/* remove this */

Saturday, August 2, 2014

RAJASTHAN HIGH CHOURT CHIEF JUSTICE BENCH DECISION ON TET / and RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF TET EXAM PART - V

RAJASTHAN HIGH CHOURT CHIEF JUSTICE BENCH DECISION ON TET / and RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF TET EXAM PART - V
Rajasthan Highcourt Chief Justice Bench Decision, Rajasthan Highcourt,



*****************************
2013 mein TET KE SAMBANDH MEIN RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT KI CHIEF JUSTICE KEE BENCH DWARA DIYA GAYA NIRNAY.

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT DECISION REGARDING TET EXAM AND RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF THIS EXAM
*******************




Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com/#ixzz36cV9AUCl


PART - V
Mr.Kumawat in this backdrop has assertively urged that the State Government having been empowered by the NCTE guidelines dated 11.2.2011 to grant concession to the reserved category candidates mentioned therein vis-a-vis the prescribed qualifying 60% marks to pass the TET examination in accordance with the extant reservation policy, it was permissible for it to accord
relaxation ranging from 10% to 20% and thus, all pleas to the contrary are wholly untenable and are liable to be rejected in limine. As the  role to conduct the TET had been exclusively  left by the NCTE to the State Government, essentially however, in accordance with its guidelines, the relaxation  granted by it (State Government) in terms of its policy as embodied in the letter dated 23.3.2011 had been perfectly valid, he urged.
Apart from contending that the State Government had kept the NCTE informed of the grant of such relaxation at all relevant times, he argued that as none had challenged the concession so granted, the validity of TET had remained unscathed. The learned Additional Advocate General maintained that as a pass in the TET was only a condition of eligibility to participate in the process  of recruitment as Teacher in  Level I and Level II, the concession granted in the conduct thereof (TET) did not
have any bearing on the latter exercise. In addition to the plea of estoppel against the respondent-writ petitioners to assail   the   State   Government's  action to grant relaxation in TET in face of their unqualified participation in the process of recruitment conducted thereafter, learned counsel insisted that the select list eventually drawn up was   on   the   sole   basis   of   merit   and   thus,   the   learned Single Judge ought to have  rejected the impeachment of the selection in limine. Not only the relaxation of the qualifying marks to pass TET did have the bearing only of facilitating participation in the otherwise independent process of recruitment held subsequent thereto, the extent of concession granted was dependent on various local factors varying from State to State, he urged. The
learned Additional Advocate General emphasized that the concession in terms of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 was distinctly different from and independent of the relaxation of 5% permitted  by the notification dated 29.7.2011, the same being vis-a-vis qualifying marks in the senior secondary/graduation tests and not qua TET.
Mr.Kumawat asserted against alleged compromise on merit and contended that in absence of any challenge to the guidelines of the NCTE,  the writ petitions ought to have been summarily rejected. He questioned the maintainability of the writ petitions as well on the ground of failure on the part of the petitioners to assail the advertisement as well as to implead the selected candidates. Following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in     Haridas Parsedia V/s       Urmila    Shakya & Ors.
((2000) 1 SCC 81),  Jitendra Kumar Singh & anr. V/s State of UP and ors. ((2010) 3 SCC 119), Manish Kumar   Shahi   V/s   State   of   Bihar   &   ors.  ((2010) 12 SCC 576) and Vijendra Kumar Verma V/s Public Service Commission & ors. ((2011)1 SCC 150) and of this Court in Sheikh Mohd.Afzal & anr. V/s The State of Rajasthan & anr.  (2008 (1) WLC (Raj.) 186)  were
relied upon.
The learned counsel for the NCTE while adopting the arguments on behalf of the appellant-State referred to the Regulations of 2009 to justify   the   grant   of   5%   relaxation in the qualifying marks in the senior secondary/graduation examination. According to him, such relaxation not having been granted  in the notification dated 23.8.2010 laying down the minimum qualifications to be eligible for appointment as Teacher,  the same was permitted on representations being filed seeking such concession. The learned counsel reiterated that relaxation in the notification dated 29.7.2011 was with regard to  marks in
the qualifying examination as referred to therein and was not relatable to the concession granted for TET. The learned counsel endorsed the   empowerment   of   the   State Government as per guidelines dated 11.2.2011 to grant concession to the reserved category candidates as per its extant reservation policy.
