RAJASTHAN HIGH CHOURT CHIEF JUSTICE BENCH DECISION ON TET / and RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF TET EXAM PART -Y
2013 mein TET KE SAMBANDH MEIN RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT KI
CHIEF JUSTICE KEE BENCH DWARA DIYA GAYA NIRNAY.
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT DECISION REGARDING TET EXAM AND RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF THIS EXAM
PART -Y
Rajasthan Highcourt,
While the matter rested at that, advertisement(s) were issued for filling up vacant posts of teachers in Level I (Class I to V) and Level II (Class VI to VIII) under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as '1994 Act') and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules,
1996 (hereinafter referred to as '1996 Rules'). One of such advertisement dated 24.2.2012 issued by the office of Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh is on record.
Meanwhile, by a notification dated 11.5.2011 issued by the State Government in the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, had notified the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2011 framed in exercise of powers under Section 102 of the 1994 Act
amending Rule 266 of the 1996 Rules was notified.
Thereby it was clarified that the academic qualifications for the post of primary and upper primary school teachers to be filled up 100% by direct recruitment would be as stipulated by the NCTE under Act 2009. By way of amendment in Rule 273 of the 1996 Rules, it was provided further that the District Establishment Committee, as contemplated therein, would prepare the merit list of the candidates by adding 20% of the marks secured by them in the TET to those obtained in the written test to be conducted for the recruitment. This prescription apparently is traceable to the cognate concept engrafted in clause 9(b) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 eluded hereinabove.
Be that as it may, Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2011 were in force at the time of issuance of the advertisement(s) for direct recruitment to the post of teachers in the aforementioned two levels under the 1994 Act and 1996 Rules (as amended).
Though this advertisement mentioned that the exercise would be subject to the decision in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.2664/2011 in the face of the disposal thereof as infructuous on 28.9.2012, this recital, as on date, is of no consequence.
The advertisement enumerated the minimum academic and professional qualifications for both the
levels of posts in conformity with those prescribed by the notification dated 29.7.2011 of the NCTE. Clause 7(3) mentioned that the reserved category candidates, as adverted to therein, would be accorded concession of 5% in the qualifying marks. In the eligibility norms contained in clauses 7(1) and 7(2), noticeably whereas, clause 7(1) (ka) and 7(2)(ka) dealt with the minimum academic
qualifications, clause 7(1)(kha) and 7(2)(kha) pertained to the criteria of passing the TET. Though the
respondents/writ petitioners taking this clue, have insisted that the concession of 5% to the qualifying marks thus, extends to the percentage of pass marks in TET, so much so that reserved category candidates securing less than 55% marks therein should be construed to be unsuccessful in the said examination, and thus, disqualified to participate in the exercise initiated by the advertisement, we are unable, in view of the true purport of the notification dated 29.7.2011 detailed herein above, to lend our concurrence to this plea. In our comprehension, the notification dated 29.7.2011 accorded a concession of 5% only to the minimum percentage of marks in the prescribed qualifying examination i.e. Senior Secondary, Graduation etc.. This relaxation was neither
intended by it nor was permissible to be correlated with the percentage of pass marks in the TET. As a matter of fact, the State respondents in the process initiated by the advertisement, granted concession of 5% to the reserved category candidates only vis-a-vis their academic qualifications as set out in clause 7(1) (ka) and 7(2)(ka) thereof. To this extent, this initiative is not transgressive
of the notification dated 29.7.2011.
Clause 15 of the advertisement however, proclaimed in unambiguous terms that 20% of the marks obtained by a candidate in the TET would be added to those secured in the test to follow, to determine the final merit list. The performance of the successful candidate in the TET thus,
apparently was contemplated to have due weightage in the eventual assessment of their merit and suitability for appointment to the posts involved. This modality of selection did accord as well with Rule 273 of the 1996 Rules as amended by Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2011. It is in this overall perspective that the respondents/writ petitioners successfully pleaded
vitiation of the recruitment process due to excessive and prohibited relaxations in favour of the reserved category candidates in defeasance of the solemn constitutional objective for installing a national benchmark in the standard of teaching. They contended that by such unregulated concessions, impermissible advantages have been heaped on the reserved category candidates, thus,
irreversibly compromising with the aspired quality of teaching rendering the whole exercise to be a farce. The State respondents contend to the contrary and assert that as the eventual merit has been ascertained on the basis of composite performance of the candidates in the TET and the recruitment test, the imputation of compromise with merit is wholly fallacious.
