/* remove this */

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Case of Assam - Recruitment of Teachers Through Old Advertisement


Case of Assam - Recruitment of Teachers Through Old Advertisement

Case of Assam - An advertisement for posts of teacher issued on 27.02.2003 , Fresh advertisement for the same posts issued on 25.8.2007.
Highcourt quashed the advertisement dated 25.8.2007, and direct -  we direct the State to conduct the recruitment process for the above mentioned 254 posts for which the authorities of the State had issued advertisement dated 8.2.2003 by subjecting only those candidates, who responded to the above mentioned advertisement

(i.e they include only those who applied for advertisement dated 08.02.2003 )

*********************************
If you people have any better interpretation, then you can put your views through comment. So that I can correct interpretation
************************


IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MEGHALAYA;
MANIPUR; TRIPURA; MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WA No.358 of 2007
APPELLANTS:
1. Abdul Hai Ahmed,
S/o Aftab Uddin Ahmed
Vill & PO Begribari
Dist Dhubri, Assam.
2. Smti.Mumtaz Begum
D/o Late Rustam Ali
Vill. Kokila Uttarpara
PO Chakla-783392
Dist Bongaigaon, Assam
3. Dilnur Rahman
Vill. Balagaon
PO Dhudrakuchi
Dist Barpeta, Assam
4. Md. Anzarul Azam Fakir (S/L No.99)
(Economics), S/o Hafizur Rahman,
Vill Samdhara,PO Dagaon,
District Nagaon(Assam)
5. Md.Azmal Khan (S/L No.86)(Economics)
S/o Khurshed Ali Khan,Vill & PO Dagaon
District Nagaon,Assam
6. Binoy Kumar Sarmah (S/L No.33) (Assamese)
Vill & PO Borigaon,Dist Darrang,Assam
7. Gagan Ch. Kalita(S/L No.97) (Economics)
Vill & PO Baranghati,Dist Kamrup,Assam.
8. Sri Pranjal Bhuyan(S/L No.170)(History)
vill Chowdhapunia PO Panbari,
Dist. N. Lakhimpur, Assam
9. Jibon Khanikar (S/L No.112) (English)
C/o Mineswar Kanikar,Vill Charing Agnibor,
Dist Sivasagar,Assam
10. Ganesh Ch. Deka (S/L No.224)(Pol. Science) Mangaldoi,Assam
11. Mrs. Rulee Konwar Gogoi (S/L No.18)(Assamese)
W/o Sidheswar Konwar
Vill Bania Phukuri Gaon
PO Dopdar Dist Sivasagar Assam
12. Sri Raju Kr. Kakoti (S/L No.169) (History)
Vill Hatibat PO  Nagabonda
Dist Morigaon,Assam
13. Sri Anil Deka (S/L No.234)(Pol. Science)2
Vill Gomura PO Sarthebari
Dist Barpeta,Assam
14. Sri Diganta Hazarika (S/L No.81) (Chemestry)
Bahakabari, Kampur,Nagaon,Assam
15. Sri Kamal Kr. Barman (S/L No.181) (History)
Aminkata,Kokrajhar,Assam
16. Sri Pabon Deka (S/L No.212) (Math)
Athera, Puthimari,Kamrup,Assam
17. Nazemish Sakib (S/L No.21)(Assamese) Barpeta,Assam.
18. Debojit Boruwa (S/L No.155)(Geography)
Vill Khamikargaon PO Missamaria,
Golaghat,Assam
19. Bhupen Kalita (S/L No.238) (Pol.Science)
Vill & PO Japia,Assam
20. Akhil Joti Laskar (S/L No.186)(History)
Niz Narikari,Nagaon,Assam
21. Atik Ullah Khan (S/L No.121)(English)
Marigaon Town,Assam
22. Sri Jitumoni Saikia (S/L No.163)(History)
Milanpur,Biswanath Chariali,
Sonitpur,Assam
23. Mrs. Rini Saud,(S/L No.31) (Assamese)
Vill Uriamguri PO Bamuni bill,Dibrugarh
24. Bhoben Doley (S/L No.174) (History)
Jorhat,Assam
25. Mrs. Jeuty Gohain(S/L No.6) (Assamese)
Kaka Pathar,District Tinsukia
26. Motiur Rahman (S/L No.71) (Botany)
Vill & PO Mancachar,Dhubri,Assam
27. Suren Dutta (Sl No.227)(Pol Science) Sonitpur,Assam
28. Rijumoni Gohain (S/L No.101) (Math)
District Tinsukia,Assam
29. Surjit Das( S/L No.210)(Math)
Dist Dhubri,Assam
30. Amalendu Das (S/L No.222) (Physics),
Dhubri,Assam
31. Inamul Hoque (S/L No.153)(English)
Vill Selmari,PO Magurimari
32. Binita Rajkhowa (S/L No.131)(English)
Vill Silikhaguri,Majuli3
33. Aminul Hoque (S/L No.78) (Chemistry)
34. Bibha Devi (S/L No.64)(Botany)
Nalbari,Assam
35. Madusmita Saikia (S/L No.115) (English)
Namti Pather,Assam
36. Navajyoti Hazarika (S/L No.200) (Math)
Vill Solalgaon PO Chatia
37. Dhrubajyoti Tamuly (S/L No.191)(History)
Vill Basudeobari PO Jakhalabanda,
Nagaon,Assam
38. Anindita Baruah (S/L No.154)(Geography)
Amolapatty,Sivsagar,Assam
39. Minu Borah (S/L No.32) (Assamese)
40. Jawahira Tabbasum (S/L No.251)(Zoology) Mangoldoi,Ward
No.2,Assam
41. Sri Mukul Ch. Kalita (S/L No.206)(Math)
Vill Boreri,PO Deomornoi,Darrang,Assam
42. Santanu Nath (S/L No.176)(History)
Mongoldoi, Ward No.4, Darrang, Assam
BY ADVOCATES:
Mr. A Sarma
Mrs. S Sarma
Ms. R Deori
Ms. NM Deka
RESPONDENTS:
1. The State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner &
Secretary,
Education (Secondary) Department,
Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Assam
2. The Director of Secondary Education,
Government of Assam, Kahilipara,
Guwahati-19.
BY ADVOCATES:
Mr. VM Thomas,SC Education Deptt.4
WA No.389 of 2007
APPELLANTS:
1. Mahmuda Begam,
W/o Joynal Abedin Ahmed,
R/o South Salmara part I
