. The writ petitioners have allege that in view of the relaxation in the eligibility norms and minimum pass marks in the TET examination for the reserved category candidates, the cut off level marks of the general category candidates stood pegged at 123.87.
By this, the candidates, who had been the beneficiary of such illegal relaxation of minimum pass marks in the TET examination in contravention of the notification dated 29.7.2011 of NCTE, were made to intrude in their (general category candidates) quota of seats prejudicially affecting their prospects inspite of their superior performance and no fault of theirs. The assailment laid principally is founded on grant of relaxation in minimum pass marks in the TET examination beyond 5% in
violation of the perceived prescription to the contrary as engrafted in the notification dated 29.7.2011 of NCTE and the overall impact on the final selection for recruitment, of such illegal and impermissible advantage bestowed on the reserved category candidates,
The State-respondents in their reply while dismissing the challenge as frivolous and after-thought, have endorsed the impugned action as a conscious initiative to ensure that persons recruited as Teachers possess the essential aptitude and ability to meet the challenges of teaching at the primary and upper primary level, the same being the live purpose of the Act of 2009.
While reiterating the sequence of events commencing from the notification dated 23.8.2010 of the NCTE, they have underlined the liberty granted to the State Government in terms of Clause 9 (a) of the guidelines of the NCTE dated 11.2.2011 to accord grant relaxation to the reserved
category candidates of SC/ST, OBC, differently abled persons etc., in accordance with the extant reservation policy. While asserting that a pass in the TET examination was only a mandatory eligibility norm to enable a candidate to participate in the main process of recruitment and that such a pass per se did not confer upon him/her a right to be appointed, the answering respondents averred that relaxation vide letter dated 23.3.2011 ranging from 10 to 20% category-wise had
been granted as permissible in terms of Clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 of the NCTE.
They referred to S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10785/2011 instituted by Durga Dass and others
repugning the process initiated by advertisement for conducting RTET examination, 2011 as well as the relaxation granted in terms of Clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011. Though a Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 9.9.2011, they have averred restrained the issuance of eligibility certificate to the candidates, who had been declared passed, in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.2664/2011 State of Rajasthan V/s Durga Dass and ors., a Coordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 6.1.2012 vacated the interim restraint observing that the Single Bench lacked
jurisdiction to hear the matter in view of the nature of the challenges made. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed as infructuous on 28.9.2012.
While admitting that vide notification dated 23.8.2010, the NCTE had laid down the minimum
qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as Teacher for Class I to VIII in the School (s) referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the Act of 2009, the Staterespondents pleaded that relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks as per notification dated 29.7.2011 had no bearing on the norms of eligibility qua TET to be conducted by the appropriate Government and that the correlation in this regard sought to be laid by the petitioners, was wholly misconceived. The answering
respondents iterated that the NCTE permitted and granted relaxation upto 5% to the candidates belonging to reserved category qua the qualifying marks in the academic qualification i.e.senior secondary or it
equivalent examination, graduation etc. only and that the said concession had no nexus at all with the pass marks to qualify the TET.
They admitted that vide notification dated 11.5.2011, Rule 286 of the Rules of 1996 was amended and the qualifications for appointment as Teacher in the primary and upper primary schools were
prescribed attuned to the criteria formulated by the NCTE in exercise of its power under Section 23(1) of the Act of 2009. They referred as well to the circular dated 11.5.2011 (Annex.8 to the writ petition no.13488/2012) to highlight that the candidates belonging to
OBC/SBC/SC/ST etc., who had secured more marks than those obtained by the last unreserved category candidate, were to be construed against unreserved category and not against the vacancies meant for reserved category irrespective of the fact whether or not he/she had availed any of the special concessions available to them.
According to the respondents, in response to the advertisement for recruitment of Teachers, candidates who were eligible and possessed of the requisite qualifications as prescribed by the NCTE vide notification dated 23.8.2010 as amended, were permitted to participate in the process and on the completion of the written examination, a merit list was drawn up on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination with the weightage of the marks
secured in the RTET examination. While denying that any ineligible candidate, as alleged by the petitioners, had been allowed to participate in the selection process, the respondents reiterated that the relaxation granted to the reserved categories had been strictly in terms of the norms prescribed by the NCTE. According to them, a candidate belonging to the reserved category, who on the basis of the pattern of evaluation, secured marks higher than the last candidate in the general category, was
construed to be in the general category and adjusted accordingly.
