Madras High Court Decision Regarding TEACHER ELEIGIBILITITY EXAM and Selections Through it

Madras High Court Decision Regarding TEACHER ELEIGIBILITITY EXAM and Selections Through it

PART 1

Important Parts of Decision :
****************************************
Many TET candidates who appeared in 2012 & 2013, who are passed, failed reaches court,
And passed candidates raised following points :-

 Madras Govt. issued G.O to give relaxation of 5% to TNTET 2013 candidates while result was already published and game was over. Rules of game can not be changed after completion of game.

Court said - TET is only a qualifying exam and not directly gives appointment and if any appointment happens through this then they will look into matter for Change of Game in Middle, and therefore point is baseless.

And due to ploicy decision of Govt. TET 2012 candidates 5% pass marks relaxation is also not given.
Tamilnadu Govt.  gave relaxation of 5% pass marks in TNTET from 2013 onwards.
**************************


This is the html version of the file http://judis.nic.in/judis_chennai/Judge_Result_Disp.asp?MyChk=46232.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
Page 1
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29..04..2014
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
Writ Petition Nos.5590, 4182, 4183, 4184, 7146, 7371, 7681, 7754, 7755, 7756, 7757, 5985, 8354, 10850, 2780, 2781, 2782, 5842, 5843, 5591, 6361, 6648, 7315, 7316, 7317, 7213, 7626, 7859, 5680, 9008, 10849 and 10843 of 2014 and connected MPs
P.Jayabharathi
... Petitioner in W.P.No.5590 of 2014
-Versus-
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Secretary to Government,
School Education (TRB) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
Chennai 600 006.
3.The Director of School Education,
Chennai 600 006.
4.The Director of Elementary Education,
Chennai 600 006.
... Respondents in W.P.No.5590 of 2014
Prayer in W.P.No.5590 of 2014:- Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.252, School Education (Q) Department, dated
05.10.2012 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.29, School Education (TRB)
Department, dated 14.02.2014, insofar as the awarding of weightage mark in the slab system for the Teacher Eligibility Test qualification for the post of B.T. Assistant is concerned and to quash the same and direct the Page 2
2
respondents to award mark for the Teacher Eligibility Test qualification on the basis of actual percentage of fraction of mark obtained by the petitioner and award the mark to the Teacher Eligibility Test accordingly and consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant (English).
1.S.Karthick
2.B.Vishalini
... Petitioner in W.P.No.5842 of 2014
-Versus-
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Secretary to Government,
School Education (TRB) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
Chennai 600 006.
3.The Director of School Education,
Chennai 600 006.
... Respondents in W.P.No.5842 of 2014
Prayer in W.P.No.5842 of 2014:- Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.25, School Education (TRB) Department, dated
06.02.2014 and to quash the same, insofar as it denies the relaxation of 5% to the candidates who appeared in the Teacher Eligibility Test conducted by the 2nd respondent in the year 2012 is concerned, and direct the respondents to extend the benefit of 5% relaxation to the petitioner andconsequently, issue Teacher Eligibility Test Certificate so as to enable them to get appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant in any one of the Government Schools.
N.Kowsalya
... Petitioner in W.P.No.7681 of 2014
-Versus-
Page 3
3
1.The Secretary to Government, Education Department,
Fort St. Geoge,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Chairman, Teacher's Recruitment Board,
E.V.K. Building, College Road,
Chennai 600 006.
3.The Member Secretary,
Teacher's Recruitmetn Board,
E.V.K. Building, College Road,
Chennai 600 006.
... Respondents in W.P.No.7681 of 2014
Prayer in W.P.No.7681 of 2014:- Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.29, School Education (TRB) Department, dated
14.02.2014 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the basis of marks awarded at Tamil Nadu Teacher's Eligibility Test conducted by the 3rd respondent.
V.Sridevi
... Petitioner in W.P.No.10849 of 2014
-Versus-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Teachers' Recruitment Board,
Rep. By its Chairman,
DPI Compound,
College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3.The Director of School Education,
DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
... Respondents in W.P.No.10849 of 2014
Page 4
4
Prayer in W.P.No.10849 of 2014:- Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.25, School Education (TRB) Department, dated 06.02.2014 and to quash the same.