PO South Salmara
District Dhubri,Assam.
2. Md.Zahidur Rahman Shah,
S/o Abul Kasem Shah
R/o Village Howrar Par
PO Piazbari
District Dhubri,Assam
3. Md.Aktar Hussain Sheikh,
S/o Sakim Uddin Ahmed
R/o Village Uzan Bazra
PO Hazirhat
District Dhubri,Assam
BY ADVOCATES:
Mr. SC Biswas
Mr. AK Hussain
Mr. SH Hussain
RESPONDENTS:
1. The State of Assam,
Represented by the Commissioner
and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam,
Education (Secondary) Department,
Dispur, Guwahati-6, Assam
2. The Director of Secondary Education,
Government of Assam, Kahilipara,
Guwahati-19.
BY ADVOCATES:
Mr. VM Thomas,
Standing Counsel,Education Deptt.
WA No.238 of 2005
APPELLANTS:
1. Md. Momin Ali,
S/o Late Taib Ali
R/o Vill Nader Kuti,PO Barbanda
Dist. Dhubri5
2. Anowar Hussain Ahmed
S/o Late Basiruddin Bepari
R/o Vill Thaksal PO Thaskal
Dist Dhubri.
3. Sri Proshanta Kr. Dutta,
S/o Sri Jitendra Nath Dutta
R/o Subashpally,Ward No.2
PO Gauripur,Dist Dhubri
4. Md. Mazahar Ali
S/o Md. Jashamatulla Bepari
R/o Vill Gharialdanga,Pt.II
PO Mahamayahat,Dist Dhubri
5. Md. Anisur Rahman
S/o Md. Abdul Ahad Sk
R/o Vill Shyamcharaner Kuti, Pt.I
PO Shilair par, Dist Dhubri
6. Mahbub Azharul Islam Mahazeria
S/o Mokbul Hussain Mahazerin
R/o Vill Nayapathowa PO Cirakuti,
Dist Dhubri
7. Azizul Haque Sarkar
S/o Haji Abdul Wahad Sarkar
R/o Vill Bhamandanga Pt.I
PO Jhapurabari(Agomoni)
Dist Dhubri
8. Samir Sen,
S/o Subal Ch. Sen
R/o Vill Sheunagen, PO Agomoni
Dist Dhubri
9. Md. Mizanur Rahman Bhuyan
S/o Haji Md. Amzad Ali Bhuyan
R/o Vill & PO Piradhara
PS Abhayapuri,Dist Bongaigaon
10. Miss Hafiza Zirmat Sarkar
D/o Hadi Hussain
R/o Vill Chandargaon,
PO Seramuri
Dist Dhubri
11. Safiquel Hoque
son of Alhaj Samser Ali
resident of vill Muslimghopa
PO Sipajhar, Dist Darrang
12. Mrs. Anjali Devi
wife of Mukul Ch. Sarma
resident of vill and PO Hazarikapara
PS Sipajhar,Dist Darrang.6
13. Smti Rowshan Ara Khanam
w/o Shajahan Bhuyan
resident of vill Padmapara
Dist Barpeta
14. Sri Hannanur Rahman
son of
Resident of vill
District
15. Sri Mukul Kalita
S/o Bhumidhar Kalita
Resident of vill Deomornoi
Dist Darrang
16. Abdul Hai Ahmed
s/o Aftab Uddin Ahmed
Vill Bagribari Dist Dhubri
BY ADVOCATES:
Mr. AS Choudhury, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R Mazumdar
Mr.I Hussain
Mr.A Malique, Mr.R Ali &
Mrs. NN Ahmed
MAIN RESPONDENTS/
WRIT PETITIONERS:
1. All Assam Post Graduate School Teachers Association,
represented by its General SecretarySri Dwijen Chandra Das,
Rangia Higher Secondary School,
Rangia,District Kamrup.
2. Shri Dwijen Chandra Das
Assistant Teacher,
Rangia Higher Secondary School
Rangia,District Kamrup
PROFORMA RESPONDENTS/
RESPONDENTS:
3. The State of Assam,
represented by the Chief Secretary
to the Govt. of Assam,
Dispur, Guwahati-6
4. The Commissioner and Secretary
to the Government of Assam,
Finance Department,
Dispur, Guwahati-6
5. The Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education
Department,
Dispur,Guwahati-67
6. The Director of Secondary Education,
Assam, kahilipara,Guwahati-19.
BY ADVOCATES:
Mr. VM Thomas,
Standing Counsel,Education Deptt.
Mr. AK Goswami,Sr. Adv. for Private Respondents.
Date of hearing
& Judgment                :      11th December,2008
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. J.CHELAMESWAR
HON’BLE SMTI. JUSTICE A. HAZARIKA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)
(J. Chelameswar, CJ)
These three appeals are interconnected. WA No.238/05 is preferred aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4.1.2005 in WP(C) Nos.7933/03 & 8319/03. WA Nos.358/07 & 389/07 are preferred
aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.7.2007 in a batch of writ petitions, one of such writ petition is WP(C) 908/07. The appellants in WA No.358/07 are the petitioners in the abovementioned writ petition
i.e., WP(C) 908/07. The appellants in WA No.389/07 are the petitioners in writ petition i.e., WP(C) 1975/07.
2. By an advertisement dated 8.2.2003, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, invited applications for filling up of posts of Post Graduate Teachers in the various provincialised Higher Secondary Schools of Assam. According to the said advertisement, the applications were required to be submitted in the respective Schools, where vacancies existed, as confirmed by the Inspector of Schools concerned. It may be mentioned that on the above date of the advertisement, the recruitment process was governed by the Rules 8
framed by the State of Assam known as “The Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 1982 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The appellants in WA Nos. 358/07 & 
389/07 are some of the candidates, who applied in response to the abovementioned advertisement.