The learned counsel for some selectee candidates also figuring as appellants in the batch urged that as the adjudication in the writ proceedings had been undertaken ex-parte against them, the impugned judgment and order is ab initio void and on this ground alone is liable to be adjudged as such. Apart from contending that neither any notice had been issued to them nor they were heard in the proceedings, they demurred that even the applications filed on their behalf seeking impleadment, were not considered on merits. They raised the plea of estoppel against the respondents-writ petitioners and underlined that they have unreservedly participated in both the process without any cavil and emphasized that the selectee candidates-appellants were higher in order of merit and that deferment of appointment of many in view of the intervention of this Court at the instance of the
unsuccessful candidates has resulted in serious prejudice to them. According to the learned counsels, the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 had not been questioned by the respondents-writ-petitioners and thus, the learned  Single Judge erred in dealing with the same while adjudicating the issues raised in the writ proceedings. As relaxation in the marks for the TET in terms of the guidelines of the NCTE had been pursuant to the reservation policy of the State Government, the scrutiny thereof was beyond the purview of judicial review, more so, as the exercise of State power is traceable to authorization conferred by the NCTE, they urged. While contending that the relaxation
qua TET was in advancement of the spirit of the right to education as embedded in the   Act   of   2009,   the   learned counsels endorsed the stand of   the   State   Government   as well as the NCTE that the concession contemplated in the guidelines dated 11.2.2011  was distinctly different from that notification dated 29.7.2011 and operated in independent domains. Apart from underlining that many other Governments had accorded higher percentage of relaxation in TET and that  recruitment had been made only on the basis of the results in that test, it was urged that the selectee candidates had scored higher than the unsuccessful writ petitioners in the main recruitment process as well. As the NCTE guidelines had not been challenged by the respondents-writ-petitioners, in the overall scheme of evaluation of comparative merit, the selectee candidates having been adjudged to be superior
on the said touchstone, the writ petitions ought to have been dismissed, they insisted. That the assailment of the respondents-writ petitioners was delayed in the face of time limit of 60 days as referred to in the advertisement, was also asserted. Reliance was placed on the following
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabodh Verma & ors. V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. ((1984) 4 SCC 251), Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) V/s Union of India and ors. ((2002) 2 SCC 333), K.H.Siraj V/s High Court of Kerala & ors. ((2006) 6 SCC 395), Union of India & ors. V/s S.Vinodh Kumar & ors. ((2007) 8 SCC 100), K.Manjusree V/s State of Andhra Pradesh
&   anr. ((2008) 3 SCC 512), Dhananjay Malik & ors. V/s State of Uttaranchal & ors. ((2008) 4 SCC 171), Dingal and ors. V/s State of West Bengal & ors. ((2009) 1 SCC 768) and Vijendra Kumar Verma V/s Public Service Commission & ors. ((2011)1 SCC 150). Mr.Vigyan Shah leading the arguments on behalf of the respondents-writ petitioners has assiduously urged  that the underlying purpose  of TET being to secure an uniform national performance standard and quality in
teaching, the relaxation in  the qualifying percentage of pass therein, is an apparent compromise with this salutary objective and thus, the concession ranging from 10% to 20% as accorded by the State Government is impermissible and invalid. Moreover, no such concession was allowable during the process, but at best at the time of appointment in terms of the extant reservation policy of the State Government and that too, if construed to be warranted, he insisted. While admitting that the validity of Clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 though had been assailed in Durga Das (supra) before the Single
Bench of this Court and that the interim order of restraint passed therein initially was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court, the learned counsel also admitted that the writ petition was thereafter dismissed as infructuous. Referring to the notification dated 29.7.2011, Mr.Shah emphatically urged that the  relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks did signify in no uncertain terms that no
candidate securing less than 55% marks could have been declared to have passed TET
. He insisted that a conjoint reading of notifications  dated 23.8.2010 and 29.7.2011 did unequivocally convey this conclusion. He urged as well that the candidates, who had secured marks between 55% to 60% on availing such relaxation could not be accommodated against the seats identified for unreserved category, as the same, if permitted, would denote compromise on merit, a consequence extinctive of the
cardinal objectives of the Act of 2009.
Referring to the circulars dated 17.6.1996, 24.6.2008 and 12.9.2012 referred to in the rejoinder laid in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13488/2012, Mr.Shah has urged that in terms thereof, the reserved category candidates availing the benefit of concession in qualifying marks could not have been accommodated against the seats meant for open category candidates. The learned counsel urged in
this backdrop that the circular no.F.7(1)DOP/A-II/99 dated 11.5.2011 of the Department of Personnel,
Government of Rajasthan permitting such migration is non est or in the alternative, has a prospective effect and could not have been applied to the selection process in hand
.