For Petitioner(s)
: Mr.C.Selvaraj, senior counsel for
M/s.C.S. Associates for petitioner(s)
in W.P.Nos.5590, 5842, 5843 and
5591 of 2014
Mr.L.Mouli for Petitioner in
W.P.No.6361 of 2014
Mr.S.Namonarayanan
for
petitioner(s) in W.P.Nos.4182, 4184
and 6648 of 2014
Mr.S.Kadarkarai for petitioner(s) in
W.P.No.7146 of 2014
Mr.M.R.Jothimanian for petitioner(s)
in W.P.No.7371of 2014
Mr.R.Karunagaran for petitioner(s)
in W.P.No.7681 of 2014
Mr.T.K.S.Gandhi for petitioner(s) in
W.P.No.7754, 7757, 7315 to 7317,
7213 of 2014
Mr.R.Bharath
Kumar
for
petitioner(s) in W.P.No.5985 of
2014
Mr.G.Sankaran for petitioner(s) in
W.P.No.8354of 2014
Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy for
petitioner(s) in W.P.Nos.10850 and
10849 of 2014
Mr.S.Vijayan for petitioner(s) in
W.P.Nos.2780 to 2782 of 2014
M/s.Sai Bharath and Ilan for
Petitioner(s) in W.P.No.7626 of
2014
Page 5
5
Mr.S.Kasirajan for petitioner(s) in
W.P.No.7859 of 2014
Mr.R.Kumaravel for petitioner(s) in
W.P.No.5680 of 2014
Mr.D.Shivakumaran for petitioner(s)
in W.P.No.9008 of 2014
Ms.D.Almas Banu for petitioner(s)
in W.P.No.10843 of 2014
For Respondent(s)
: Mr.AL.Somayaji , Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.D.Krishnakumar,
Special Government Pleader,
R.Rajeswaran, Special Government
Pleader and
Mr.M.Dig Vijaya Pandian, Additional
Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
Since common issues are involved in all these writ petitions, they were heard together and they are disposed of by means of this common order.
2. The common facts involved in all these writ petitions are as follows:
With a laudable object of providing free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years, the Parliament enacted “The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009” and the same was brought into force w.e.f 27.08.2009. Section 23 of the said Act
stipulates the qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of Page 6
6
service of teachers. Sub Section (1) of Section 23 states that any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an Academic Authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher.
3. In pursuance of the said provision, the Central Government authorised the “National Council for Teacher Education” (hereinafter referred to as “NCTE”) as the Academic Authority empowering it to lay down the minimum qualifications for appointment as teacher. The NCTE, in turn,
issued a notification (vide F.No.61-03/20/2010/NCTE (N&S), dated 23.08.2010) laying down the following minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in Class 1 to VIII.
“Minimum Qualification:
(i) Classes I - V:
(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2- year Diploma in
Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary
Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and
Procedure), Regulations 2002
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor of Elementary
Page 7
7
Education (B.El.Ed)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50 % marks and 2- year Diploma in Education (Special Education)
AND

(b) 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.



(ii) Classes VI-VIII
(a) B.A./B.Sc. and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
OR
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed)
OR
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) in accordance with the
NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor in Elementary
Education (B.El.Ed.)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year B.A./B.Sc. Ed or B.A.
Ed./B.Sc. Ed.
OR
Page 8
8
B.A/B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 year B.Ed (Special Education)
AND
(b) 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.”
4. As seen above, a pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as “TET”) to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE for the said purpose is compulsory.
5. The NCTE thereafter issued guidelines by its proceedings in No.76- 4/2010/NCTE/Acad, dated 11.02.2011 for conducting TET. Para 9 of the said notification reads as follows:
“Para 9.Qualifying marks:
A person who scores 60% or more in the TET exam will be considered as TET pass. School
managements (Government, local bodies, government aided and unaided)
(a) may considered giving concessions to persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently abled
persons, etc., in accordance with their extant reservation policy;
(b) should give weightage to the TET scores in the recruitment process; however, qualifying the
Page 9
9
TET would not confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment as it is only one of the
eligibility criteria for appointment."
6. Thereafter, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education (C2) Department, dated 15.11.2011 designating the Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) as the Nodel agency for conducting TET and recruitment of teachers.
7. Subsequently, the Government of Tamil Nadu in letter No.2068/C2/2012-1, dated 04.02.2012, issued certain clarifications to G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 15.11.2011, regarding the conduct of TET. According to the said clarifications, there shall be two papers for the TET. Paper-I will
be for a person who intends to be a teacher for Classes I to V which consists of 150 Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs). Paper-II will be for a person who intends to be a teacher for Classes VI to VIII which consists of 150 MCQs. This clarification is in tune with the NCTE norms. The percentage of marks required for a pass is 60%.
8. The NCTE amended the earlier notification by another notification in F.No.61-1/2011/NCTE (N&S), dated 29.07.2011. Para 1 of the said notification substituted para 1 of the earlier notification. As per the amended notification the minimum required qualification is as follows:
Page 10
10
“(I) For sub-para (i) of para 1 of the Principal Notification, the following shall be substituted,
namely:--
Para 1. Minimum Qualification:
(i) Classes I - V:
(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2- year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary
Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and
Procedure), Regulations 2002
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor of Elementary
Education (B.El.Ed)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50 % marks and 2- year Diploma in Education (Special Education)
Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
AND
(b) 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.
Page 11
11
(II) For sub-para (ii) of para 1 of the Principal Notification, the following shall be substituted,
namely:-
(ii) Classes VI-VIII
(a) Graduation and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
OR
Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed)
OR
Graduation with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) in accordance with the
NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor in Elementary
Education (B.El.Ed.)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year B.A./B.Sc. Ed or B.A.
Ed./B.Sc. Ed.
