Chattisgarh High Court
Satishwar Prasad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 February, 2023
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 501 of 2022
Abhishek Kumar Nirmalkar S/o Ramkumar Nirmalkar, Aged About 36 Years
R/o Pathak Para, Takhatpur Ward No. 6, Police Station Station Takhatpur,
District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, School Education
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2. The Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Atal Nagar, New Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
3. The District Education Officer, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
WA No. 505 of 2022
Satish Kumar Sahu S/o Baijnath Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Kosla,
Block Pamgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, School Education
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. The Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Atal Nagar, New Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. The District Education Officer, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WA No. 507 of 2022
Meena Toppo D/o Shri Babulal Toppo Aged About 27 Years R/o Village
Khedama, Post Lailunga, Tahsil And Thana Lailunga, District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary School Education
Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, PO and PS Rakhi, Nawa
Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Director, Directorate of Public Instruction Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2
3. District Education Officer, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WA No. 508 of 2022
Onkar Prasad Sahu S/o Harishchandra Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Utai,
Post Utai, Block Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, School Education
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. The Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Atal Nagar, New Raipur,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. The District Education Officer, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WA No. 510 of 2022
Shailesh Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ramdeni Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o
Village And Post Chandranagar, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District : Balrampur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary School Education
Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Post Office And Police Station
Rakhi, Nawa Raipur., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Directorate of Public Instruction Raipur., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. District Education Officer, Raipur., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WA No. 511 of 2022
Anita Markam S/o Shri Sukhi Ram Markam Aged About 28 Years R/o Village
Dandbachhali, Post Tenganmada, Tahsil Belgahna, Thana Kota, District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary School Education
Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Post Office and Police Station
Rakhi, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Directorate of Public Instruction Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. District Education Officer, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
3
WA No. 512 of 2022
Preetam Lal Padoti S/o Late Shri Ramratan Padoti, Aged About 43 Years R/o
Village Patheshri, Post Tumdibod, Tahsil Dongargaon, District : Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary School Education
Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, PO and PS Rakhi, Nawa
Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Directorate of Public Instruction Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. District Education Officer, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WA No. 513 of 2022
Sukhdev Prasad Lahre S/o Narad Lal Lahre Aged About 37 Years R/o Village
Lohrakot, Block Jaijaipur, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, School Education
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. The Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Atal Nagar, New Raipur,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. The District Education Officer, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
WA No. 514 of 2022
Vikas Kumar S/o Shri Jugal Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o Village
Ghumanidand, Post Jatga, Tahsil Pondi Uprora, Thana Bango, District :
Korba, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, School Education
Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Rakhi, Nawa
Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Directorate of Public Instruction Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon,
4
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WA No. 515 of 2022
Buddheshwar Prasad Patel S/o Shri Shankar Lal Patel Aged About 37 Years
R/o Village Sarra, Post Deosundra, Tahsil Pallari, District - Balodabazar (C.G.)
(Petitioner Name Wrongly Mention In Impugned Order As Buddheswar Prasad
Patel)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary School Education
Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, PO and PS Rakhi, Nawa
Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Directorate of Public Instruction Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. District Education Officer, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WA No. 518 of 2022
Shailendra Kumar Verma S/o Shri Aatma Ram Aged About 37 Years R/o
Village Kurlu, Post Parpodi, Tahsil Saja, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary School Education
Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, PO and PS Rakhi, Nawa
Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Directorate of Public Instruction Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. District Education Officer, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WA No. 519 of 2022
Kundan Singh S/o Shri Bisalik Ram Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Gahira-
Nawagaon, Post Khertha Bazar, Tahsil Dondi Lohara, District Balod (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary School Education
Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Rakhi, Nawa
Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Directorate of Public Instruction Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
5
3. District Education Officer, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WA No. 522 of 2022
Manees Kumar Meshram S/o Shri Gorelal Meshram Aged About 34 Years R/o
Village And Post Kodikasa, Tahsil Ambagarh, Chowki, District Rajnandgaon
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary School Education
Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, PO and Police Station Rakhi,
Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Director, Directorate of Public Instruction Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
3. District Education Officer, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WA No. 523 of 2022
Rekhlal S/o Ramnarayan Aged About 35 Years R/o Morid, Post Dundera,
Block Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2. The Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Atal Nagar, New Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