Mr.Shah has thus urged that only those reserved category candidates, who had availed the benefit of age and fee relaxation, only could have permissibly migrated into the quota earmarked for the general candidates and none others. That in no view of the matter, relaxation/concession in excess  of   5%   in   the   pass   marks of TET could have been accorded by the Government in supersession of the NCTE guidelines, has been emphatically underlined to contend that the selection process being vitiated by gross illegalities, no interference with the impugned judgment and order is called for.
Mr.Shah sought to endorse his arguments by referring to the   following   decisions   of   the   Hon'ble   Apex   Court   in Dr.Preeti Srivastava & anr. V/s The State of M.P.& ors. ((1999) 7 SCC 120),  Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission V/s Baloji Badhavat & ors.
(2009(5) SCC 1) and Jitendra Kumar Singh & anr. V/s State of UP & ors. ((2010) 3 SCC 119), of this Court in Sushil Sompura & ors. V/s State of Rajasthan & ors. (D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3964/2011 decided on 20.5.2011) and of Punjab  and Haryana High Court in Shabir Khan & anr. V/s The State of Punjab  ((2012) 167 PLR 29).

The contentious pleadings and the assiduous submissions founded thereon have been duly assayed.
Before venturing into the thick of the controversy, it would be apt to clear the deck qua two peripheral issues, namely, non-impleadment of necessary parties and estoppel.
It has been emphatically asserted that the selected candidates, not having been impleaded as respondents, the writ petitions ought to have been rejected in limine.
The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabodh Verma (supra) and Dingal & Ors.(supra) have been relied upon to reinforce this contention. In both the decisions, their Lordships while disapproving the interference of the jurisdictional High Court with the selection of candidates
not impleaded, did observe in the contextual facts that neither they nor their representatives had been impleaded as parties.

Apart from the impeachment of the recruitment process as a whole to be in violation of the NCTE
Regulations and the essence  of the Act 2009, in the instant proceedings, a scrutiny of the writ petitions involved  disclose impleadment of some of the respondents whose selection had been impugned.
The   State   of   Rajasthan   and  its functionaries as well as the NCTE and the concerned Panchayati Raj institution have been impleaded as respondents. The pleadings of the State Government and the NCTE in particular, attest the initiatives on their behalf to defend the process undertaken. Further, elaborate arguments have been advanced before the learned Single Judge as well as in the appeals on behalf of the selected candidates figuring as appellants touching upon all pertinent aspects of the
debate projecting a complete spectrum of assertions relevant to the issues. In this factual premise, we are of the view that the interest of the selected candidates as a whole has been adequately secured and that mere non impleadment of all of them does not render the impugned judgment and order illegal for want of fairness in action.
On the plea of estoppel as well, we are not inclined to non-suit the respondents/writ petitioners in view of legal issues of moment raised, impelling scrutiny thereof in public interest. A participatory process has been assiduously questioned on the ground of contravention of the provisions of the Act 2009, the guidelines of the NCTE, the Nodal Authority under the enactment, empowered to
prescribe the norms statutorily intended to administer the process of recruitment of teachers to accomplish the constitutional vision of providing a free and compulsory quality education to all children upto the age of 14 years.