Significantly on the date of publication of the guidelines of the NCTE vide its letter dated 11.2.2011
contemplating weightage to the TET scores in the recruitment process, no concession in the qualifying marks in the academic qualifications was in contemplation, as would be evident from the notification dated 23.8.2010.
This materialized only vide notification dated 29.7.2011 and was limited to the reserved category candidates as mentioned therein. Coupled with the relaxation granted vide the letter dated 23.3.2011 of the State Government, these candidates thus, on the completion of the recruitment process as a whole, had availed concessions in the marks in the qualifying examinations as well as in the marks scored by them in the TET. The reserved category candidates who thus, did qualify in the TET examination on the basis of the concessions awarded by the State Government vide its letter dated 23.3.2011, availed second relaxation also qua their academic qualifications vide NCTE notification dated 29.7.2011 to participate in the recruitment process for eventual selection for the post involved. These candidates, therefore, indisputably stood doubly advantaged on these counts vis-a-vis their general category counterparts. There is no demur that in view of the weightage of marks obtained in the TET, many candidates though had performed better in the recruitment test, had lagged behind in the overall tally, resulting either in their ouster from the merit list or their relegation down below in the order. Considering the cumulative bearing of all these inseverable aspects pertaining to the process of recruitment, the inescapable conclusion is that a pass in the TET though construed to be a norm of eligibility for participating in the recruitment test for selection, the weightage of the marks secured therein for the determination of the decisive merit for recruitment, makes it an inextricable constituent of the whole exercise and cannot be divorced therefrom. The impact of the relaxation granted to the reserved category candidates in the matter of pass marks in the TET thus assuredly, has a bearing on the ultimate asssesment of
merit. Concession to these candidates in the qualifying marks in the relevant academic examinations to render them eligible to participate in the recruitment test, is undeniably an added advantage to them. This tranche of concession however, being in accordance with the NCTE Regulations 2009, having regard to its legislatively assigned role under Section 23(1) of Act 2009, though
cannot per se be faulted with, the concession in pass marks of the TET can, by no means, be beyond the extant policy of the State Government for reservation to the categories of the candidates intended to be benefited thereby. As the marks secured in the TET, to reiterate, have a bearing on the ultimate assessment of merit of the candidates, the extent of relaxation and/or concession granted to the reserved category candidates on this count, is thus of utmost significance. Not only the letter
dated 23.3.2011 referred to herein above whereby the State Government had accorded concession to the extent of 10 to 20% to the different categories of candidates in the pass marks in TET does either refer to the extant policy of reservation or disclose any basis therefor, no explanation in this regard is also forthcoming in the pleadings of the State respondents.
It cannot be gain said in the face of the unequivocal ordainment contained in clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 that the authorities/local bodies including the Government while left at liberty to grant concessions to the persons belonging to the categories mentioned therein, were required to adhere to their extant reservation policy. The State Government was thus
inflexibly bound by its extant reservation policy, if desirous of sanctioning any relaxation, as permitted. The word “extant” as defined amongst others in the Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary means “still existing and known; leaving”. The State Government was thus obliged, if at all willing to grant concessions as comprehended in clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, to accord
the same strictly in accordance therewith. Any departure from its extant reservation policy per se is impermissible as the State Government was not vested with any authority to do so. To reiterate, no endeavour has at all been made to demonstrate that the concessions granted by the letter dated 23.3.2011 were in conformity with its extant reservation policy in force at the relevant point of
time. Grant of such concession by formulating a new policy being not allowable in terms of clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, such benefit, if accorded on the basis of the concessions as contained in the letter dated 23.3.2011, would have a vitiating effect.
Though such relaxation granted by the various State Governments have been cited before us to justify the concessions granted by the State of Rajasthan, except for the State of Andhra Pradesh, no such wide range of concessions as pro vided by the letter dated 23.3.2011,59 has been accorded. It is unclear as well, as to whether the extent of concession granted by the State of Andhra Pradesh is in conformity with its extant policy of reservation. If it is so, the incentives so granted would be
in harmony with the letter and spirit of clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011. If not, the concession granted by the said State Government per se would not render the predication of clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 limiting the relaxation to the candidates of the extant policy ipso facto redundant or violable.