3. The District Education Officer, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WA No. 524 of 2022
Jai Prakash Sahu S/o Shri Kamlesh Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Ajad
Chowk, Village And Post Kendri, Block And Tahsil Abhanpur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary School Education
Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, PO and PS Rakhi, Nawa
Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Directorate of Public Instruction Raipur, District : Raipur,
6
Chhattisgarh
3. District Education Officer, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WA No. 525 of 2022
Sonsai Sahu S/o Shri Ramat Lal Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village
Ganesh Khapri, Post Mahrum, Thana Deori Tahsil Dondi Lohara, District
Balod Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary School Education
Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, PO and PS Rakhi, Nawa
Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Directorate of Public Instruction Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
3. District Education Officer, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WA No. 538 of 2022
Satishwar Prasad S/o Shri Sonsai Ram Aged About 42 Years R/o Village
Bachwar, Post Bachwar (Shankargarh), Tahsil Shankargarh, District
Balrampur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary School Education
Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Po And Ps Rakhi, Nawa
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Directorate of Public Instruction Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. District Education Officer, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WA No. 548 of 2022
Premlata Dhruw W/o Durdesh Dhruw Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Barela,
Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
7
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, School Education
Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Public Education Directorate, Indravati Bhavan, Naya Raipur,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. The District Education Officer, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. The District Education Officer, Jagdalpur, Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
5. The Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur Through Its
Secretary, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WA No. 589 of 2022
Bharya Sinha D/o Chova Lal Aged About 28 Years R/o 22, School Para,
Hahaladdi, Durgukondal, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Public Instructions, Sanchalnalaya, Indravati Bhawan, Atal
Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Divisional Joint Director Education Division, Bastar, District Bastar,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WA No. 595 of 2022
Bhanupriya Beck D/o Framcis Beck Aged About 29 Years R/o Village
Pakhnakot Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of School
Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralya, New Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Directorate of Chhattisgarh, Public Instruction Indravati
Bhawan, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. District Education Officer, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
8
For Appellants : Mr. C.J.K.Rao and Mr. Harish Khuntiya {in WA Nos.
501/2022, 505/2022, 508/2022, 513/2022,
523/2022, and 589/2022}
Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali {in WA No. 507/2022}
Mr. Mateen Siddique and Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap,
{in WA Nos. 510/2022, 511/2022, 512/2022,
514/2022, 515/2022, 518/2022, 519/2022,
522/2022, 524/2022, 525/2022, 538/2022}
Mr. Raj Kumar Pali {in WA No. 548/2022}
Mr. Govind Prasad Mathur and Mr. Shashi Kumar
Kushwaha, {in WA No. 595/2022}
For Respondents/ State : Mr. Jitendra Pali and Mr. H.S.Ahluwalia, Deputy
Advocate General and Ms. Astha Shukla,
Government Advocate
For Respondent/ : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate {in WA No.
Chhattisgarh
548/2022}
Professional
Examination Board
Dates of Hearing : 28.11.2022 & 30.11.2022
Date of Judgment : 10.02.2023
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal, Judge
CAV Judgment
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
On 09.03.2019, the Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Raipur,
had issued an advertisement for recruitment and appointment to various posts
of teaching staff including Teachers and Assistant Teachers. The minimum
9
educational qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science) is laid
down in clause 2(i)(a) and (b). The minimum educational qualification for the
post of Teacher is laid down in clause 2(ii) (a) and (b). They read as follows:
"2. Minimum Educational Qualification -
(i). Assistant Teacher -
(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), Regulation, 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)
OR
Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by
whatever name known)
OR
Graduation with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. Qualification
(Graduate from the institution recognized from NCTE), shall also
be eligible for appointment as teacher for classes 1 to 5, Provided
10
he/she undergoes, after appointment, a NCTE recognized 6
month special programme in Elementary Education.
And
(b) Passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by
the appropriate Government, in accordance with the guidelines
framed by the NCTE for this purpose.
2. Minimum Educational Qualification -
(ii). Teacher -
(a) Graduation and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by
what ever name known)
OR
Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor in
Education (B.Ed.)
OR
Graduation with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in
Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition,
Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in
this regard.
OR
Higher Secondary or its equivalent with at least 50% marks and 4
years B.A./B.Sc.Ed. or B.AEd./B.Sc.Ed.
OR
Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1 years B.Ed. (Special
Education)
And
11
(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."
2. The petitioners in all the writ petitions either belong to Other Backward
Class (OBC), Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST). The common
thread, essentially running through all the writ petitions, is that they had
participated pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement for appointment as
Assistant Teacher and Teacher and were successful in the written
examination. However, subsequently, they were declared to be ineligible for
the post of Assistant Teacher and Teacher as not meeting the educational
eligibility qualification.
3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions negating the
challenge made by the petitioners, by holding, amongst others, that the plea
raised by the petitioners regarding entitlement of relaxation of 5% marks in
academic qualification to be without any merit.
4. A chart is given hereinbelow indicating the status of the petitioners as
well as the grounds of rejection in case of each of the writ petitioners.