OR
Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1 year B.Ed (Special Education)
AND
(b) 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.”
Page 12
12
III For para 3 of the Principal Notification the following shall be substituted, namely:-
(i) Training to be undergone. - A person -
(a) with Graduation with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification or with at least 45% marks
and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed) in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and
Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard, shall also be eligible for appointment to Class I to V upto 1st January, 2012, provided he/she undergoes, after appointment an NCTE recognised 6 months Special Programme in Elementary Education;
(b) with D.Ed. (Special Education) or B.Ed. (Special Education) qualification shall undergo, after
appointment an NCTE recognised 6-month Special Programme in Elementary Education.
(ii) Reservation Policy:
Relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks shall be allowed to the candidates belonging to reserved
categories, such as SC/ST/OBC/PH."
9. In the above background, the TRB conducted, for the first time, TET for both the Papers I & II on 12.07.2012. Several lakhs of candidates participated. 60% marks was the minimum required mark for a pass in the TET as per the NCTE norms. When the results were published, it turned out
Page 13
13
that only 0.36% of the candidates had passed in both the Papers I & II.
Therefore, in order to afford yet another opportunity for the failed candidates, the Government directed the TRB to conduct yet another TET before the end of October, 2012. This time, the duration of the examination was ordered to be increased from 1½ hours to 3 Hours - vide
G.O.Ms.No.222, School Education Department, dated 24.08.2012. As per G.O.Ms.No.222, dated 24.08.2012, it was directed that only those candidates who had earlier failed alone would be permitted to participate in the TET, which was scheduled to be held on 03.10.2012.
10. At this juncture, a number of writ petitions [W.P.No.24507 of 2012 – Batch] were filed before this Court by the fresh candidates who had not earlier appeared in the TET. Their grievance was that they should also be permitted to participate in the TET. When the said batch of writ petitions
came up for hearing before me, the Chairman, TRB submitted two affidavits stating that the examination which was scheduled to be held on 03.10.2012 would be postponed to 14.10.2012 and fresh candidates would also be permitted.
11. In the meanwhile, for the purpose of fixing the criteria for selection of candidates who have cleared the TET for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers and B.T. Assistants and other related issues, the Government constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of
the Hon'ble Minister for School Education, Sports and Youth Welfare with three other members namely, the Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board and The Director of School Education (Vide G.O.(2D)No.36, School
Education (Q) Department, dated 14.09.2012).
12. In the second affidavit filed in W.P.Nos.24507 of 2012 batch, the Chairman, TRB had stated that after the recommendation of the above constituted Committee, the Government would examine the matter in detail and would arrive at a criteria for selection of candidates for Secondary
Grade Teachers and B.T. Assistants at the earliest.

13. In view of the said affidavit filed, this Court disposed of the writ petitions issuing certain directions including the following:-
“10 (vii). So far as the candidates who possess the Teacher Eligibility Certificate are
concerned, after receipt of the recommendations of the Committee constituted (vide G.O.(2D) No.36,
School Education Department, dated 14.09.2012) selection and appointment shall be made as per the
criteria to be fixed by the Committee.”
Page 15
15
14. The Committee unanimously recommended to the Government to adopt modalities by giving weightage of marks for selection and appointment of Secondary Grade Teachers and Graduate Assistants. Having examined the recommendations of the Committee, the Government issued
G.O.Ms.No.252, School Education (Q) Department, dated 05.10.2012 and prescribed the modalities of giving weightage of marks for selection and appointment of Secondary Grade Teachers and Graduate Assistants.
15. So based on the above norms and the criteria prescribed, the candidates who have cleared the TET in the second examination held on 14.10.2012 were all called for certificate verification, awarded weightage of marks, selected and appointed. Until then, there was no challenge made to
G.O.Ms.No.252, dated 05.10.2012.
16. The TRB, for the third time, issued Notification/Advertisement for TET for Paper-I and Paper-II to be held on 17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013.
This notification was issued on 22.05.2013. The petitioners in all these writ petitions participated either in Paper-I or in Paper-II or in both. In that examination held as per the Notification itself, the minimum percentage of marks required for pass was only 60% as per the norms prescribed by the
NCTE and the Government of Tamil Nadu. The results were subsequently published.
Page 16
16
17. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu announced on the Floor of the Assembly that 5% relaxation will be given from the present pass mark of 60% for passing TET for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Backward Classes (Muslim), Most Backward Classes, De-notified Communities and persons with Disability.
18. In tune with the said announcement made, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.25, School Education (TRB) Department, dated 06.02.2014 relaxing 5% marks from the present pass mark of 60% for the candidates belonging to the above categories.