The NCTE in its reply averred that as the “academic authority” designated under the Act of 2009, it (NCTE) by its notification dated 23.8.2010 laid down the minimum qualifications for a candidate to be eligible for appointment as Teacher for Class I to VIII. These norms, which are uniformly applicable to all the States, inter-alia enjoined that a person to be eligible for such appointment
would have to pass TET conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with its (NCTE) guidelines.
These guidelines, the answering respondent stated, were circulated vide its letter dated 11.2.2011 whereby in terms of clause-9 thereof, relaxation/concession of/to the qualifying norm of 60% in TET examination was granted vis-a-vis candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC/differently abled persons in accordance with the extant reservation policy. While clarifying that the process for conducting TET
and recruitment of Teachers is within the domain of respective State Governments and that it had no role in these exercises, it (NCTE) underlined that the State Governments were required to adhere to the minimum qualifications and the guidelines stipulated by it. That the extent of relaxation in the cut off marks to be granted was also within the jurisdiction and realm of the respective State Governments depending upon their existing reservation policy, was highlighted as well. The answering respondent explained that the concept of relaxation in TET score ingrained in clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 did denote that the appropriate Government was authorized to grant such concession in the minimum pass marks to be obtained in the TET examination by the
aforementioned reserved category candidates. This, however, had no nexus with the lowering of minimum qualifying marks at the secondary or graduation level (academic qualification) for entry in the Teacher Education Course (s) for the reserved category candidates. While reiterating that as per Clause 9(b) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, weightage of the marks secured in the TET
examination had to be accorded in the recruitment process, it was contended that relaxation upto 5% marks to the candidates belonging to the reserved category was with regard to the minimum marks specified in paragraph
(1) of the notification dated 23.8.2010 relatable to academic qualifications i.e. senior secondary or
graduation, as the case may be, for admission into various Teacher Education Courses. According to the NCTE, the relaxation was qua qualifying marks in the academic qualification in conformity with the mandate of the National Council of Teachers Education (Recognized Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations of 2009”).
In the rejoinder filed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13488/2012, the petitioner therein while admitting
that no challenge to any guideline or notification of NCTE had been laid by him, did assert that the impugned action of the State Government in granting relaxation as conveyed by its letter dated 23.3.2011 was null and void being transgressive of the notification dated 29.7.2011 clearly limiting the relaxation in the pass marks to 5% under the extant reservation policy. While reiterating that In view of this enjoinment, it was not permissible for the State Government to grant relaxation beyond 5% in the qualifying marks for TET examination under the garb of Clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, he pleaded that acting to the contrary by granting relaxation from 10 to 20% for a pass in the TET, the very basic purpose of taking the same had been compromised and thus, the entire selection process was vitiated by the said irreversible infirmity. Asserting that the notification dated 11.5.2011 adjusting the reserved category candidates, who had availed the benefit of relaxations in the qualifying marks, against the quota of the general
category candidate is patently illegal, the petitioner has referred to circulars dated 17.6.1996, 4.3.2002 and 24.6.2008 of the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan indicating that such an accommodation was permissible if relaxation or special concession was/were
availed only with regard to fee. The migration of the reserved category candidates benefited by the concession qua qualifying marks for passing the TET into the portion of the unreserved category candidate, has been repudiated thus to be illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.
By an interim application, the petitioners have also brought on record the fact that out of 40,000 posts of Teacher, only 20% candidates belonging to general category has been selected in view of the arbitrary and unallowable large scale relaxation granted to the candidates of reserved category in the qualifying marks for TET in gross violation of the NCTE guidelines resulting in induction of persons lower in merit thereby rendering the salutary and underlying objectives of the Act of 2009 nugatory.
Rajasthan Highcourt Chief Justice Bench Decision, Rajasthan Highcourt,
*****************************
2013 mein TET KE SAMBANDH MEIN RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT KI CHIEF JUSTICE KEE BENCH DWARA DIYA GAYA NIRNAY.
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
*******************
टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility
Test Updates / Teacher Recruitment /SARKARI
NAUKRI NEWS / SARKARI
NAUKRI News
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com/#ixzz36cV9AUClPART -U
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH:JAIPUR
(1) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1484/2012
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal &
Ors.
(2) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1329/2012
Hemlata Kanojia vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(3) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1333/2012
Sunita Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(4) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1470/2012
Mukesh Kumar Jitarwal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors.