Read more...

RAJASTHAN HIGH CHOURT CHIEF JUSTICE BENCH DECISION ON TET / and RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF TET EXAM PART -W

RAJASTHAN HIGH CHOURT CHIEF JUSTICE BENCH DECISION ON TET / and RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF TET EXAM PART -W
Rajasthan Highcourt Chief Justice Bench Decision, Rajasthan Highcourt,




Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com/#ixzz36cV9AUCl



*****************************
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 -W
Though the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court based on the doctrine of approbation and reprobation vis-a-vis candidates who had unsuccessfully participated in a selection process does not admit of any analysis, the invocation of the said doctrine has always been fact oriented.
Noticeably the, oppugnment laid by the respondents/writ petitioners is not merely in the procedural perspectives, but questions the legality and validity of the grundnorms of the recruitment process as a
whole. This plea against the maintainability of the challenge on the ground of estoppel also does not weigh with us.
The radix of the contentious debate, being patently traceable to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education   Act,   2009   (referred   to   also   as   'Act   2009'), expedient it would be to retrace the Statement of Objects and Reasons therefor summarily, before adverting to the
rival assertions.
With the insertion of Article 21A in the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 making it obligatory for the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children  of   the age of six to fourteen years, in  a manner, as prescribed by a statute law to the effect i.e. Act 2009 was enacted, to effectuate this ordainment of the National Charter.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons of this legislative instrument, while acknowledging the crucial role of universal elementary education for strengthening the social fabric of democracy through equal opportunities to all, have  recorded that notwithstanding, significant spatial and numerical
expansion of elementary schools in the country, yet the goal of universal elementary education had remained elusive. Not only the quality of learning  had not been entirely satisfactory in the case of children who could complete elementary education, the number of children belonging to the disadvantaged groups  and weaker sections, who dropped out from schools even before completing elementary education, had been noticeably large. In keeping with the underlying objective of Article
21A, the enactment thus,  sought to guarantee the following :-
“(a) every child has a right to be provided full time elementary education of satisfactory and
equitable quality in a formal school which satisfies certain essential norms and standards;
(b) 'compulsory education' casts an obligation on the appropriate Government to provide and
ensure admission, attendance and completion of elementary education

(c)   'free   education'   means that no child, other than a child who has been admitted by his or her
parents to a school which is not supported by the appropriate Government,  shall be liable to pay
any kind of fee or charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and
completing elementary education;
(d) the duties and responsibilities of the appropriate Governments, local authorities, parents, schools and teachers in providing free and compulsory education; and (e) a system for protection of the right of children and a decentralized grievance redressal mechanism.”
Not only, as it is clearly decipherable from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of this enactment that the avowed objective thereof, is to guarantee full time elementary education of satisfactory and equitable quality to every child, the statute is edificed on the belief that the values of equality, social justice and democracy and the creation of a just and humane society can be achieved only through a provision of inclusive elementary education to all. Free and compulsory education of satisfactory
quality thus, is the salubrious mission of this enactment.
For the present adjudicative purpose, it is however, inessential to traverse the framework of the statute Suffice it to state that the comprehension for providing free and compulsory quality education to children is discernibly the quintessential precept of the Act 2009.
 Section 23 thereof deals with qualifications for appointment and terms and  conditions of service of
teachers and endows the academic authority authorized by the Central Government by notification to prescribe the same, so as to be eligible for  appointment as such. That the NCTE is this academic  authority, as envisaged in Section 23(1) of the Act 2009, is a matter of record.