3. Soon after the abovementioned advertisement, writ petition being WP(C) 7933/03 and 8319/03 came to be filed in this Court. WP(C) 7933/03 was filed by an unregistered Association of Assistant Teachers in the High and Higher Secondary Schools of Assam having Post Graduate Degrees whereas the WP(C) 8319/07 was by one  such teacher. A few days after the above mentioned advertisement came to be issued, the above mentioned Rules of 1982 was repealed and a fresh set of Rules known as “The Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised)  Service Rules, 2003” framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of 
India came into force on the 12th August,2003.

4. The grievance of the petitioners in the abovementioned two writ petitions i.e., (WP(C) Nos.7933/03 & 8319/03 is that under 1982 Rules, the petitioners in WP(C) No.8319/03 and the candidates, who were similarly situated are entitled for some weightage in the matter of recruitment of teachers contemplated under the aforementioned advertisement and that the petitioners apprehended that in the view of
the repeal of 1982 Rules the authorities of the State would follow the procedure contemplated under the new Rules of 2003 referred to above, which do not provide for such a weightage.
The petitioners, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to conduct the recruitment process in accordance with the procedure as contemplated under Rules 9 of 1982 by giving due weightage to such teachers, who were similarly situated as the petitioner in WP(C) No.8319/03.
5. By the judgment dated 4.1.2005, the learned Judge of this Court held that the recruitment pursuant to the Notification dated 8.2.2003 must be made strictly in accordance with the Rules of 1982 referred to above. The learned Judge further directed that the members of the Association referred to above or any other similarly situated teachers but not responded to the advertisement also be permitted to participate in the selection process.
6. While the abovementioned writ petition was pending in this Court, the authorities of the State proceeded with the recruitment process.  From the materials on record, it appears that such recruitment process  was conducted in accordance with the scheme of Rules, 2003 referred to above. As a matter of fact, by the judgment under appeal in the other two writ appeals i.e., WA Nos. 389/07 & 358/07, a learned Judge of this Court recorded a categorical finding in this regard that the recruitment process had been conducted under the
scheme of Rules,2003. In the purported exercise of power under the Rules of 2003, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam by a communication dated 27.2.2006 ordered the Director of Secondary 
Education, Assam to issue necessary appointment letters in favour of 254 candidates, whose names were listed in the annexure to the said document. The communication dated 27.2.2006 reads as follows:
“I am directed to forward herewith the list of selected candidates for the post of Subject Teachers in Provincialised Higher Secondary Schools recommended by the Selection Committee and duly approved by the Government for appointment of the candidates as per vacancies notified earlier as per recommendation of the Selection Committee and approval of the Government. The names of the candidates considers for appointment against various subject as per vacancies notified and places of their posting are shown of Annexure-I enclosed herewith for your necessary action and issue of necessary appointment letters immediately considering the fact that the Provincialised Higher Secondary Schools are suffering badly due
to non availability of Subject Teachers.
The appointments will however, be subject to necessary police verification and observance of the formalities required as per rule.
Further, there shall be a clear direction in the appointment letters for furnishing the written undertaking as required vide Finance Department’s Letter No.BW.3/2003/Pt-II/1 dated 125/1/2005 by the appointees at the time of joining their respective posts. No joining report should be accepted without furnishing
this undertaking as per prescribed format of Finance Department.
The Original select list of the Selection Committee mentioned above along with detail statements of candidates received are returned herewith. Appointment letters please be issued within three days and necessary proposal may be submitted for moving Finance (SIU) Department in prescribed format for ex-post-facto approval.”
7. Notwithstanding such a communication, none of the 254 candidates, whose names were found in the list annexed to the said communication, came to be appointed. Therefore, some of the candidates, whose names found in the abovementioned list, approached this Court by way of writ petition being WP(C) 908/07 and 1975/07 praying that the State be compelled to make appointment pursuant to the abovementioned communication dated 27.2.2006. By the judgment under appeal in these two appeals i.e., WA  358/07 & 389/07, the learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that though the communication dated 27.2.2006 was issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education (S&E) Department, it was later realized  by the State of Assam that the selection  of the candidates as per the list annexed to the said communication was not in conformity with the requirement of law i.e.,
Rules of 1982 and, therefore, appointment orders were not issued and the State took a decision not to act upon the said communication.
Further, it appears from the material on record that a fresh advertisement dated 25.8.2007 was issued by the State proposing to fill up the above mentioned 254 posts consequently inviting applications from eligible candidates.
8. Learned senior counsel, Mr. A Sarma appearing for the appellants in WA 358/07 argued that the conclusion of the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 4.1.2005 that the selection pursuant to the advertisement dated 8.2.2003 ought to  have been conducted only under the scheme of Rules,1982 and not under Rules of 2003, which, in turn, form the basis for rejecting the prayer of the appellants in the aforementioned two appeals is itself erroneous. He further submitted that the learned Judges while deciding the issues in the writ petitions, which  are the subject matter of appeal in these appeals, failed to take into consideration the effect of the proviso to Rule  32 of the Rules, 2003 which stipulates that the action taken under the Rules of 1982 shall be deemed to have been taken corresponding  with the 2000 Rules.  According to Mr Sharma the purpose of the said proviso is to enable the State to conduct the action, originally initiated
under the 1982 Rules, in accordance with the Rules of 2003 Rule 32 reads as follows:
“32. Repeal and savings – The rules corresponding to these rules and in force immediately before commencement of these rules are hereby repealed.
Provided that all orders made or action taken under the rules so repealed or under any general orders ancillary thereto shall be deemed to have been validly made or taken under the corresponding provisions of these rules.”  
9. We regret our inability to accept the submission of the learned senior counsel Mr. A Sarma in view of the fact that under true and proper construction of the proviso to Rule 32 of the Rules 2003, we are of the opinion that all that the provisio to Rule 32 of the Rules 2003 seeks to stipulate is that notwithstanding with repeal of the earlier set of Rules i.e.,  1982 Rules all action taken under the said Rules  is by legal fiction to be treated  as  action taken under the corresponding provisions of the later Rules. This is a time tested device adopted by the
Draftsman in framing legislation. General Clauses Act, 1897 made specific provisions  dealing with the consequences of the repeal of  enactment. Section 6 of the Assam General Clauses Act, 1915 which is
substantially similar to Section 6 of General Clauses Act, 1897 declares as follows:-
“6. Effect of repeal.- Where any Act repeals any enactment hitherto made, or hereafter to be made, then unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not –
(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes
effect; or
(b) alter the previous  operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or
(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or
(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or
(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture, or punishment as aforesaid;
10. As the Rules of 2003 referred to earlier or rules framed under Article 309, which repealed the 1982 Rules, also made in exercise of Article 309 the effect of such repeal is to be decided in accordance
with the provisions of the Assam General Clauses Act, 1915. It can be seen that Section 6 seeks to protect the legality of the orders and also the rights and privileges acquired during the subsistence of the repealed
enactment. It also preserves the obligations or liabilities accrued during such subsistence. It also declares that any legal proceeding or remedy etc. initiated during the subsistence of the repealed enactment would
continue to be prosecuted as if the repeal never took place.  The true import of the proviso to Rule 32, in our opinion, is not to affect the operation of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 or Section 6 of
the Assam General Clauses Act, 1915, which is substantially similar to Sec 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The effect of Section 6 of the Assam General Clauses Act, in our view, is similar to the effect of
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. No doubt, the Legislature while repealing any law and replacing it by a new law can stipulate such consequences as the Legislature deems fit shall follow such a
repeal. If the Legislature is silent about the consequences of the repeal the provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897  or the Assam Act, 1915automatically apply by virtue of the declaration contained in
Section 6. If any provision is made by the repealing enactment declaring the consequences of the repeal the language of such a declaration should be examined in juxtaposition with the language of Section 6 of
the General Clauses Act, 1897/ Assam Act, 1915. Unless the language of the repealing enactment is found to be plainly and expressly contrary to the scheme of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1915 this court
is not to infer a departure from the principles enshrined under the General Clauses Act. Having regard to the language of the proviso of Rule 3 we are not able to perceive any intention of the Legislature (in
the present case the Governor acting under Article 309) to depart from the scheme of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. In our view, the proviso is more akin to the provisions under Section 24 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897 or Section 26* of the Assam General Clauses Act, 1915.
                                             