(5) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1476/2012
Vikas Sankhala & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(6) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1496/2012
Sumer Singh Rajawat & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors.
(7) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1502/2012
Manju Kumari Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(8) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1512/2012
Mahesh Chand Nekela & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal &
Ors.
(9) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1518/2012
Smt. Mamta Kumari & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal &
Ors.
(10) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1532/2012
Babita vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
(11) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1533/2012
Bhanwari Kharia vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
(12) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1541/2012
Kuldeep Meena & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(13) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1542/2012
Shiv Raj Meena & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(14) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1556/2012
Mukesh Kumar Meena & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal &
Ors
(15) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1558/2012
Hari Singh Meena & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(16) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1567/2012
Manoj Kumari & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(17) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1573/2012
Ramesh Kumar Meena & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal &
Ors.
(18) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1575/2012
Rajesh Kumar Raigar & Anr. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal &
Ors.
(19) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1576/2012
Priyanka Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(20) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1580/2012
Bhanwar Lal Somarwal & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal &
Ors.
(21) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1597/2012
Anita Meena & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(22) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1615/2012
Reena Chourasia vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(23) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1631/2012
State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Shimbhu Dayal Khateek &
Anr.
(24) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1633/2012
State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Mohit Dixit
(25) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1638/2012
Anil Kumar & Anr. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
(26) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1646/2012
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Sunayna Dadich
(27) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1666/2012
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Vijay Singh
(28) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1667/2012
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Sanwar Mal Rakshawat
(29) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.59/2013
Rakhi Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors
Date when the judgment
was reserved ::- 29.3.2013
Date of pronouncement
of judgment ::- 2.7.2013
PRESENT
Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Amitava Roy
Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Nisha Gupta
Mr.S.N.Kumawat, AAG )
Mr.Tanveer Ahmed )
Mr.Raghunandan Sharma )
Mr.Kuldeep Aswal )
Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma )
for Rajendra Yadav )
Mr.R.D.Meena )
Mr.Aswani Chobisa )-for the appellants.
Mr.A.R.Meena )
Mr.Gajendra Sharma )
Mr.J.S.Rathore )
Mr.Rajendra Soni )
Mr.Vijay Poonia )
Mr.V.B.Srivastava )
Mr.Sanjay Srivastava )
Mr.Vigyan Shah )
Mr.Shantanu Sharma )
Mr.Anand Sharma ) -for the respondents.
Mr.V.K.Gupta )
JUDGMENT
BY THE COURT (Per Hon'ble Amitava Roy, CJ)
The commonality of the issues and the identicalness of impeachments cobble the proceedings and arguments having been advanced in an analogous hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the instant adjudication would answer the surging debate. The dissension centres around the relaxation granted by the State Government in the minimum pass marks to the
reserved category candidates in the Rajasthan Teachers Eligibility Test (for short, hereafter referred to as “the RTET”) allegedly in contravention of the norms to that effect embodied in the notification dated 29.7.2011 of the National Council for Teacher Education (for short, hereafter referred to as “the NCTE”), the weightage accorded on the basis thereof in the eventual evaluation of the contending candidates and the final results of the recruitment to the post of Teacher in Level (I) Class I to V
and Level (II) Class VI to VIII in the School (s) as declared vide notification/circular dated 25.8.2012 under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2009”).
We have heard Mr.S.N.Kumawat, AAG, Mr.Tanveer Ahmed, Mr.Raghunandan Sharma, Mr.Kuldeep Aswal, Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma for Rajendra Yadav, Mr.R.D.Meena,Mr.Aswani Chobisa, Mr.A.R. Meena, Mr.Gajendra Sharma, Mr.J.S.Rathore, Mr.Rajendra Soni, Mr.Vijay Poonia, Mr.V.B.Srivastava and Mr.Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Vigyan Shah, Mr.Shantanu Sharma, Mr.Anand Sharma and Mr.V.K.Gupta, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents.
The factual canvass with fringe variations qua the writ petitioners (Respondents in the appeals) as available in the pleadings of S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13488/2012 Vikas Kumar Agrawal V/s The State of Rajasthan & ors. (D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1484/2012) would suffice. The assailment of the unsuccessful candidates having been sustained in the original proceedings, the State-respondents and several selectee candidates being aggrieved seek redress.
Referring to the Act of 2009, the writ petitioners have admitted that the NCTE in terms of Section 23 thereof is the designated Nodal Agency to prescribe the minimum qualifications of eligibility for appointment as Teacher for Class I to VIII in all Schools including those
administered by the State Government, Local Bodies as well as those which are Government aided and non-aided.