Indubitably, therefore, NCTE is the statutorily empowered authority to stipulate the minimum qualifications for appointment of a teacher. Under the enactment, power to relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher however, has been reserved with the Central
Government in terms of Section 23(2). The initiatives under scrutiny stem from this legislative backdrop.
The progression of events, as the pleadings would disclose, relate back to the Notification No.F.No.61- 03/20/2010/NCTE/(N&S) dated 23.8.2010 of the NCTE in the dominant exercise of its   powers   under   Section   23(1) of the Act 2009, thereby laying down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in Class I to VIII in a school referred to in
Section 2(n) of the Act 2009. The minimum academic qualifications, as recited therein for the two levels i.e.Level I Class I to V and Level II Class VI to VIII in terms of the notification, are as follows:-
“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
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


(ii) Classes VI-VIII
(a) B.A./B.Sc. and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
OR
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.)
OR
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) in accordance with
the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this
regard.
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor in
Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year BA/B.Sc. Ed or B.A.
Ed./BSc.Ed.
OR
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed.(Special Education).
(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.”
As would be patent from hereinabove, apart from the minimum academic qualifications so prescribed for the two levels, a pass in the TET, to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines of the NCTE for the purpose, was an inalienable
essentiality. A candidate to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in a class  in both the levels thus, apart from being possessed of the minimum academic qualifications so prescribed, was indispensably required to pass the TET, as comprehended. Both these requirements for the purpose of eligibility of a person for appointment as a teacher were unmistakably conjunctive, and   not   in   the alternative.
The NCTE followed up this edict by a letter No.76- 4/2010/NCTE/Acad dated 11.2.2011 addressed to all the Secretaries and Commissioners of the State Governments/UTs, thereby circulating its guidelines for conducting the TET by the  appropriate Government, as required by its notification dated 23.8.2010.
A plain perusal of the guidelines accompanying the letter dated 11.2.2011,  would reveal the abiding
predication to ensure against dilution of quality in such recruitment, and instead, to secure induction of teachers possessed of essential aptitude and ability to meet the challenges of teaching at the primary and upper primary levels. While reiterating the mandate of a pass in the TET to be a norm of eligibility, rationale therefor was enumerated as hereunder:-
“(i) It would bring national standards and benchmark of teacher quality in the recruitment
process;
(ii) It would induce teacher education institutions and students from these institutions to further improve their performance standards;
(iii) It would send a positive signal to all stakeholders that the Government lays special
emphasis on teacher quality.” 


Conspicuously thus, the essence of the TET was to infuse a qualitative content in the recruitment process and thus, set a national benchmark  for the sake of uniformity in the level of elementary education in the country. The guidelines, apart from laying down the eligibility criteria for appearing in the TET, did also in clause 9 thereof, prescribe the qualifying marks for passing the TET as
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.”
The   above   extract   would   proclaim   that   in   terms   of the guidelines of the NCTE, a   candidate  who  would   score 60% or more in the TET,  would be construed to have
passed the same. Liberty was however, accorded to the School management (Government, local bodies, government aided and unaided) to grant concessions to the persons belonging to SC/ST,OBC, differently disabled etc., in accordance with their extant reservation policy.


Clause 9(b) though, made it obligatory to provide weightage to the TET scores in the recruitment process clarified however, that a pass in the TET would not per se confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment, as such a pass was one of the eligibility criteria for appointment. Clause 9 of the guidelines thus, present the following salient features :-
(a) A candidate to pass the TET examination normally, has to score 60% or more;
(b) School managements (Government, locabodies, government aided and unaided) may grant
concessions to the persons belonging to SC/ST,OBC, differently abled persons etc., in accordance
with their extant reservation policy;
(c) weightage has to be given to the TET scores in the recruitment process;
(d) a pass in the TET examination would ipso facto not confer a right on any candidate for
recruitment/employment.
(e) a pass in the TET Examination was one of the eligibility criteria for appointment/recruitment as a
teacher.

Read more...

