CTET 82/150 marks reserved category candidate is not eligible for UP Govt. Teachers Selection / Recruitment Process
No relaxation to candidate, see judgement -
Therefore,
no rounding off of the aggregate marks is permitted in view of the
clear and unambiguous language of Rule 24 of the Rules under
consideration.
Consequently no relief or reprieve can be accorded to the petitioner, and writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.
See Complete Judgement -
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37084 of 2013
Petitioner :- Minakshi Rai
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Srivastava,J.S.Lodhi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,C.K.Rai
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Minakashi Rai, petitioner has approached this Court with request to direct the respondents to
consider
the candidature of the petitioner for the selection on the post of
Assistant Teacher treating 54.66% marks obtained by her as 55% obtained
by her in C.T.E.T as petitioner has received 82 marks out of 150 i.e
54.66% and as the Central Board of Secondary Education Delhi has already
declared as qualified treating the aforesaid marks as 55% marks in C.T.
E.T, and accordingly similar view be taken by the respondents. Petitioner
is OBC category candidate and she has completed her BTC course after
completing graduation. Petitioner had applied for consideration of her
candidature for C.T.E.T (Central Teachers Eligibility Test) and in the
said examination petitioner has received 82 marks out of 150 marks which
comes as 54.66% and the Central Board of Secondary Education Delhi,
treating the same as 55% marks has proceeded to declare the petitioner
as qualified and a note has also been appended therein that
said qualification is applicable for recruitment of teachers in Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangthan and Directorate of Education Government of NCT of
Delhi.
Applications thereafter have been invited for
making selection and appointment as Assistant Teacher in the institution
run and managed by Basic Shiksha Parisad vide order dated 26.04.2013
and therein eligibility criteria has been prescribed as follows:
1. avkosnu gasrw ik=rk
(i)
'kSf{kd vgZrk& lgk;d v/;kid ds inks ij p;u@fu;qfDr gsrq ,sls
vH;FkhZ ik= gksxs tks Hkkjr es fof/k }kjk LFkkfir fo'ofo|ky; ls Lukrd dh
mikf/k j[krs gks jkT; 'kSf{kd vuqla/kku ,oa izf'k{k.k ifj"kn m0 iz0
}kjk vk;ksftr nks o"khZ; ch0Vh0lh0 izf'k{k.k nks o"hkZ; ch0Vh0lh0
izf'k{k.k fof'k"V ch0Vh0lh0 izf'k{k.k lQyrkiwoZd mRrh.kZ fd, gks m0iz0
vFkok Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk vk;ksftr d{kk 1 ls 5 gsrq v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk
lQyrkiwoZd mRrh.kZ fd,s gksA ;gk ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd f'k{kd izk=rk
ijh{kk es lQy vH;FkhZ og gksxs ftUgksus U;wure 60 izfr'kr vad izkIr fd,
gks ysfdu vuqlfpr tkfr@vuqlfpr tutkfr @ vU; fiNMk oxZ @ HkwriwoZ lSfud @
fodykax Js.kh @ Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh ds vkfJr oxZ ds vH;fFkZ;ks ds fy,
U;wure iw.kkZd 55 izfr'kr gksA
Petitioner's submission is that her candidature has not at all been considered by the respondents on account of the fact that
petitioner
has not at all got to her credit 55% marks in the Teacher Eligibility
Test as such petitioner's candidature cannot be considered same being
not in consonance with the advertisement accordingly petitioner is
before this Court.
Sri Jitendra Singh Lodhi, learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that once Central Teachers Eligibility
Test has been passed by the petitioner and therein she has received
54.66% marks and same has been accepted to be 55% marks by rounding up
the same and thereafter accordingly she has been declared as qualified
then there is no occasion to treat the petitioner as ineligible in view
of this rejection of petitioner's candidature is per se bad.
Countering
the said submission learned Standing counsel as well as Sri C.K. Rai,
Advocate on the other hand contended that selection and appointment is
to be made in the institution run and managed by Basis Shiksha Parishad,
Allahabad and in consoance with the provision as contained under U.P.
Basic Education Tehacer Serivce Rules 1981, the eligibility criteria has
been fixed and therein clear cut mention has been made that incumbent
should have to his/her credit graduation degree and should have to
his/her credit BTC certificate of training and should have successfully
passed Teacher Eligibility Test conducted either by State Government or
Central Government and clarification has also been given that only those
candidate shall be considered as eligible who have to his/her credit
minimum 60% marks for general category and for Scheduled caste /
Scheduled Tribe category candidate, OBC category candidate/ Ex Armyman/
Physically Handicapped/Freedom Fighter category candidate should have to
his/her credit minimum 55% marks.
It is true that petitioner has
qualified Central Teachers Eligibility Test as therein out of 150 marks,
she has obtained 82 marks i.e. 54.66% and Central Board of Secondary
Education in its turn has proceeded to round up the marks of petitioner
by treating the same as 55% and petitioner has been shown to have
qualified with asterix mark and accordingly as per said asterix mark
note has been appended clearly mentioning that said qualification is
applicable for recruitment of teachers in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan
and Directorate of Education Government of NCT of Delhi.
Petitioner
submits that in the past once her 54.66% marks has been rounded off to
55% by the Central Board of Secondary New Delhi then Basic Shiksha
Parishad should also treated the same as 55% marks.
Eligibility
criteria as has been prescribed is governed by the statutory Rules known
as U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules 1981 as amended up
till date and once in consonace with the aforesaid Rules qualification
and eligibility criteria has been provided for and same clearly proceeds
to mention that incumbent should have passed Teacher Eligibility Test
conducted either by the State Government or by the Central Government
and the candidates of General category should have obtained minimum 60%
marks and the candidates of Scheduled caste/Scheduled Tribes, OBC/Ex
Armyman/ Physically Handicapped/Freedom Fighter should have obtained
minimum 55% marks.