The NCTE vide its notification dated 23.8.2010 published on 25.8.2010 in the Gazette of India in invocation of its powers under the aforementioned legal provision, laid down the minimum qualifications for appointment as Teacher, obligating a pass of Teacher Eligibility Test (fo
short, hereinafter referred to as “the TET”) to be an inalienable pre-qualification thererfor. The TET was to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with its (NCTE) guidelines prescribed for the purpose.
Clause 1(i)(b) and 1(ii)(b) of this notification laid down the requirement of a pass in the TET in the following terms:-
“Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to be conducted by the appropriate Government in
accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.”
The guidelines for conducting the TET were thereafter forwarded by NCTE to all Secretaries/Commissioners of Education of State Governments/UTs vide its letter No.76-
3/2010/NCTE/Acad dated 11.2.2011. Whereas in the uidelines, the minimum passing percentage for TET was 60%, liberty in terms of Clause 9(a) of the aforementioned guidelines was accorded to the School managements (Government, Local Bodies, Government aided and unaided) to grant concession to persons belonging to SC/ST/OBC/differently abled persons etc., in accordance with their extant reservation policy. Clause 9 (b) provided that weightage should be given to TET scores in the recruitment process.
According to the writ petitioners, neither in the notification dated 23.8.2010 nor in the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 of NCTE, the extent of percentage to which relaxation could be granted in the qualifying marks for appointment to the post of Teacher or for qualifying in the TET examination, was mentioned.
In purported response to Clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, as the writ petitioners
contend, the State Government issued letter dated 23.3.2011 to the Secretary and Coordinator, Rajasthan, Teacher Eligibility Test, Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer conveying its decision to grant relaxation in minimum pass marks in the TET examination to reserved category candidates as encapsulated hereunder:
“(a) 10% to persons belonging to SC, ST, OBC, SBC and all women belonging to the general category.
(b) 15% to all women belonging to SC, ST, OBC,SBC and widowed and divorced women.
(c) 20% to persons covered under the definition of “persons with disability” under Clause(t) of Section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.”
It was, thereafter, that the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer (Nodal Agency for conducting TET examination in the State of Rajasthan) issued advertisement No.1/11 dated 30.3.2011 wherein it was inter-alia provided that a person, who scores 60% marks in the TET examination would qualify in it. However, relaxation on this prescription was granted to the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC etc. as contained in Clause 4(a), (b) & (c) of Part-II of the advertisement.
Subsequent thereto, the NCTE vide notification dated 29.7.2011 amended its earlier notification dated 23.8.2010 modifying the minimum qualifications for recruitment to the post of Teacher at both Levels I and II.
Under the reservation policy referred to therein, it was prescribed that relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks to the candidates belonging to reserved category such as SC/ST,OBC/PH would be extended. According to the writ petitioners, in view of this notification dated 29.7.2011,
though the State Government ought to have revoked its letter dated 23.3.2011 patently repugnant thereto or ought to have limited the relaxation in minimum qualifying marks in TET examination upto 5% to the reserved category candidates as identified, results were declared and TET certificates were issued to them by illegally adhering to the relaxation announced vide its letter dated 23.3.2011.
The writ petitioners have further asserted that recruitment of Teachers for primary and upper primary
schools is made by the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan under the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”) and vide notification dated 11.5.2011, Rule 286 of the
Rules of 1996 had been amended and qualification for appointment of such Teachers had been predicated to be that specified by the NCTE in exercise of its power under Section 23 of the Act of 2009. From this point of view as well, the writ petitioners have insisted that relaxation in
excess of 5% in the minimum pass marks in the TET examination could not have been granted to the reserved category candidates and thus, only those amongst them, who had scored 55% (60% - 5%) or more could have been declared to have passed the said examination.
Noticeably, the writ petitioners include those belonging to the general category, who claim to have
secured more than 60% marks in RTET examination, 2011 at both the Levels. They have alleged that in view of this unwarranted and impermissible relaxation ranging from 10% to 20% to different categories of candidates of reserved status in violation of the notification date 29.7.2011 of the NCTE, whereas only 33% candidates of general category could succeed in the TET examination, their pass percentage of 60% having remained undiluted, the percentage of successful OBC candidates has soared to 61%, which according to them, is not only a patent phenomena of reversed discrimination but is also subversive of the underlying objective of TET examination
i.e. national bench mark of quality for securing higher level of academic excellence.