*
26.  Continuation of orders etc, issued under enactments repealed and re-enacted. Where any 14
11. In the matter of recruitment in public service, it is settled law of this Country that “Rules of the game cannot be changed in the midstream”.  [(2008) 3SCC 512, K  Manjusree vs. State of Andhra 
Pradesh & Anr]. This is a principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in the background of the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as permitting the  change of the Rules of recruitment midstream would  enable the State to arbitrarily eliminate some of the candidates who were otherwise eligible to compete for the post for which the recruitment process is undertaken or alternatively arbitrarily enable the State to enable some of the candidates who were not otherwise eligible to compete in accordance with the law as it existed on the date when the recruitment process was initiated. It is a principle which is consistent with the general scheme of the consequences of repeal of a law as envisaged under the provisions of the 
General Clauses Act discussed above. In our view in the realm of public law and more particularly in the context of employment under the State the above referred judgments only declare that notwithstanding the ability of the Legislature in general to alter the scheme of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act such an ability in the context of recruitment in public employment is liable to be  restricted in view of the demands of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore the submission of Mr Sharma is set aside.

12. It is further submitted by Mr. Sarma, learned senior counsel that assuming that his first submission as discussed above enactment is repealed and re-enacted with or without modification, then, unless it is otherwise expressly
provided, any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law, made or issued under the
repealed enactment, shall so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted, continue in force,
and be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted, unless and until it is
superseded by any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form, bye-law made or issued under the
provisions so re-enacted.15 fails by virtue of a mistake committed by the officers of the Sate in not
following the appropriate procedure prescribed by law, the appellants not only lost their opportunity of employment for a considerable period of time but also exposed to heavier competition in view of the fresh advertisement issued by the authorities of the State inviting applications for the abovementioned 254 posts. It is also submitted by Mr. Sarma, learned senior counsel that during the course of the last six years some of the petitioners were also become age barred for being considered for appointment to the abovementioned posts and as such, it would be unjust on the part of the State to deprive them of the appointment pursuant to the communication dated 27.2.2006. The fact that the entire selection process came to be vitiated and lapses on the part of the officers of the State cannot be disputed. It is also not the case of the State that the appellants or any one of the applicants is responsible for such wrong procedure being followed by the authorities of the State pursuant to the advertisement dated 8.2.2003. In the background of the above facts, we do see force to the submission made by Mr. Sarma, learned senior counsel that the appellants are for that
matter or any one of the candidates, who applied in response to the advertisement dated 8.2.2003, should neither be debarred  from the participation of the selection process for 254 posts sought to be filled up
by advertisement or be exposed to a competition higher than the one which they would have faced had the government completed the selection process pursuant to the abovementioned advertisement in accordance with law.
13. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that though the State cannot be compelled to appoint the appellants herein pursuant to the communication dated 27.2.2006, yet, we direct the State to conduct the recruitment process for the above mentioned 254 posts for which the authorities of the State had issued advertisement dated 8.2.2003 by subjecting only those candidates, who responded to the above mentioned advertisement, within the stipulated time and also who satisfied all other eligible criteria in terms of the said advertisement.