19. The Government Order also further directed that the said relaxation will be applicable for the TET-2013 held on 17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013 . For better understanding let me extract paragraph 3 of the said G.O. which reads as follows:
"3. In continuation of the announcement made by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, the Government orders as follows:
(a) relaxing 5% marks from the present pass mark of 60% and fix the pass mark at 55% for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Backward Classes (Muslim), Most Backward Classes, De-notified Communities and persons with disability (PWD) as
Page 17
17
given below. The Candidates are required to obtain the following minimum marks in Paper I for Secondary Grade Teachers and Paper II for Graduate Assistants:-
Category Maximum Marks  Minimum Marks (%) to be obtained in TNTET Paper - I Paper - II
General 150 60% or 90 marks 60% or 90 marks
SC, ST, BC, BC(M), MBC,DNC and persons with Disability (PWD) 150
55% or 82.5 marks rounded off to 82 marks 55% or 82.5 marks rounded off to 82 marks
(b) Relaxing 5% marks from the 60% marks prescribed for clearing of the Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test, 2013 held on 17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013 for Schedule Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Backward Classes (Muslims), Most Backward Classes, De-notified Communities
and persons with Disability (PWD) and fixed at 55% or 82 marks.
(c) For all future Teacher Eligibility Tests, to fix the minimum marks for candidates belonging to General Categories at 90 marks (60% of 150) and for candidates belonging to Schedule Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Backward Classes (Muslims), Most Backward Classes,De-notified Communities and persons with Disability (PWD) at 82 marks (55% of 150)."
20. Thereafter, the Government issued another Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.29, School Education (TRB) Department, dated 14.02.2014, Page 18
18
thereby partially modifying the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.252, dated 05.10.2012 (this is in respect of weightage marks for selection). Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said G.O. reads as follows:
"3. Consequent to the orders issued in G.O. third read above, in partial modification of the orders issued in the G.O. first read above , the weightage of marks for the Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test for Secondary Grade Teachers and Graduate Assistants shall be as indicated below:-
Examination passed  Weightage of Marks  90%  and above 80% and above but below 90% 70% and
above but below 80% 60% and above but below 70% 55% and above but below 60%
TNTET.
60  60  54  48  42  36
4. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board is directed to take note of this Government Order for finalizing selection list of the Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test 2013 held on 17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013 and for all future Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Tests with respect to candidates
belonging to Scheduled Castes, Sch dules Tribes, Backward Classes, Backward Classes (Muslims), Most Backward Classes, Denotified Communities and Persons with Disability (PWD).
21. In the above factual background, now these writ petitions have Page 19
19
been filed by the candidates who have appeared for either Paper-I or Paper-II or in both the papers in the TET held on 17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013. (i) In some of the writ petitions, the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 06.02.2014 giving relaxation of 5% of marks in the TET to specific class of persons is under challenge. (ii) In some of the other writ petitions, challenge is to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 14.02.2014, wherein the candidates have questioned the award of
weightage of marks in the slab system and they have sought for a direction to the respondents to take into account the actual percentage of marks secured by the candidates. (iii) In few other writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the retrospective application of the Government Order in
G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 14.02.2014 as well as the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 06.02.2014 to the TET examination held on 17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013. (iv) In few other writ petitions, the candidates have prayed that G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 06.02.2014 and G.O.Ms.No.29,
dated 14.02.2014 should be retrospectively extended to the earlier examinations held in the year 2012 as well. (v) In some other writ petitions both G.O.Ms.No.25 and G.O.Ms.No.29 are challenged seeking a consequential direction for awarding of weightage marks as per G.O.Ms.No.252.
22. Now, let me take up these challenges one after the other. Page 20
20
Challenge to G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 06.02.2014 23. The common grounds in the writ petitions concerned would be as follows:-
(i) The impugned Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 06.02.2014 which was issued
after the entire selection process was over for the examination conducted in August, 2013, would
amount to changing the rules of the game after the game is over.
(ii) By reducing the pass percentage to 55%, the respondents have diluted the pass percentage
and have made more candidates eligible along with the petitioners which has adversely affected the
rights of the petitioners.
(iii) The retrospective operation under the impugned G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 06.02.2014 to TET
examinations held in August, 2013 materially affects the vested right of the petitioners for selection.
(iv) The impugned Government Order suffers from total non-application of mind in as much as the
Page 21
21
relaxation is not on the ground that there are no eligible candidates.
(v) The impugned Government Order is bereft of any reasoning for the issuance of the same and thus the said G.O. is highly unreasonable.
(vi) The impugned Government Order is against the provisions of the Right to Education Act and NCTE Notification which enables the Government to only reduce the pass marks, only, if there is any hardship or that there are no enough number of candidates.
24. In the common counter filed by the Government, it is, inter alia,stated as follows:
(i) There were several representations from different quarters seeking concessions to the reserved
categories. The Government after detailed examination of the said requests decided to grant
such concessions to the said category of persons in the TET exams conducted in the year 2013 and to all the future TET exams and accordingly passed the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.25. The Government has gone one step further and allowed 5 % relaxation Page 22
22
from the existing 60 % for determining eligibility in the TET for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Backward Classes (Muslim), Most Backward Classes, De-notified Communities (DNC) and Persons with Disability (PWD).
(ii) Giving concession is the policy of the Government and it is within its discretion and so, the
Courts cannot either interfere with such policy matters nor could it direct the State Government not to give such concession.