In this backdrop, the advertisement (s) for recruitment as Teacher Gr.III (Levels I and II) by
conducting district level examination (s) was/were issued for various districts and applications were also invited district-wise. The writ petitioners' perception is that thereby relaxation of 5% to reserved category candidates vis-a-vis eligibility norms pertaining to academic qualification and pass percentage of TET was accorded.
The advertisement further mentioned that in the assessment of merit for preparing the select list, 20% of the marks secured by the candidate (s) in RTET would be added to that obtained in the examination to be held.
Following the examination that was conducted on 2.6.2012 for both the levels, the results were declared for Level II on 25.8.2012. The writ petitioners have allege that in view of the relaxation in the eligibility norms and minimum pass marks in the TET examination for the reserved category candidates, the cut off level marks of the general category candidates stood pegged at 123.87.
By this, the candidates, who had been the beneficiary of such illegal relaxation of minimum pass marks in the TET examination in contravention of the notification dated 29.7.2011 of NCTE, were made to intrude in their (general category candidates) quota of seats prejudicially affecting their prospects inspite of their superior performance and no fault of theirs. The assailment laid principally is founded on grant of relaxation in minimum pass marks in the TET examination beyond 5% in
violation of the perceived prescription to the contrary as engrafted in the notification dated 29.7.2011 of NCTE and the overall impact on the final selection for recruitment, of such illegal and impermissible advantage bestowed on the reserved category candidates,
The State-respondents in their reply while dismissing the challenge as frivolous and after-thought, have endorsed the impugned action as a conscious initiative to ensure that persons recruited as Teachers possess the essential aptitude and ability to meet the challenges of teaching at the primary and upper primary level, the same being the live purpose of the Act of 2009.
While reiterating the sequence of events commencing from the notification dated 23.8.2010 of the NCTE, they have underlined the liberty granted to the State Government in terms of Clause 9 (a) of the guidelines of the NCTE dated 11.2.2011 to accord grant relaxation to the reserved
category candidates of SC/ST, OBC, differently abled persons etc., in accordance with the extant reservation policy. While asserting that a pass in the TET examination was only a mandatory eligibility norm to enable a candidate to participate in the main process of recruitment and that such a pass per se did not confer upon him/her a right to be appointed, the answering respondents averred that relaxation vide letter dated 23.3.2011 ranging from 10 to 20% category-wise had
been granted as permissible in terms of Clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 of the NCTE.
They referred to S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10785/2011 instituted by Durga Dass and others
repugning the process initiated by advertisement for conducting RTET examination, 2011 as well as the relaxation granted in terms of Clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011. Though a Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 9.9.2011, they have averred restrained the issuance of eligibility certificate to the candidates, who had been declared passed, in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.2664/2011 State of Rajasthan V/s Durga Dass and ors., a Coordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 6.1.2012 vacated the interim restraint observing that the Single Bench lacked
jurisdiction to hear the matter in view of the nature of the challenges made. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed as infructuous on 28.9.2012.
While admitting that vide notification dated 23.8.2010, the NCTE had laid down the minimum
qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as Teacher for Class I to VIII in the School (s) referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the Act of 2009, the Staterespondents pleaded that relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks as per notification dated 29.7.2011 had no bearing on the norms of eligibility qua TET to be conducted by the appropriate Government and that the correlation in this regard sought to be laid by the petitioners, was wholly misconceived. The answering
respondents iterated that the NCTE permitted and granted relaxation upto 5% to the candidates belonging to reserved category qua the qualifying marks in the academic qualification i.e.senior secondary or it
equivalent examination, graduation etc. only and that the said concession had no nexus at all with the pass marks to qualify the TET.
They admitted that vide notification dated 11.5.2011, Rule 286 of the Rules of 1996 was amended and the qualifications for appointment as Teacher in the primary and upper primary schools were
prescribed attuned to the criteria formulated by the NCTE in exercise of its power under Section 23(1) of the Act of 2009. They referred as well to the circular dated 11.5.2011 (Annex.8 to the writ petition no.13488/2012) to highlight that the candidates belonging to
OBC/SBC/SC/ST etc., who had secured more marks than those obtained by the last unreserved category candidate, were to be construed against unreserved category and not against the vacancies meant for reserved category irrespective of the fact whether or not he/she had availed any of the special concessions available to them.