14. With the above directions, these two appeals stand disposed of.

15. Coming to the WA No.238/05, the appellants herein are the respondents in WP (C) 7933/03 & 8319/03. Mr. AS Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants herein submitted
that the decision in the abovementioned two appeals i.e. WA Nos.358/07 & 389/07 substantially covers the dispute in the present appeal; except one aspect of the matter i.e., the writ petition being WP(C) 7933/03 was filed by an unregistered Association and therefore, the actual membership of such Association is not verifiable  w.r.t. any public record and consequently, their writ petition is not maintainable.
This submission of Mr. AS Choudhury, learned senior counsel, in our view,  though technically right, is unacceptable in view of the fact that one of such teachers, who claimed to belong  to the particular class,
whose cause was espoused by the abovementioned unregistered Association, was  the petitioner in WP(C) No.8319/03. In the circumstances, we do not propose to interfere with the decision on
technical ground that it is not maintainable.
16. In the circumstances, we direct that apart from the applicants, who responded to the advertisement dated 8.2.2003, admittedly the cases of the 101 teachers, who arer eligible to apply in terms of the original notification but not applied within the time stipulated by the notification, were considered while preparing the list dated 27-2-2006 pursuant to the directions in WP(C) No.8139/03 and 7933/03,  should also be considered while conducting the recruitment for the above mentioned 254 posts pursuant to the advertisement dated 8.2.2003.

17. All the writ appeals are disposed of. But, in the circumstances, without costs.

The entire exercise should be completed within a period of 4(four) months from today.
JUDGE     CHIEF JUSTICE
Choudhury/-  

Source : http://www.ghconline.nic.in/Judgment/WA3582007.pdf
Read more...

UTET : Uttaranchal High Court Dayanand Tamta & Ors. vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors. on 17 May, 2012


UTET : Uttaranchal High Court
Dayanand Tamta & Ors. vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors. on 17 May, 2012


IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No.1995 of 2011 (S/S) Nirmal Kumar & Ors.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1674 of 2011 (S/S) Smt. Sharda Devi
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidhyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr. ...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1540 of 2011 (S/S) Manveer Singh & Ors.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1677 of 2011 (S/S) Gopal Singh & Ors.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
...Respondents
2
with
Writ Petition No.1685 of 2011 (S/S) Bhagwati Prasad Joshi
...Petitioner
Versus
Secretary Board of School Education & Anr. ...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1707 of 2011 (S/S) Brij Mohan
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr. ...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1708 of 2011 (S/S) Girijesh Chandra
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr. ...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1724 of 2011 (S/S) Vinod Giri & Ors.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
...Respondents
3
with
Writ Petition No.1725 of 2011 (S/S) Uttam Singh Rawat & Anr.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1726 of 2011 (S/S) Biplab Kumar Acharya & Ors.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1729 of 2011 (S/S) Umesh Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1731 of 2011 (S/S) Pradeep Singh Negi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
...Respondents
4
with
Writ Petition No.1751 of 2011 (S/S) Usha Pant
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1804 of 2011 (S/S) Pawan Kumar Upadhyay
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr. ...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1818 of 2011 (S/S) Dayanand Tamta & Ors.
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1831 of 2011 (S/S) Km. Neha Saxena
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
...Respondents
5
with
Writ Petition No.1836 of 2011 (S/S) Rakesh Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr. ...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1866 of 2011 (S/S) Madan Singh Bhaisora
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr. ...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1905 of 2011 (S/S) Smt. Jaya Chaudhary
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1931 of 2011 (S/S) Lalit Mohan Upreti
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr. ...Respondents
6
with
Writ Petition No.1933 of 2011 (S/S) Jagdish Chandra Pant
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr. ...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1934 of 2011 (S/S) Smt. Kalpana Joshi
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr. ...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1935 of 2011 (S/S) Rajni Raturi
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr. ...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1939 of 2011 (S/S) Yogesh Chandra
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr. ...Respondents
7
with
Writ Petition No.1941 of 2011 (S/S) Ravindra Pratap Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1942 of 2011 (S/S) Smt. Suchita Bisht
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr. ...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1947 of 2011 (S/S) Vineeta & Anr.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1950 of 2011 (S/S) Renu Tamta & Anr.
...Petitioners
Versus
Director School Education & Ors. ...Respondents
8
with
Writ Petition No.1952 of 2011 (S/S) Lalit Mohan Joshi & Anr.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1978 of 2011 (S/S) Manoj Joshi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1982 of 2011 (S/S) Sumangal Mandal & Ors.
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1984 of 2011 (S/S) Brij Mohan Singh Negi
...Petitioner
Versus
Director School Education Uttarakhand & Ors. ...Respondents
9
with
Writ Petition No.1994 of 2011 (S/S) Smt. Sarita Rani & Anr.
...Petitioners
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidhyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr. ...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.2004 of 2011 (S/S) Narendra Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Director School Education Uttarakhand & Ors. ...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.140 of 2012 (S/S) Radha Ballabh & Anr.
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.394 of 2012 (S/S) Km. Sonam Devi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
...Respondents
Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Pankaj Tangwan, Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Mr. C.S. Rawat, Mr. G.S. Negi, Mr. Deepak Bisht, Mr. J.S. Bisht, Mr. G.D. Joshi, Mr. S.C. Bhatt, Mr. Davesh Bishnoi, Mr. P.S. Bisht, Mr. Vijay 10
Khanduri, Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Mr. D.S. Bisht, Mr. H.C. Joshi, Mr. B.D. Pande, Mr. H.C. Pathak, Mr. R.C. Tamta, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. N.S. Negi, Advocate along with Ms. Geeta Parihar, Ms. Seema Sah and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocates for the Uttarakhand Vidhyalayi Shiksha Parishad
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.
In this group of petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by their failure in not qualifying the U.T.E.T. Examination, 2011 conducted by Uttarakhand Vidhyalayi Shiksha Parishad, Ramnagar, District Nainital (respondent no.2) and have consequently filed these writ petitions praying that the respondents be directed to reduce the cut- off marks from 60% to 50% and reconsider the evidence given by the petitioners in support of the disputed questions with regard to the key answers given by the respondents.
The basic grievance of the petitioners is, that there are 15 disputed questions, which in one form or the other, are incorrect and consequently the respondents are required to reconsider their answers. According to the petitioners, model key answers provided by the respondents are incorrect in some of these disputed questions and that the answers given by the petitioners are correct. In some of the questions, there is a good chance that there are two correct answers in the choice given and therefore in such cases the candidate should be awarded one mark in the event he answers any of the two choices. In some of the questions, all the four choices are correct and therefore one mark 11should be awarded to all the candidates. The petitioners consequently contended that the key answers given by the respondents should be reconsidered and revised accordingly. The petitioners are further aggrieved by the qualifying marks disclosed in the advertisement for qualifying the U.T.E.T. Examination. According to the petitioners, 60% is too high and there is no rationale behind fixing such percentage. The third grievance of the petitioners is, that the question paper that was set by the respondents, was not in accordance with the guidelines dated 11th Februrary, 2011 i.e. to say that the question on method of teaching in Pedagogy, Mathematics, Environmental Studies and Language was not given whereas the guidelines contemplated that questions on these areas would be asked. The petitioners contended that since the questions were not set in the manner disclosed in the guidelines, which has a statutory flavour, the entire process stood vitiated and a fresh examination should be conducted.
In the light of the grievance stipulated aforesaid, the Court has heard Sri Manoj Tiwari, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Pankaj Tangwan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the leading case. The arguments of the learned senior counsel was adopted by all the other counsels, namely, Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Mr. C.S. Rawat, Mr. G.S. Negi, Mr. Deepak Bisht, Mr. J.S. Bisht, 12
Mr. G.D. Joshi, Mr. S.C. Bhatt, Mr. Davesh Bishnoi, Mr. P.S. Bisht, Mr. Vijay Khanduri, Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Mr. D.S. Bisht, Mr. H.C. Joshi, Mr. B.D. Pande, Mr. H.C. Pathak and Mr. R.C. Tamta. On behalf of respondent no.2 i.e. Uttarakhand Vidhyalayi Shiksha Parishad, the Court has heard Sri N.S. Negi along with Ms. Geeta Parihar, Ms. Seema Sah and Mr. Asif Ali.
For facility, the facts of Writ Petition No.1995 of 2011 (S/S) is being taken into consideration and the said case has also been made the leading case.
Brief facts, leading to the filing of the writ petitions, is that on 29th April, 2011 an advertisement was issued inviting candidates to appear for the Uttarakhand Teachers Eligibility Test, 2011 (UTET) for consideration for appointment of teachers for Class I to V in Government Primary Schools. The advertisement indicated that the questions that would be asked in the examination would be such as that disclosed in the guidelines of 11th February, 2011. Based on that, the petitioners applied and appeared in the examination, which was held on 27th August, 2011. The respondents uploaded the key answers of these questions on its website on 3rd September, 2011. Respondent no.2 also issued an advertisement on 10th September, 2011 intimating the candidates that if they dispute the key answers, it would be open to them to make a representation, and that 13