In the face of the all pervading prescript for accomplished teaching as the constitutional imperative embodied in the Act 2009, no concession or relaxation incompatible therewith can receive judicial imprimatur.
Clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 only makes it optional for the State to grant relaxation and/or concession in the pass marks in TET so as to render a candidate qualified to participate in the recruitment test.
The discretion so granted cannot be applied to emasculate the underlying purpose of the Act 2009. Any concession beyond the permissible limits, as outlined by the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, would evidently have the potential of compromising with the standard of education, so zealously sought to be secured by the constitutionalmandate in Article 21A yield whereof is Act 2009. If the State Government is, in terms of Clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, left at liberty to grant the relaxation, however, strictly in accordance with its extant reservation policy, the relaxation and/or concession granted for its validity, would have essentially to withstand the scrutiny on the basis thereof.
In the wake of the above, on a conjoint consideration of the materials on record as a whole, we are thus, constrained to hold that the concession granted by the State Government vide its letter dated 23.3.2011 to the reserved category candidates, as mentioned therein, is not in conformity with clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 of the NCTE. Consequentially, the participation of the reserved category candidates declared to have passed the TET on the basis of such relaxation as a whole in the recruitment test initiated by the advertisements issued under the 1994 Act and 1996 Rules and culminating in the selection of the candidates, cannot be held to be valid. As a corollary, the results of the RTET- 2011 are interfered with to the extent of participation of the reserved category candidates benefited by the relaxation granted by the State Government in excess of its extant reservation policy. Though conscious of the fact that the process pertaining to the RTET-2011, as such is not directly under challenge before us, having regard to the entire gamut of facts attendant on the recruitment
process as a whole of which it (RTET-2011) is an inseverable segment, this determination, in our opinion, is inevitable. The results of RTET- 2011 as a consequence, have to be redrawn. Axiomatically, the participation of the reserved category candidates who would now have to be declared unsuccessful, in the recruitment test initiated by the advertisements under the 1994 Act and 1996 Rules, would have to be declared illegal. Resultantly the eventual results of the selection process would also have to be necessarily prepared afresh.
**************
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT DECISION REGARDING TET EXAM AND RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF THIS EXAM
*************
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Teacher Recruitment /SARKARI
NAUKRI NEWS / SARKARI NAUKRI News
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com/#ixzz36cV9AUClPART -Y
Rajasthan Highcourt,
While the matter rested at that, advertisement(s) were issued for filling up vacant posts of teachers in Level I (Class I to V) and Level II (Class VI to VIII) under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as '1994 Act') and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules,
1996 (hereinafter referred to as '1996 Rules'). One of such advertisement dated 24.2.2012 issued by the office of Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh is on record.
Meanwhile, by a notification dated 11.5.2011 issued by the State Government in the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, had notified the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2011 framed in exercise of powers under Section 102 of the 1994 Act
amending Rule 266 of the 1996 Rules was notified.
Thereby it was clarified that the academic qualifications for the post of primary and upper primary school teachers to be filled up 100% by direct recruitment would be as stipulated by the NCTE under Act 2009. By way of amendment in Rule 273 of the 1996 Rules, it was provided further that the District Establishment Committee, as contemplated therein, would prepare the merit list of the candidates by adding 20% of the marks secured by them in the TET to those obtained in the written test to be conducted for the recruitment. This prescription apparently is traceable to the cognate concept engrafted in clause 9(b) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 eluded hereinabove.
Be that as it may, Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2011 were in force at the time of issuance of the advertisement(s) for direct recruitment to the post of teachers in the aforementioned two levels under the 1994 Act and 1996 Rules (as amended).
Though this advertisement mentioned that the exercise would be subject to the decision in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.2664/2011 in the face of the disposal thereof as infructuous on 28.9.2012, this recital, as on date, is of no consequence.