According to the respondents, in response to the advertisement for recruitment of Teachers, candidates who were eligible and possessed of the requisite qualifications as prescribed by the NCTE vide notification dated 23.8.2010 as amended, were permitted to participate in the process and on the completion of the written examination, a merit list was drawn up on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination with the weightage of the marks
secured in the RTET examination. While denying that any ineligible candidate, as alleged by the petitioners, had been allowed to participate in the selection process, the respondents reiterated that the relaxation granted to the reserved categories had been strictly in terms of the norms prescribed by the NCTE. According to them, a candidate belonging to the reserved category, who on the basis of the pattern of evaluation, secured marks higher than the last candidate in the general category, was
construed to be in the general category and adjusted accordingly.
The NCTE in its reply averred that as the “academic authority” designated under the Act of 2009, it (NCTE) by its notification dated 23.8.2010 laid down the minimum qualifications for a candidate to be eligible for appointment as Teacher for Class I to VIII. These norms, which are uniformly applicable to all the States, inter-alia enjoined that a person to be eligible for such appointment
would have to pass TET conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with its (NCTE) guidelines.
These guidelines, the answering respondent stated, were circulated vide its letter dated 11.2.2011 whereby in terms of clause-9 thereof, relaxation/concession of/to the qualifying norm of 60% in TET examination was granted vis-a-vis candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC/differently abled persons in accordance with the extant reservation policy. While clarifying that the process for conducting TET
and recruitment of Teachers is within the domain of respective State Governments and that it had no role in these exercises, it (NCTE) underlined that the State Governments were required to adhere to the minimum qualifications and the guidelines stipulated by it. That the extent of relaxation in the cut off marks to be granted was also within the jurisdiction and realm of the respective State Governments depending upon their existing reservation policy, was highlighted as well. The answering respondent explained that the concept of relaxation in TET score ingrained in clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 did denote that the appropriate Government was authorized to grant such concession in the minimum pass marks to be obtained in the TET examination by the
aforementioned reserved category candidates. This, however, had no nexus with the lowering of minimum qualifying marks at the secondary or graduation level (academic qualification) for entry in the Teacher Education Course (s) for the reserved category candidates. While reiterating that as per Clause 9(b) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, weightage of the marks secured in the TET
examination had to be accorded in the recruitment process, it was contended that relaxation upto 5% marks to the candidates belonging to the reserved category was with regard to the minimum marks specified in paragraph
(1) of the notification dated 23.8.2010 relatable to academic qualifications i.e. senior secondary or
graduation, as the case may be, for admission into various Teacher Education Courses. According to the NCTE, the relaxation was qua qualifying marks in the academic qualification in conformity with the mandate of the National Council of Teachers Education (Recognized Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations of 2009”).
In the rejoinder filed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13488/2012, the petitioner therein while admitting
that no challenge to any guideline or notification of NCTE had been laid by him, did assert that the impugned action of the State Government in granting relaxation as conveyed by its letter dated 23.3.2011 was null and void being transgressive of the notification dated 29.7.2011 clearly limiting the relaxation in the pass marks to 5% under the extant reservation policy. While reiterating that In view of this enjoinment, it was not permissible for the State Government to grant relaxation beyond 5% in the qualifying marks for TET examination under the garb of Clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, he pleaded that acting to the contrary by granting relaxation from 10 to 20% for a pass in the TET, the very basic purpose of taking the same had been compromised and thus, the entire selection process was vitiated by the said irreversible infirmity. Asserting that the notification dated 11.5.2011 adjusting the reserved category candidates, who had availed the benefit of relaxations in the qualifying marks, against the quota of the general
category candidate is patently illegal, the petitioner has referred to circulars dated 17.6.1996, 4.3.2002 and 24.6.2008 of the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan indicating that such an accommodation was permissible if relaxation or special concession was/were
availed only with regard to fee. The migration of the reserved category candidates benefited by the concession qua qualifying marks for passing the TET into the portion of the unreserved category candidate, has been repudiated thus to be illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.
By an interim application, the petitioners have also brought on record the fact that out of 40,000 posts of Teacher, only 20% candidates belonging to general category has been selected in view of the arbitrary and unallowable large scale relaxation granted to the candidates of reserved category in the qualifying marks for TET in gross violation of the NCTE guidelines resulting in induction of persons lower in merit thereby rendering the salutary and underlying objectives of the Act of 2009 nugatory.