such representation would be considered by an Expert Committee and only thereafter the results would be declared. The counter affidavit reveals that pursuant to the advertisement, many candidates including the petitioners made representations against the key answers displayed by the respondents in their websites contending that some of the key answers for certain questions were incorrect or two or more answers of one question could be correct and therefore prayed that the marks should accordingly be allotted. The counter affidavit reveals that the representations were duly considered by an Expert Committee constituted by respondent no.2 and that the Committee recommended amendment of 5 answers in their model key answers displayed earlier by them. The respondent no.2 referred the matter to the State Government and State Government issued a Government Order dated 29th October, 2011, permitting the respondent no.2 to change the answers of these 5 questions. Based on the green signal given by the State Government, the answer keys were revised and finalized and again displayed in the website and thereafter the results were declared on 14th November, 2011. The aforesaid contention of the respondents has remained unrebutted in the leading case but in some of the cases rejoinder affidavits have been filed.
According to the respondents, the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the examination 14
after having participated in it. Further, the matter was considered by an Expert Body and the opinion of the Expert Body cannot be discarded nor it can be taken lightly. The learned counsel submitted that in the absence of any malafide, alleged against any of the members of the Expert Body, the opinion/report given by the Expert Committee cannot be discarded on the ipse dixit of the petitioners. It was also contended that in the absence of any statutory rules, the Court cannot pass an order for re-examination of the answers on the basis of the evidence given by the petitioners in the writ petitions.
Before dwelling into the rival contentions of the parties, it must be borne in mind that there is a shortage of teachers in the primary institutions and that it became difficult for the State to fulfill its obligations as mandated under Article 45 of the Constitution. By the 86th Amendment, Article 45 was amended, which provided that the State shall endeavour to provide free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years. By the 86th Amendment, Article 21A was also inserted as a fundamental right in the Constitution of India. Article 21A states that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law determine. With the insertion of Article 21A in the Constitution, it became imperative for the 15
Parliament to enact a law to implement the provision of Article 21A, and consequently, The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was enacted.
Section 23 of the said Act provides qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers. For facility, the said provision is extracted hereunder:-
"23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.-(1) 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. (2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if it deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification:
Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years.
16
(3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teacher shall be such as may prescribed."
Rule 23 of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 provides that the Central Government shall notify an academic authority for the purpose of providing a curriculum and evaluation procedure for elementary education. For facility, Rule 23 is extracted hereunder:- "23. Academic authority.- (1) The Central Government shall notify an academic authority for the purposes of section 29 within one month of the appointed date.
(2) While laying down the curriculum and evaluation procedure, the academic authority notified under sub-rule (1) shall,- (a) formulate the relevant and age appropriate syllabus and text books and other learning material;
(b) develop in-service teacher training design; and
(c) prepare guidelines for putting into practice continuous and comprehensive evaluation.
(3) The academic authority referred to in sub- rule (1) shall design and implement a process of holistic school quality assessment on a regular basis."
17
Based on the said provision, the Central Government issued a notification dated 31st March, 2010, authorizing National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) to be the academic authority to lay down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible to the appointment of teachers.
Based on the aforesaid Notification dated 31st March, 2010, NCTE framed the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible to the appointment of teachers by means of a Notification dated 23rd August, 2010.
The minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher for class I to V as provided in the Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 is extracted hereunder:-
" 1 Minimum Qualifications.-
(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
18
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)
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."
The aforesaid indicates that a person should have a Senior Secondary Decree or equivalent with at least 50% marks with 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education or Bachelor in Elementary Education. In addition to the aforesaid, a person should also have passed the Teachers Eligibility Test. According to this Notification dated 23rd August, 2010, this Teachers Eligibility Test is required to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed by NCTE for the purpose.
Based on the aforesaid, the NCTE framed the guidelines dated 11th February, 2011. Some of the 19
guidelines are required to be extracted for the purpose of the case. Clause 5 of the guidelines provides that a person who has the necessary qualifications as specified in the Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 can only apply and that the eligibility condition for appearing in TET may be relaxed in respect of a State or Union Territory under sub-section (2) of section 23 of the RTE Act and that such relaxation has to be specified in a Notification issued by the Central Government. Clause 6 provides for the structure and content of TET and nature and standard of questions that are required in the examination paper. For facility, clause 5, 6 and 7 of the guidelines are extracted hereunder:-
"Eligibility
5 The following persons shall be eligible for appearing in the TET:
i. A person who has acquired the academic and professional qualifications specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August 2010. ii. A person who is pursuing any of the teacher education courses (recognized by the NCTE or the RCI, as the case may be) specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August 2010.
iii. The eligibility condition for appearing in TET may be relaxed in respect of a State/UT which has been granted relaxation under sub-section (2) of section 23 of the RTE Act. The relaxation will be specified in the Notification issued by the Central Government under that sub- section.
20
Structure and Content of TET
6 The structure and content of the TET is given in the following paragraphs. All questions will be Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs), each carrying one mark, with four alternatives out of which one answer will be correct. There will be no negative marking. The examining body should strictly adhere to the structure and content of the TET specified below.
7 There will be two papers of the TET. Paper I will be for a person who intends to be a teacher for classes I to V. Paper II will be for a person who intends to be a teacher for classes VI to VIII. A person who intends to be a teacher either for classes I to V or for classes VI to VIII will have to appear in both papers (Paper I and Paper II).
Paper I (for classes I to V); No. of MCQs - 150; Duration of examination: one-and-a-half hours Structure and Content (All Compulsory) (i) Child Development and Pedagogy 30 MCQs 30 Marks (ii) Language I 30 " 30 " (iii) Language II 30 " 30 " (iv) Mathematics 30 " 30 " (v) Environmental Studies 30 " 30 "
Nature and standard of questions While designing and preparing the questions for Paper I, the examining body shall take the following factors into consideration:
• The test items on Child Development and Pedagogy will focus on educational psychology of teaching and learning relevant to the age group of 6-11 years. They will focus on understanding the characteristics and needs of diverse 21
learners, interaction with learners and the attributes and qualities of a good facilitator of learning. • The Test items for Language I will focus on the proficiencies related to the medium of instruction, (as chosen from list of prescribed language options in the application form). • The Language II will be from among the prescribed options other than Language I. A candidate may choose any one language from the available language options and will be required to specify the same in the application form. The test items in Language II will also focus on the elements of language, communication and comprehension abilities. • The test items in Mathematics and Environmental Studies will focus on the concepts, problem solving abilities and pedagogical understanding of the subjects. In all these subject areas, the test items shall be evenly distributed over different divisions of the syllabus of that subject prescribed for classes I-V by the appropriate Government. • The questions in the tests for Paper I will be based on the topics of the prescribed syllabus of the State for classes I-V, but their difficulty standard, as well as linkages, could be upto the secondary stage."
The aforesaid clause 7 of the guidelines indicates that the examining body will take into consideration the various factors disclosed therein while designing and preparing the questions for the paper and one such consideration is, that the test items in Mathematics and Environmental Studies will focus on the concepts, problem solving abilities and pedagogical understanding of the subjects. According to the petitioners, this aspect of the matter was not considered and no question on this area was given in the question paper. 22