RAJASTHAN HIGH CHOURT CHIEF JUSTICE BENCH DECISION ON TET / and RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF TET EXAM PART -X

RAJASTHAN HIGH CHOURT CHIEF JUSTICE BENCH DECISION ON TET / and RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF TET EXAM PART -X



Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com/#ixzz36cV9AUCl


PART -X
Indisputably in these appeals, the competence of the NCTE either to issue the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 to conduct the TET or to vest a discretion amongst others to the State Government to grant relaxation as contemplated in clause 9(a) in accordance with its extant reservation policy has not been questioned. Patently as well the guidelines circulated vide letter dated 11.2.2011 of the NCTE deal exclusively with  the modalities pertaining to TET. In our estimate also, the legislative empowerment of the NCTE to lay down the minimum qualifications for appointment as a Teacher, as is evident from Section 23 of the Act, 2009, does not obdurately limit it to prescribe only the academic qualifications but also permit prescription of essential norms of eligibility to effectuate the underlying objectives of the enactment.
While irrefutably, concessions as contemplated to the reserved category candidates, have to be essentially in conformity with the extant reservation policy, the TET scores, due to the weightage to be accorded to it, would unmistakably contribute to the eventual performance of a candidate qua his/her recruitment.  A candidate who thus, pass the TET would be eligible to participate in a process
of recruitment to the post of a teacher in both the levels, provided he/she is possessed of the academic
qualifications prescribed therefor and would further be entitled to weightage of the marks scored by him/her in the TET examination, if he/she passes the same.
Axiomatically thus, for a candidate who pass the TET in terms of the modalities prescribed and is otherwise academically qualified to partake in the process of recruitment of a teacher as contemplated, he/she would have the benefit of weightage of his/her marks in the said examination to adjudge finally, his/her performance for selection. Viewed thus, vis-a-vis the candidates who pass the TET, the marks secured by them in this examination would form an integral segment of their final scores on the basis whereof, the merit list for recruitment would be drawn up. A pass in the TET consequently, though at theinitiation of the process of recruitment would be a criterion of eligibility, the marks secured therein would eventually get integrated in the performance of a candidate for his/her eventual assessment of comparative merit for selection for recruitment. A pass in the TET, in
this composite scheme of evaluation of a candidate thus, in the ultimate analysis, transforms itself from a norm of eligibility to a contributory ingredient of overall performance of a candidate deciding his/her prospect of selection for eventual recruitment. The factum of being successful in the TET, as comprehended in clause 9, therefore, has an undeniable impact, in our comprehension, on the process of recruitment.
Be that as it may, the  State Government in the School Education Department,  acting on the guidelines, vide its letter No.PS/PSE/2010/91 dated 23.3.2011 addressed to the Secretary, & Coordinator, Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility test, Rajasthan Board for Secondary Education, Ajmer, decided to grant the following concessions to the persons  belonging to the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, differently able to persons etc., as contemplated in
paragraph 9 of the guidelines of the NCTE circulated vide its letter dated 11.2.2011:

“(a) 10% concession may be given to all the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Special Backward Classes, and all women belonging to the General Category.
(b) 15% concession may be given to all the women belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Special Backward Classes, and all widowed and divorced women.
(c) 20% concession may be given to all the persons covered under the definition of “person
with disability” under clause (t) of section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.”
Certain clarifications regarding persons pursuing any of the teacher education courses were also provided.
A bare perusal of this letter dated 23.3.2011 however, does not disclose any reference to the extant
reservation policy of the government, as mentioned in clause 9 of the letter dated 11.2.2011 of the NCTE.
Subsequent thereto, on 30.3.2011, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer issued an advertisement for the RTET-2011 to be held on 22.5.2011. The last date for submission of the application form was mentioned to be 18.4.2011. The norm of eligibility i.e. minimum academic
qualifications for appearing in the said test were the same, as enumerated in the notification dated 23.8.2010 of the NCTE. While 60% or more marks was prescribed for a pass in the said test for the general category candidates, concessions to the   extent   as   set   out   in   the letter dated 23.3.2011, were accorded to the three classes of reserved category candidates mentioned therein. There is no dissensus at the Bar that the parties
in the fray did eventually take the TET and results thereof were declared on 28.8.2011. In between, Notification No.F.No.61-1/2011/NCTE/(N&S) dated 29.7.2011 was issued by the NCTE in exercise of its powers under Section 23(1) of the Act 2009 introducing the amendment of its earlier notification dated 23.8.2010 laying down minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for
appointment as a teacher.  This notification though occasioned alterations  in the minimum academic
qualifications, it retained the requirement of a pass in the TET to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with its guidelines. However, thereby paragraph 3 of the principal notification dated 23.8.2010 was substituted as hereunder:-
“(i) Training to be undergone.- A person-
(a) with Graduation with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification or with at least 45% marks
and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms
and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard shall also be eligible for
appointment to Class   I   to   V   up   to   1st  January,2012, provided he/she undergoes, after
appointment, an NCTE recognized 6-month Special Programme in Elementary Education;
(b) with D.Ed.(Special Education) or B.Ed.(Special Education) qualification shall undergo, after
appointment an NCTE  recognized 6-month Special Programme in Elementary Education.
(ii) Reservation Policy:
Relaxation up to 5% in the qualifying marks shall be allowed to the  candidates belonging to
reserved categories; such as SC/ST/OBC/PH.”
In Item No.(ii) of this paragraph, under the caption “Reservation Policy”,   it   was   provided   that   relaxation   upto 5% in the qualifying marks would be allowed to the candidates belonging to  the reserved categories i.e.SC/ST/OBC/PH.
Whereas, the respondent-State insists that this relaxation is qua the minimum marks in the qualifying
examination of senior secondary/graduation etc
., the respondents/writ petitioners maintain it to be relatable to the pass marks in the TET. According to them, the results of the TET prepared and declared in terms of the letter dated 23.3.2011, were thus non est, to the extent of concession being granted to the reserved category candidates, above 5% in the marks secured in the TET,
the same being apparently repugnant to the prescription to this effect contained  in the notification dated 29.7.2011. They thus, contend that the  reserved category candidates who secured less than 55% marks in the TET could not have been declared to have passed the said examination, so as to enable them to participate further in the recruitment process for appointment to the post of teacher in Levels I and II.
The original paragraph 3 of the principal notification dated 23.8.2010 needs to be recalled  to appropriately analyze this otherwise irreconciliable orientations. For ready reference it is quoted hereunder:-
“3. Training to be undergone.- A person -
(a) with BA/B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification  shall also be eligible for
appointment for class I  to V upto Ist January, 2012, provided he undergoes, after
appointment, an NCTE recognized 6-month special programme in Elementary Education.
(b) with D.Ed.(Special Education) or B.Ed (Special Education) qualification shall undergo,
after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6-month special programme in Elementary Education.”