(iii) In respect of the candidates who have already appeared in the TET held in the year 2013 the
process of selection is under way and it is yet to be completed. Therefore, the said order has been made applicable to the candidates who have appeared for TET held in the year 2013.
25. I have meticulously considered the above rival contentions. In none of the writ petitions, the power of the State Government to give Page 23
23
relaxation for the benefit of reserved categories in the matter of percentage of marks for a pass in the TET has been questioned. The foremost ground is that the Government has issued the impugned Government Order in total non-application of mind. As has been stated in the common counter
affidavit filed by the respondents, the Government has considered the representations from various quarters seeking relaxation of 5% of pass mark for specified and under privileged communities and having regard to the same, the Government has taken a policy decision to relax the same.
Therefore, it cannot be stated that the Government has passed the impugned order in total non-application of mind.


26. Nextly, it is contended by the petitioners that such concessions could be granted only if there is no required number of candidates eligible for appointment. In my considered opinion, this contention is totally baseless as TET is not a competitive examination but it is only a qualifying examination. If the candidates have once passed the said examination, the pass certificate will be valid for seven years and there is no need for them to write the examination every time. At the same time, there is also no restriction for the passed candidates to re-appear to enhance the marks.
Thus, it should be understood that TET is only a qualifying examination to qualify persons for appointment as teachers. Therefore, it is not tenable to state that if only there are no sufficient number of candidates available in Page 24
24
the market who have passed the TET for appointment, such relaxation could be given. Therefore, this ground is rejected.
27. Yet another ground raised, upon which much focus is made, is that the rules of the game cannot be changed once the game has started. In this case, according to the petitioners the TET Examinations – 2013 were held on 17th and 18th of August, 2013 and as per the prospectus issued, the minimum required marks for a pass was 60%. Based on the said prescription, the results were published and the successful candidates were
also called for certificate verification and only after that, the impugned Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 06.02.2014 has been issued.
The grievance of the petitioners is that since the relaxation of 5% of marks has been given to candidates who have appeared in the already concluded examination, it will materially affect the chance of the candidates who have already passed and secured more than 60% of marks, while they are considered for appointment. This argument, in my considered opinion, though attractive, does not persuade me at all. If it is a competitive examination, I may find some justification in the said contention that the rules of the game cannot be changed subsequently. But as I have already
pointed out, it is only a qualifying examination.
28. The basic difference between a competitive examination and a Page 25
25
qualifying examination is that in a competitive examination, success or failure of one candidate will have an impact on the other candidates because it is a competition between the them. But, in a qualifying examination, success or failure of one candidate will have no bearing on the other. Both the candidates appear for examination only to qualify themselves so as to make themselves eligible for appointment as teachers in future. Thus, the principles applicable to a competitive examination
cannot be simply imported to a qualifying examination in a mechanical fashion.
29. The learned counsel Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy appearing the
petitioner in W.P.No.10849 of 2014 would make reliance on the judgements
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Manjusree v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512 and Tamil Nadu Computer Science,
B.Ed., Graduate Teachers Welfare Society v. Higher Secondary
School Computer Technical Assistant and others [Civil Appeal No.4187
of 2009 arising out of SLP (C) No.25097 of 2008 dated 09.07.2009].
30. A close reading of the above judgements would go to show that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in those judgements, has reiterated the principle that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game is over. But all those cases pertain to competitive examinations and the Page 26
26
ultimate selection for appointment. In a qualifying examination, if the change of the rule has materially affected the chances of anybody in getting qualified, then the said principle can be applied even to a qualifying examination. But, if the rules are changed only for the benefit of the candidates and not to the detriment of any single candidate, then the said principle that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game is over cannot be made applicable. In this case, the relaxation of 5% of marks given to certain reserved categories has not affected the chance of any candidate in getting qualified. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners in this regard is liable to be rejected and accordingly rejected.
31. Nextly, it is contended that because retrospective relaxation is given to the already concluded examinations, more number of candidates will get qualified and such qualified candidates who have secured less than 60% of marks will compete with the petitioners in the matter of appointment and thus the impugned Government Order materially affects the accrued rights of the petitioners. I find no force in this argument for more than one reason. First of all, as has been very clearly stated in the
NCTE regulations as well as in the TET Notification, a mere pass in the TET does not confer any right for appointment as a teacher. As I have repeatedly stated, it is only a qualification for appointment as a teacher. In the additional common counter affidavit filed by the Government (dated
Page 27
27
23.04.2014) it is stated as follows:
“Pursuant to the notification issued by the NCTE, the State Government framed the guidelines
for the Teacher Eligibility Test. The State Government is yet to issue the notification for
recruitment of Secondary Grade Teachers and Graduate Assistants for the present academic year.”
32. Of course, it is true that the candidates who have already secured 60% marks and above have already been called for certificate verification.