Clause 9 of the guidelines provides that a person who scores 60% or more in the TET Examination will be considered as TET pass. The said provision is extracted hereunder:-
"Qualifying marks
9 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 consider 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 TET would not confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment as it is only one of the eligibility criteria for appointment."
Based on the aforesaid guidelines, the advertisement was issued on 29th April, 2011 inviting applications, on the basis of which, the examination was held and thereafter the results were declared.
After hearing the learned senior counsel at some length, the Court finds that the petitioners' representations on the discrepancies in the model key answers disclosed by respondent no.2 was addressed and considered by the respondents. The representations were forwarded to an Expert Committee constituted by the respondents. The matter was examined de novo and the Expert Committee opined in its report that 5 key answers 23
requires amendment. Some of the grievance of the petitioners was consequently accepted by the respondents. Based on the directions given by the State Government, the model key answers were amended and a final key answers was prepared which was again displayed in the website and thereafter the results have been declared. There is nothing in the writ petition to indicate that the grievance of the petitioners was not considered. The contention that only some of the grievance was considered, which was rectified, but a majority of the questions still remain disputed and which are required to be re-examined by the Court is not tenable. In this regard, a suggestion was also placed to the Court that in the event the Court is unable or does not examine these questions and the correctness of the answers given by the respondents, in that eventuality, the Court may constitute another Expert Committee to look into the matter and direct it to submit a report.
The Court finds that examining the answer sheets is in the domain of the examining body. The Court cannot take the role of the examining body nor can it take upon itself the task of considering the correctness of the answers given by respondent no.2 against the questions framed by them. The petitioners cannot insist that the Court should look into these matters or refer it to another committee. This is not permissible. In Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur 24
& Anr., 2010 (6) Supreme Court Cases 759, the Supreme Court held that it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. The Supreme Court in Paragraph 20 held:
"20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court."
Further, from the averments made in the counter affidavit, the Court finds that the representations of the petitioners with regard to their grievances was duly considered by an Expert Committee constituted by respondent no.2. The constitution of the Expert Committee as to whether the Committee constitutes of expert or not has not 25
been questioned nor the report submitted by the Committee has been challenged before this Court. It is settled law that the opinion given by an expert in academic matters should not be interfered by a Court of law in judicial review unless it is shown that the expert opinion was palpably wrong and erroneous. In the absence of challenging the report of the Expert Committee or the constitution of the expert body, it is not open to the petitioners to contend that the key answers given by the respondents should be re-examined by another Committee constituted by this Court.
The Court further finds that no malafides has been attributed against any members of the Expert Body. The Supreme Court in B.C. Mylarappa alias Dr. Chikkamylarappa vs. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah & Ors., 2008 (14) Supreme Court Cases 306, has held that in the absence of any malafides against the members of the expert body, the opinion expressed by the expert body cannot be said to be illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, in paragraph 26, held:
"26. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to show any mala fides attributed against the members of the expert body of the University. The University Authorities had also before the High Court in their objections to the writ petition taken a stand that the appellant had fully satisfied the requirement for appointment. In this view of the matter and in the 26
absence of any mala fides either of the expert body of the University or of the University Authorities and in view of the discussions made hereinabove, it would be difficult to sustain the orders of the High Court as the opinion expressed by the Board and its recommendations cannot be said to be illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction."
In the light of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that it is not appropriate to constitute a committee or direct the respondent no.2 to re- examine their key answers and thereafter re- examine the answer sheets of the petitioners. In the absence of any statutory rules or regulations, the examination paper of the petitioners cannot be re- examined or re-evaluated as held in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. (Supra).
The contention that the qualifying marks of 60% is very high and consequently arbitrary, and that, it has no rationale cannot be accepted. A policy decision taken by the Government should not be interfered by the Court unless it is demonstrated that such policy decision is arbitrary or illogical. If the policy decision is discernible and has a rationale behind it, the Court should not interfere in such policy decision. In this light, the petitioners contend that the qualifying marks disclosed in the advertisement was too high. The Court finds that the percentage 27
of 60% as qualifying marks disclosed in the advertisement was based on the guidelines framed by NCTE dated 11th February, 2011. Clause 9 of this guideline provides that the qualifying marks for TET would be 60%. These guidelines have been framed pursuant to the Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 issued u/s 23(1) of the RTE Act. A reading of the Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 indicates that the guidelines framed by NCTE would have a statutory flavour. Clause 9 of the guidelines has not been questioned by the petitioners. No prayer has been made for the quashing of this clause. In the absence of not challenging this provision, the Court does not find any error in the advertisement, so issued, indicating that the qualifying marks would be 60%. In any case, it is a policy decision taken by the State which is discernible. High standards have been fixed. The NCTE in its wisdom has given high standards to ensure that better education is provided to the children in order to fulfill the mandate of Article 21A read with 45 of the Constitution, which the Court does not find it to be arbitrary. In any case, the Court is of the opinion that the Court should not take upon itself the task of the statutory authorities and reduce the percentage so long as the policy decision is not arbitrary or illogical. The Court is loath to interfere. It is upon the State authorities to consider this fact in the light of various factors. Consequently, the 28
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted.
Similarly, the contention that the question papers were not set in accordance with the guidelines framed by NCTE cannot be accepted. This is the task of the examining body, which has framed the questions in accordance with the guidelines. These guidelines may have a statutory flavour but at the same time it remains only a guideline and the guideline gives a broad picture of the kind of questions that can be asked in the examination paper. It does not mean that every aspect of the guidelines is to be reflected in a question in the examination paper.
Quite apart from the aforesaid, the Court finds that the petitioners having participated in the examination process cannot turn around and question the percentage of the qualifying marks nor it can question the process of preparation of the examination paper not it can contend that the question paper was not in accordance with the guidelines framed by NCTE. This question is no longer res integra and has been settled in a catena of cases by the Supreme Court, namely, Madan Lal v. State of J&K [(1995) 3 SCC 486], Marripati Nagaraja v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[(2007) 11 SCC 522], Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal [(2008) 4 SCC 171], Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam [(2009) 3 SCC 227] 29
and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines [(2009) 5 SCC 515].
In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [(2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 576], the Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid decisions and held that having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that certain marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner was not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. The Supreme Court held that the conduct of the petitioners clearly disentitled them from questioning the selection. The Supreme Court in para-16 held:
"16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition." 30
In the light of the aforesaid, the Court does not find any merit in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed without any order on cost.
(Tarun Agarwala, J.)
17th May, 2012
Rajni


Source : http://legalplug.in/doc/57370599/?type=print

Read more...