The advertisement enumerated the minimum academic and professional qualifications for both the
levels of posts in conformity with those prescribed by the notification dated 29.7.2011 of the NCTE. Clause 7(3) mentioned that the reserved category candidates, as adverted to therein, would be accorded concession of 5% in the qualifying marks. In the eligibility norms contained in clauses 7(1) and 7(2), noticeably whereas, clause 7(1) (ka) and 7(2)(ka) dealt with the minimum academic
qualifications, clause 7(1)(kha) and 7(2)(kha) pertained to the criteria of passing the TET. Though the
respondents/writ petitioners taking this clue, have insisted that the concession of 5% to the qualifying marks thus, extends to the percentage of pass marks in TET, so much so that reserved category candidates securing less than 55% marks therein should be construed to be unsuccessful in the said examination, and thus, disqualified to participate in the exercise initiated by the advertisement, we are unable, in view of the true purport of the notification dated 29.7.2011 detailed herein above, to lend our concurrence to this plea. In our comprehension, the notification dated 29.7.2011 accorded a concession of 5% only to the minimum percentage of marks in the prescribed qualifying examination i.e. Senior Secondary, Graduation etc.. This relaxation was neither
intended by it nor was permissible to be correlated with the percentage of pass marks in the TET. As a matter of fact, the State respondents in the process initiated by the advertisement, granted concession of 5% to the reserved category candidates only vis-a-vis their academic qualifications as set out in clause 7(1) (ka) and 7(2)(ka) thereof. To this extent, this initiative is not transgressive
of the notification dated 29.7.2011.
Clause 15 of the advertisement however, proclaimed in unambiguous terms that 20% of the marks obtained by a candidate in the TET would be added to those secured in the test to follow, to determine the final merit list. The performance of the successful candidate in the TET thus,
apparently was contemplated to have due weightage in the eventual assessment of their merit and suitability for appointment to the posts involved. This modality of selection did accord as well with Rule 273 of the 1996 Rules as amended by Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2011. It is in this overall perspective that the respondents/writ petitioners successfully pleaded
vitiation of the recruitment process due to excessive and prohibited relaxations in favour of the reserved category candidates in defeasance of the solemn constitutional objective for installing a national benchmark in the standard of teaching. They contended that by such unregulated concessions, impermissible advantages have been heaped on the reserved category candidates, thus,
irreversibly compromising with the aspired quality of teaching rendering the whole exercise to be a farce. The State respondents contend to the contrary and assert that as the eventual merit has been ascertained on the basis of composite performance of the candidates in the TET and the recruitment test, the imputation of compromise with merit is wholly fallacious.
Significantly on the date of publication of the guidelines of the NCTE vide its letter dated 11.2.2011
contemplating weightage to the TET scores in the recruitment process, no concession in the qualifying marks in the academic qualifications was in contemplation, as would be evident from the notification dated 23.8.2010.
This materialized only vide notification dated 29.7.2011 and was limited to the reserved category candidates as mentioned therein. Coupled with the relaxation granted vide the letter dated 23.3.2011 of the State Government, these candidates thus, on the completion of the recruitment process as a whole, had availed concessions in the marks in the qualifying examinations as well as in the marks scored by them in the TET. The reserved category candidates who thus, did qualify in the TET examination on the basis of the concessions awarded by the State Government vide its letter dated 23.3.2011, availed second relaxation also qua their academic qualifications vide NCTE notification dated 29.7.2011 to participate in the recruitment process for eventual selection for the post involved. These candidates, therefore, indisputably stood doubly advantaged on these counts vis-a-vis their general category counterparts. There is no demur that in view of the weightage of marks obtained in the TET, many candidates though had performed better in the recruitment test, had lagged behind in the overall tally, resulting either in their ouster from the merit list or their relegation down below in the order. Considering the cumulative bearing of all these inseverable aspects pertaining to the process of recruitment, the inescapable conclusion is that a pass in the TET though construed to be a norm of eligibility for participating in the recruitment test for selection, the weightage of the marks secured therein for the determination of the decisive merit for recruitment, makes it an inextricable constituent of the whole exercise and cannot be divorced therefrom. The impact of the relaxation granted to the reserved category candidates in the matter of pass marks in the TET thus assuredly, has a bearing on the ultimate asssesment of
merit. Concession to these candidates in the qualifying marks in the relevant academic examinations to render them eligible to participate in the recruitment test, is undeniably an added advantage to them. This tranche of concession however, being in accordance with the NCTE Regulations 2009, having regard to its legislatively assigned role under Section 23(1) of Act 2009, though
cannot per se be faulted with, the concession in pass marks of the TET can, by no means, be beyond the extant policy of the State Government for reservation to the categories of the candidates intended to be benefited thereby. As the marks secured in the TET, to reiterate, have a bearing on the ultimate assessment of merit of the candidates, the extent of relaxation and/or concession granted to the reserved category candidates on this count, is thus of utmost significance. Not only the letter
dated 23.3.2011 referred to herein above whereby the State Government had accorded concession to the extent of 10 to 20% to the different categories of candidates in the pass marks in TET does either refer to the extant policy of reservation or disclose any basis therefor, no explanation in this regard is also forthcoming in the pleadings of the State respondents.