But such exercise shall not confer any right on them that they shall be appointed as teachers. Therefore, I hold that the publication of results of the TET conducted in August 2013 has not conferred any right of employment as against existing vacancies on the candidates who have
secured 60% of marks and above. Thus there is no vested right as claimed by the petitioners so as to say that they have been affected by G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 06.02.2014. Further, when the Government has taken a policy decision to reduce the percentage of marks for the benefit of reserved categories, for a pass and when the power of the Government to do so is not challenged, I find no substance in the challenge. Therefore, this ground is also rejected.
33. For the foregoing discussions , I hold that G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 06.02.2014 is valid and the challenge made to the same has to Page 28
28
necessarily fail.
Request for retrospective application of G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 06.02.2014 to the TET held in the year 2012:-
34. In many of these writ petitions, the petitioners who have appeared in the TET in the year 2012 and who could not secure 60% of marks are before this Court challenging G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 06.02.2014 in so far as it gives retrospective effect of relaxation of 5% of marks only to
the TET held in August, 2013. According to the petitioners, such retrospective effect should have been given to the examinations held in the year 2012 also. The primary contention of the petitioners is that denial of giving retrospective effect to the examinations held in 2012, when such
retrospective effect has been given to the examinations held in 2013, amounts to discrimination which violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
35. In this regard, in the common counter filed by the respondents, it is stated in paragraph 18 and 19 as follows:
"It is submitted that the petitioner cannot seek to extend the concession to candidates who appeared in the
Page 29
29
TET exams in the year 2012. It will create chaos and confusion and will set at naught the settled things. It will affect the persons who have already been selected and have been declared as eligible to be appointed as Teacher in the TET exam in the year 2012 and who were appointed following the extent reservation policy of the Government and are working in various places. It will collapse and
undo the entire things already done. Petitioner and persons who failed in the TET exams in the year 2012 had an opportunity to appear in the TET exams conducted in the year 2013 and many of them have appeared and secured pass marks. Therefore, the petitioner is not a similarly placed person like the candidates to whom the benefits have been extended. The candidates who appeared in the TET exam conducted in the year 2013 are yet to be selected and appointed whereas the candidates
selected in the TET exams conducted in the year 2012 have already been appointed. It is submitted that the petitioner at no stretch of imagination can claim to be a similarly placed person.
19. It is submitted that all the averments made in the affidavit by the petitioner are denied as untenable.
The crux of the contention of the petitioner is that the Government before passing the impugned Order, has not taken into account the plight of the candidates who appeared in the TET exams in the year 2012 and that Government should have extended the concessions to the candidates who have appeared in the year 2012 also.
Once the Government has decided to give the concession to persons who wrote TET exams in the year 2013 also it Page 30
30
should have been given to all the persons who wrote the TET exams since its inception as they they are similarly placed and therefore the action of the Government is violating of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The contention of the petitioner is baseless as with respect to the candidates who appeared in the two Teacher Eligibility Tests conducted in 2012 the entire process of selection and appointment have been completed and the candidates have already serve more than a year in Government Schools. However, with respect to the candidates who have appeared in the Teacher Eligibility Test, 2013 the process of selection is under way and it yet to be completed. Hence the order stated to be impugned has been made application to the candidates who appeared in the Teacher Eligibility Test, 2013. Hence the
said claim of the petitioner is misconceived and is not tenable and does not hold any water in the eye of law."
36. As has been rightly contended by the TRB, so far as the TET Examinations held in the year 2012 are concerned, after publication of the results much water has flown. The candidates who passed in that examinations have already been selected and appointed as teachers.
Further, they have almost put in more than one year of service in the Government schools. If retrospective effect is given to impugned G.O. relaxing 5% of pass marks to the examination held in the year 2012, then the candidates who get the benefit of such relaxation will have to be appointed. In such an event, the appointments already made will have to be Page 31
31
disturbed, because such appointments are to be in tune with the policy of reservation as well as the weightatge marks. This would only create chaos and confusion. This can be illustrated in the following manner:
“A Scheduled Caste candidate who had secured 60% of marks in the TET Paper-II in 2012 had already been appointed based on the weightage of marks obtained in the Higher Secondary Course,
Degree Course, B.Ed Degree Course and in the TET.
There is a candidate who had secured 58% of marks belonging to Scheduled Caste and failed. As
contended by the petitioners, if the retrospective operation has to be given to the relaxation, then the
said candidate had to be declared as passed. Now in the process of selection, if it is found that he had
secured more total weightage marks then the candidate who had already been appointed, then the
candidate who had already been appointed has to be disturbed and this candidate has to be appointed
based on the total weightage marks.”
37. Thus, the above illustration amply demonstrates that giving retrospective effect to relaxation for the TET held in the year 2012 will only result in complete chaos and the same will materially affect the candidates who have already been appointed. It is because of these reasons, as has been contended by the learned Advocate General, the Government has not
Page 32
32
extended the benefit to the candidates who had appeared in the TET held in the year 2012. Thus, I find that there is no discrimination. Above all, the candidates who have been already appointed are not parties to these writ petitions.