A cursory perusal of the contents of this quote would demonstrate that paragraph 3  of the notification dated 23.8.2010 dealt exclusively with the aspect of NCTE recognized 6-months Special Programme in Elementary Education by way of training of the persons with qualifications mentioned therein, after appointment. There was neither any comprehension nor any provision for reservation or relaxation of marks. Academic qualifications with minimum percentage of marks was
however, referred to.
In the amended paragraph 3, introduced by the notification dated 29.7.2011, apart from modified
academic qualifications with percentage of marks, relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks was provided for the candidates belonging to the reserved categories, such as SC/ST/OBC/PH. The texts of the two paragraphs of the notifications dated 23.8.2010 and 29.7.2011 when juxtaposed, in our estimate,  connote that the concession of 5% in the qualifying marks pertains to the percentage
of marks in the qualifying examination of Senior Secondary/Graduation etc
. and not to the percentage of pass marks in TET. The schemes of the notifications dated 23.8.2010 and 29.7.2011 do not permit the interpretation, as asserted on behalf of the respondents/writ petitioners. Both these notifications, in clear terms, deal with the minimum qualifications of a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher of
which a pass in the TET, as clarified by the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, was a norm of eligibility.
This view is fortified by the letter No. F.No.61-1/2011/NCTE/N&S dated 1.4.2011 of the NCTE addressed, amongst others, to all Secretaries and Commissioners of the   State   Governments/UTs   clarifying that following the issuance of the notification dated 23.8.2010, it had received representations from   the   State   Government   and other stakeholders that in respect of SCs/STs etc.
relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks should be allowed, since such relaxation is permissible by the NCTE for admission in various  teacher education courses
.
Referring to the minimum marks in the notification dated 23.8.2010, in senior secondary (or its equivalent) or in B.A./B.Sc., it was elucidated that following its meeting held on 16.3.2011 it was decided that relaxation upto 5% in such qualifying marks would be available to SCs/STs etc., in accordance with the extant policy of the State Government /UTs and other school managements. There is no reference of such relaxation to pass marks in the TET. This accommodation of the NCTE, by way ofconcession of 5% marks qua the academic qualifications, is also evident from the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure)
Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as '2009 Regulations') and the norms  and standards for various education courses as specified in the Appendices thereto and referred to in the course of arguments on its behalf.
The explanation of the NCTE with regard to the nature of the relaxation granted under the caption “reservation policy” traceable to paragraph 3 of the principal notification dated 23.8.2010 with reference amongst others to the 2009 Regulations cannot be ignored or discarded. The pleadings to this effect and the arguments advanced project its consistent stand on this facet of the debate. Relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks in the amended paragraph 3 of the notification dated 23.8.2010, in our comprehension, is thus wholly unrelated to the percentage of pass marks in the TET. The sanction of relaxation of 5% in the qualifying marks, in our
comprehension, thus has no nexus with the pass marks in the TET. Any endeavour to relate it to the percentage of marks in the TET, would be doing violence to the tone, tenor and contents of the notifications, which is clearly impermissible. The notification dated 29.7.2011 having regard to the scheme and purport thereof has to be essentially co-related with the one dated 23.8.2010,
which originally did not contemplate any relaxation.
Logically, thus, this notification does not supersede the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 governing the conduct of the TET. The respondents'/writ petitioners' plea of disqualification of reserved category candidates securing less than 55% marks in the TET thus, cannot be sustained.
Meanwhile, one Durga Das and seven others inter alia in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10785/2011 invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to annul clause 9 (a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 of the NCTE and clause 4(a) of the advertisement dated 30.3.2011 dealing with the relaxation in the minimum pass marks accorded to the reserved category candidates in the RTET-2011. A Single Bench of this Court by order dated 9.9.2011  while noticing that the results of the said examination had been declared on 28.8.2011, in the interim, restrained the
Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer from issuing any eligibility certificate on the basis thereof to the candidates who had  been declared to have passed by availing the aforementioned concessions.
 The application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India moved by the department having
been rejected on 8.12.2011 the State of Rajasthan preferred D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.2664/2011, and by order dated 6.1.2012, a Coordinate  Bench of this Court held that as the challenge involved impugnment of statutory guidelines, the learned Single Judge lacked
jurisdiction to entertain the same. The interim restraint was thus, vacated and the matter was ordered to be listed before a Division Bench.  Subsequent thereto however, this petition was dismissed as infructuous on 28.9.2012.
There was thus, no adjudication on merit of the assailment of the validity of clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 and clause 4(a) of the advertisement dated 30.3.2011 for the RTET-2011 designed on the relaxation granted by the State Government vide its letter dated 23.3.2011. The attention of this Court has not been drawn to any other pending assailment either of clause 9
of the guidelines or the relaxation granted by the State Government vide its letter dated 23.3.2011 or paragraph 4(a) of the advertisement dated 30.3.2011. This notification dated 29.7.2011, therefore, as the relaxation referred to therein does not relate to the percentage of marks to be secured in the TET to pass the same, cannot be construed to be in supersession either of the guidelines
dated 11.2.2011 or the letter dated 23.3.2011 of the
State Government
.


Read more...