This is also fully reflected in the present case,
that as far as Central Teacher Eligibility Test is concerned, same is
governed by Central Teacher Eligibility Test Rules, 2011 (C.T.E.T), and
same is in reference to schools, affiliated with Central Board of
Secondary Education. Said Rules in itself provides for applicablity of
the same, and also categorically proceeds to mention, that schools owned
and managed by the State Government/ Local Bodies and aided shcools
shall consider the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) conducted by the State
Government. However a State Government can also consider CTET if it
decides not to conduct State TET.
Here
the State Govenremnt does condut its own State TET, but in its wisdom
has chosen to give opportunity to incumbents who have passed TET
conducted by Central Government, but such opportunity has been
restricted qua those category of candidates who have recevied 55%
minimum marks in CTET. Central Board of Secondary Education, for
institutions affiliated to it can round up 54.66% marks to 55% marks,
but when it comes to claimig appointment in institution, run and managed
by Basic Shiksha Parishad, said rounding of would be of no consequence
and candidate will have to have to his credit minimum 55% in Teachers
Eligibility Test.
Accepted position is that petitioner has not
obtained minimum 55% marks and has obtained 54.66% marks and petitioner
submits that theory of rounding up to be passed and she should be
treated as eligible.
Question is can 54.66% marks in aggregate be
treated minimum 55% in aggregate ? Admittedly 54.66% marks in aggregate
are less than 55% marks in aggregate. In view of this by no stretch of
imagination it can be accepted that petitioner has to her credit the
eligibility criteria so prescribed. Said issue has already been negated
by this Court, as per the judgement
in
the case of Ranjana Kushwaha Vs. state of U.P. 2009 (2) E&MC 94,
wherein also requirement was minimum 45% and candidate had received
44.8% , therein candidate have been held to be ineligible, and in the
said judgement, the two earlier judgements have been referred to wherein
49.67 % and 49.66% have not been accepted as equivalent to 50%, namely
the case of Vani Pali Tripathi Vs. Director, 2003(1) UPLBEC 427; Pranjal
Bishnoi Vs. U.P. Technical University 2003 (3) ESC 1470. In such a
situation 54.66% specilly marks cannot be treated as equivalent to 55% when
emphasis is given in the eligibility criteria, to the minimum marks to
be there, then said minimum makes has to be obtained by concerned
candidate and there can not be any scope of compromise with the same by
invoking principal of rounding up. State of U.P. has already fixed the
minimum marks to be obtained by the candidate i.e. minimum 60% by the
General candidates and candidates of Scheduled caste/Scheduled Tribes,
OBC/Ex Armyman/ Physically Handicapped/Freedom Fighter should have
obtained minimum 55% marks. Said percentage of marks as fixed on the
minimum side cannot be further lowered.
Apex
Court in the case of Orissa Public Service Commission vs Rupashree
Chowdhary & Anr (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6201 OF 2011) decided on
02.08.2011 reported in 2011 (8) SCC 108 has taken view that in order to
qualify in the written examination a candidate has to obtain a minimum
of 33% marks in each of the papers and not less than 45% of marks in the
aggregate in all the written papers in the Main examination. When
emphasis is given in the Rules itself to the minimum marks to be
obtained making it clear that at least the said minimum marks have to be
obtained by the concerned candidate there cannot be a question of
relaxation or rounding off. Relevant extract of the aforesaid judgement
is being extracted below: "9. A bare reading of the
aforesaid rules would make it crystal clear that in order to qualify in
the written examination a candidate has to obtain a minimum of 33% marks
in each of the papers and not less than 45% of marks in the aggregate
in all the written papers in the Main examination. When emphasis is
given in the Rules itself to the minimum marks to be obtained making it
clear that at least the said minimum marks have to be obtained by the
concerned candidate there cannot be a question of relaxation or rounding
off.
10.There is no power provided in the statute/Rules permitting
any such rounding off or giving grace marks so as to bring up a
candidate to the minimum requirement. In our considered opinion, no such
rounding off or relaxation was permissible. The Rules are statutory in
nature and no dilution or amendment to such Rules is permissible or
possible by adding some words to the said statutory rules for giving the
benefit of rounding off or relaxation.
11. We may also draw support
in this connection from a decision of this Court in District Collector
& Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society,
Vizianagaram and Another. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi reported in (1990) 3
SCC 655. In the said judgment this Court has laid down that when an
advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is
made in disregard of the same then it is not a matter only between the
appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all
those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee
or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not
possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement.
12.The
entire record of the main written examination was also produced before
us which indicates that there are also candidates who have got more than
the respondent in the aggregate but has not been able to get 33% marks
in each paper and have missed it only by a whisker. In case, the
contention of the counsel appearing for the respondent is accepted then
those candidates who could not get 33% marks in each paper in the Main
written examination could and should have also been called for viva-voce
examination, which would amount to a very strange and complicated
situation and also would lead to the violation of the sanctity of
statutory provision.
13.When the words of a statute are clear, plain
or unambiguous, i.e., they are reasonably susceptible to only one
meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning
irrespective of consequences, for the Act speaks for itself. There is no
ambiguity in the language of Rule 24 leading to two conclusions and
allowing an interpretation in favour of the respondent which would be
different to what was intended by the Statute.
Therefore,
no rounding off of the aggregate marks is permitted in view of the
clear and unambiguous language of Rule 24 of the Rules under
consideration.
Consequently no relief or reprieve can be accorded to the petitioner, and writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 11.7.2013
Dhruv
For authenticate / certified copy, kindly approach to concerned authority of Allahabad Highcourt.
Information given here is only informatory in nature.