38. So far as the TET Examinations held in August, 2013 are concerned, no candidate has been appointed based on the same so far. But the candidates who have already been declared as passed based on 60% of marks and above are waiting for the selection process. As I have already extracted, in the common counter, the Government has stated that the process of selection has not yet commenced for the current year. I have already held that giving retrospective effect to relaxation to the examination held in August, 2013, will not in any manner affect the interest of those candidates who had secured 60% of marks and above. In view of this factual background, the candidates who had appeared and failed in the TET Examinations held in the year 2012 cannot have any grievance as they cannot be equated with the candidates who have appeared in the 2013 examinations.
39. In view of the foregoing discussions, I hold that G.O.Ms.No.25, School Education (TRB) Department, dated 06.02.2014 cannot be extended retrospectively to the TET examinations held in the year 2012.
Page 33
33
Challenge to G.O.Ms.No.252, School Education (Q) Department, dated 05.10.2012 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.29, School Education (TRB) Department, dated 14.02.2014 40. As we have already seen, after having examined the recommendations of the Committee, the Government issued  G.O.Ms.No.252, School Education (Q) Department, dated 05.10.2012 directing the TRB prescribing the modalities by giving weightage of marks for selection and appointment of Secondary Grade Teachers and Graduate Assistants from out of the candidates who have passed the TET. In brief,
the modalities are as follows:-
(i) Selection for both Secondary Grade Teachers and Graduate Assistants shall be on the basis of the weightage marks.
(ii) For Secondary Grade Teachers, weightage marks shall be given for the academic qualification viz., Higher Secondary Examination, D.T.Ed., or D.E.Ed., Examination and TET Examination.
(iii) For Graduate Assistants , weightage marks shall be given for the academic qualification viz., Higher Secondary Examination, Degree Examination, B.Ed., Examination and TET Examination.
(iv) For both Secondary Grade Teachers and Graduate Assistants the total weightage marks shall be 100.
Page 34
34
(v) For Secondary Grade Teachers, out of 100 weightage marks, 15 shall be for Higher Secondary Exam, 25 for D.T.Ed., or D.E.Ed., Exam and 60 for TET.
(vi) For Graduate Assistants, out of 100 weightage marks, 10 shall be for Higher Secondary Exam, 15 for Degree Exam, 15 for B.Ed., Exam, and 60 for TET.
(vii) The weightage marks shall be awarded following the “Grading System”as detailed in para 7 of G.O.Ms.No.252 dated 05.10.2012 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 14.02.2014.
41. The petitioners are not aggrieved by selection based on weightage marks as detailed in sub paras (i) to (vi) above. They are aggrieved by the Grading System adopted [vide sub para (vii) above] in the Government Orders.
42. Paragraph 7 of the Government is challenged in W.P.No.7146 of 2014. In some of the writ petitions, the modalities prescribed for awarding of weightage marks for TNTET alone is challenged. In few other writ petitions, amendment made to G.O.Ms.No.252, dated 05.10.2012 by
means of Order in G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 14.02.2014 is also challenged.
Thus, in all, paragraph 7 of G.O.Ms.No.252, dated 05.10.2012 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 14.02.2014 prescribing the “Grading System” for Page 35
35
awarding weightage marks is under challenge in these writ petitions.
43.1 Now, let us have a look into the modalities prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.252, dated 05.10.2012. Para 7 of the Government Order reads as follows:-
“7. Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test Weightage for Secondary Grade Teachers:
(a) There shall be 100 marks in total as full marks.
(b) The computation of 100 marks will be in the following manner
(i) Higher Secondary Exam : 15 marks
(ii) D.T.Ed., / D.E.Ed., Exam : 25 marks
(iii) Teacher Eligibility Test : 60 marks
(c) Marks shall be given for item (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (b), in the manner mentioned
hereunder
(i) For Higher Secondary Exam (12th Standard) Examination passed Weightage of Marks
90% and above   80% and above but below 90% 70% and above but below 80% 60% and
above but below 70% 50% and above but below 60% Below 50% 12th Std.
15 15 12  9  6  3  0
(ii) For DTEd/DEEd.
Page 36
36
Examination passed Weightage of Marks 70% and above 50% and above but below 70%
DTEd/DEEd 25 25 20 (iii) For TNTET Examination passed Weightage of Marks
90% and above 80% and above but below 90% 70% and above but below 80%
60% and above but below 70%


TNTET
60 60 54  48  42 
Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test Weightage for Graduate Assistants:
(a) There shall be 100 marks in total as full marks.(b) The computation of 100 marks will be in
the following manner:
(i) Higher Secondary Exam : 10 marks
(ii) Degree Exam : 15 marks
(iii) B.Ed. Exam : 15 marks
(iv) Teacher Eligibility Test : 60 marks
(c) Marks shall be given for item (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of clause (b), in the manner mentioned
hereunder:
(i) For Higher Secondary Exam (12th Standard) Page 37
37
Examination passed  Weightage  of Marks
90% and  above 80% and above but below 90% 70% and above but below 80%
60% and above but below  70% 50% and  above but  below 60% Below 50% 12th Std.
10 10  8  6  4 2  0
(ii) For Degree and B.Ed.