It cannot be gain said in the face of the unequivocal ordainment contained in clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 that the authorities/local bodies including the Government while left at liberty to grant concessions to the persons belonging to the categories mentioned therein, were required to adhere to their extant reservation policy. The State Government was thus
inflexibly bound by its extant reservation policy, if desirous of sanctioning any relaxation, as permitted. The word “extant” as defined amongst others in the Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary means “still existing and known; leaving”. The State Government was thus obliged, if at all willing to grant concessions as comprehended in clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, to accord
the same strictly in accordance therewith. Any departure from its extant reservation policy per se is impermissible as the State Government was not vested with any authority to do so. To reiterate, no endeavour has at all been made to demonstrate that the concessions granted by the letter dated 23.3.2011 were in conformity with its extant reservation policy in force at the relevant point of
time. Grant of such concession by formulating a new policy being not allowable in terms of clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, such benefit, if accorded on the basis of the concessions as contained in the letter dated 23.3.2011, would have a vitiating effect.
Though such relaxation granted by the various State Governments have been cited before us to justify the concessions granted by the State of Rajasthan, except for the State of Andhra Pradesh, no such wide range of concessions as pro vided by the letter dated 23.3.2011,59 has been accorded. It is unclear as well, as to whether the extent of concession granted by the State of Andhra Pradesh is in conformity with its extant policy of reservation. If it is so, the incentives so granted would be
in harmony with the letter and spirit of clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011. If not, the concession granted by the said State Government per se would not render the predication of clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 limiting the relaxation to the candidates of the extant policy ipso facto redundant or violable.
In the face of the all pervading prescript for accomplished teaching as the constitutional imperative embodied in the Act 2009, no concession or relaxation incompatible therewith can receive judicial imprimatur.
Clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 only makes it optional for the State to grant relaxation and/or concession in the pass marks in TET so as to render a candidate qualified to participate in the recruitment test.
The discretion so granted cannot be applied to emasculate the underlying purpose of the Act 2009. Any concession beyond the permissible limits, as outlined by the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, would evidently have the potential of compromising with the standard of education, so zealously sought to be secured by the constitutionalmandate in Article 21A yield whereof is Act 2009. If the State Government is, in terms of Clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, left at liberty to grant the relaxation, however, strictly in accordance with its extant reservation policy, the relaxation and/or concession granted for its validity, would have essentially to withstand the scrutiny on the basis thereof.
In the wake of the above, on a conjoint consideration of the materials on record as a whole, we are thus, constrained to hold that the concession granted by the State Government vide its letter dated 23.3.2011 to the reserved category candidates, as mentioned therein, is not in conformity with clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 of the NCTE. Consequentially, the participation of the reserved category candidates declared to have passed the TET on the basis of such relaxation as a whole in the recruitment test initiated by the advertisements issued under the 1994 Act and 1996 Rules and culminating in the selection of the candidates, cannot be held to be valid. As a corollary, the results of the RTET- 2011 are interfered with to the extent of participation of the reserved category candidates benefited by the relaxation granted by the State Government in excess of its extant reservation policy. Though conscious of the fact that the process pertaining to the RTET-2011, as such is not directly under challenge before us, having regard to the entire gamut of facts attendant on the recruitment
process as a whole of which it (RTET-2011) is an inseverable segment, this determination, in our opinion, is inevitable. The results of RTET- 2011 as a consequence, have to be redrawn. Axiomatically, the participation of the reserved category candidates who would now have to be declared unsuccessful, in the recruitment test initiated by the advertisements under the 1994 Act and 1996 Rules, would have to be declared illegal. Resultantly the eventual results of the selection process would also have to be necessarily prepared afresh.