Examination passed Weightage of Marks 70% and above 50% and above but below 70% Below 50%
Degree 15 15 12 10  B.Ed.  15 15 12  -
(iii) For TNTET Examination passed Weightage of Marks 90% and above 80% and above but
below 90%  70% and above but  below 80%  60% and above but below 70%
TNTET 60  60  54  48  42
After computation of marks, based on the above selection criteria, if more than one candidate
have the same mark, then preference in selection will be based on the date of birth (the older person
will be given priority)"
43.2. Para 3 of G.O.Ms.No.29, School Education (TRB) Department, dated 14.02.2014 reads as follows:-
"3. Consequent to the orders issued in G.O. third read above, in partial modification of the
orders issued in the G.O. first read above , the Page 38
38
weightage of marks for the Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test for Secondary Grade Teachers and
Graduate Assistants shall be as indicated below:-
Examination passed  Weightage of  Marks  90%  and above  80% and above but below 90%
70% and above but  below 80%  60% and  above but  below 70%  55% and  above but  below
60% TNTET. 60 60 54 48 42 36
44. As I have already stated, the petitioners are aggrieved by the above modality viz., awarding of weightage marks by grading system. According to them, the grading system [slab system] adopted in
G.O.Ms.No.252, dated 05.10.2012 as amended in G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 14.02.2014 is unconstitutional.
45. The common grounds raised in all these writ petitions can be summarised as follows:
(i) The impugned Government Order treats more meritorious candidates on par with less meritorious
candidates, in as much as, all the candidates in one slab are placed together and awarded equal marks and thus, less meritorious candidates get priority over the more meritorious candidates like the petitioners.
Page 39
39
(ii) The impugned Government Order defeats the very purpose of TET Examination in as much as the raw marks of the candidates are given a go-by and the individuals who have got different marks are grouped together and treated as equals.
(iii) The impugned Government Order is arbitrary in as much as it ignores the fact that every mark in the TET is obtained by the candidates after hard preparation for the said examination. By placing several individuals who got different marks in the same slab, the merit and ability of the candidates in the examination is given a go-by. (iv) Though the object of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 is to ensure merit so that the students are taught by meritorious
teachers, by selecting the candidates following the slab system under the impugned Government Order, the merit has been diluted. This will amount to diluting of the very object of the Act.
Page 40
40
(v) Paragraph 7 of G.O.Ms.No.252, dated 05.10.2012 offends Article 14 and Article 16 of the
Constitution of India.
46. In the counter affidavits filed by the Government, inter alia it is stated:
(i) That in order to provide quality education to the children in the State of Tamil Nadu and considering the need to fill up the vacancies for the post of Teachers, the committee in its meeting held on 14.09.2012 and 24.09.2012 took into consideration the selection methodology followed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal and arrived at the criteria of weightage of marks and recommended the same to the Government. The Government of Andhra Pradesh
followed a system by which 20% weightage is given to Andhra Pradesh Teacher Eligibility Test (APTET) and 80% weightage for written test in Teachers Recruitment Test (TRT) for drawing up selection list of Teachers to be recruited in Government service.
(ii) The State of West Bengal has followed the Page 41
41
system of giving weightage for academic qualification starting from Madhyamik pass, Higher Secondary pass, Teacher Training, TET and interview.
(iii) Considering the methodologies adopted by the above said two States, the Committee recommended to the Government to adopt the modalities by giving weightage of marks for their academic qualification in XII Standard,D.T.Ed.,/D.E.Ed., Degree, and B.Ed., along with
TET for selection and appointment of Secondary Grade Teachers and Graduate Assistants respectively. The Government after examining the recommendations of the committee issued orders in G.O.Ms.252, School Education Department dated 05.10.2012. The Government had, in
fact, carefully considered the system of assigning weightage for selecting candidates for appointment in Government service from among the candidates who have passed the Teacher Eligibility Test. In the interest of selecting the best and most meritorious candidates, the 100 marks were distributed between TET marks, degree marks, B.Ed. Marks and Higher Secondary marks. In the
case of Graduate Assistants, 100 marks is computed as 60 marks for TET, 15 marks each for degree and B.Ed., and 10 marks for Higher Secondary. The marks so computed were further distributed by assigning weightage on the slab fixed for the respective categories viz., TET, Degree, B.Ed., and Higher Secondary marks. By allotting 60 marks out of the 100 marks for TET, it is ensured that
the candidates who have obtained higher marks in TET will stand a better chance of getting selected in Government service.
(iv) In respect of G.O.Ms.No.29, it is stated in the counter that consequent upon the orders issued in
G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 06.02.2014 the weightage of marks for TET, Secondary Grade Teachers and Graduate Assistants was ordered in G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 14.02.2014 providing for weightage of marks for even those candidates belonging to the specified reserved cagegories who secured 55% and above but below 60% in the Teacher Eligibility Test Examination held in the year
2013 and all future TET Examinations. It is also contended that there is no violation of either Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Page 43
43


Continued to PART -2