Sl.No. Writ Appeal Category Post Applied Ground of Rejection
No.
1 501 of 2022 OBC Assistant Secured less than
arising out of Teacher 50% marks in
WPS No.4594 graduation.
of 2022
2 505 of 2022 OBC Assistant Secured less than
arising out of Teacher 50% marks in
WPS No.4683 graduation.
of 2022
3 507 of 2022 ST Assistant Secured less than
arising out of Teacher 50% marks in Higher
12
WPS No.3884 (Science) (E&T Secondary (Class 12)
of 2022 Cadre)
4 508 of 2022 OBC Assistant Secured less than
arising out of Teacher 50% marks in
WPS No.4597 graduation.
of 2022
5 510 of 2022 ST Assistant Secured less than
arising out of Teacher 50% marks in Higher
WPS No.4183 (Science) (E&T Secondary (Class 12)
of 2022 Cadre)
6 511 of 2022 ST Assistant Secured less than
arising out of Teacher 50% marks in Higher
WPS No.3901 (Science) (E&T Secondary (Class 12)
of 2022 Cadre)
7 512 of 2022 ST Assistant Secured less than
arising out of Teacher 50% marks in Higher
WPS No.3931 (Science) (E&T Secondary (Class 12)
of 2022 Cadre)
8 513 of 2022 SC Assistant Secured less than
arising out of Teacher 50% marks in
WPS No.4602 graduation.
of 2022
9 514 of 2022 ST Assistant Secured less than
arising out of Teacher 50% marks in
WPS No.2429 (Science) (E&T graduation.
of 2022 Cadre)
10 515 of 2022 OBC Assistant Secured less than
arising out of Teacher 50% marks in Higher
WPS No.3900 (Science) (E&T Secondary (Class 12)
of 2022 Cadre)
11 518 of 2022 OBC Assistant Secured less than
arising out of Teacher 50% marks in
WPS No.3947 (Science) (E&T graduation.
of 2022 Cadre)
12 519 of 2022 ST Assistant Secured less than
arising out of Teacher 50% marks in
WPS No.4340 (Science) (E&T graduation.
of 2022 Cadre)
13 522 of 2022 SC Assistant Secured less than
arising out of Teacher 50% marks in
13
WPS No.3933 (Science) (E&T graduation.
of 2022 Cadre)
14 523 of 2022 OBC Assistant Secured less than
arising out of Teacher 50% marks in
WPS No.4606 graduation and also
of 2022 did not possess D.Ed
certificate.
15 524 of 2022 OBC Assistant Secured less than
arising out of Teacher 50% marks in
WPS No.4027 (Science) (E&T graduation.
of 2022 Cadre)
16 525 of 2022 OBC Assistant Secured less than
arising out of Teacher 50% marks in Higher
WPS No.3904 (Science) (E&T Secondary (Class 12)
of 2022 Cadre)
17 538 of 2022 ST Assistant Secured less than
arising out of Teacher 50% marks in Higher
WPS No.3888 (Science) (E&T Secondary (Class 12)
of 2022 Cadre)
18 548 of 2022 SC Assistant Secured less than
arising out of Teacher 50% marks in Higher
WPS No.4922 (Science) (E&T Secondary (Class 12)
of 2022 Cadre)
19 589 of 2022 OBC/PH Teacher Secured less than
arising out of (Mathematics) 50% marks in
WPS No.2084 graduation.
of 2022
20 595 of 2022 ST Assistant Secured less than
arising out of Teacher 50% marks in Higher
WPS No.5643 (Science) Secondary (Class 12)
of 2022
(E Cadre)
.
5. As in these cases, we are concerned with the educational and the other
qualifications that are required for appointment of teaching staff, the provisions
directly touching upon this aspect is Section 23 of the Right to Children to Free
and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, the RTE Act). Section 23(1)
empowers the Central Government to authorize the academic authority to
prescribe minimum qualification to be eligible for appointment of teachers.
Once the academic authority fixes the minimum qualification, then the
relaxation is possible only under Section 23(2) of the RTE Act. Section 23 of
the RTE Act reads as under:
"23. Qualification for appointment and terms and conditions
of service of teachers. - (1) Any person possessing such
minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority,
authorized 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 qualification 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.
Provided further that every teacher appointed or in position as
on the 31st March, 2015, who does not possess minimum
qualification as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire
such minimum qualification within a period of four years from
the date of commencement of the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017.
(3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and
conditions of service of, teacher shall be such as may be
prescribed."
6. Since the minimum qualifications are to be laid down by an academic
authority authorized by the Central Government by way of a notification, such
an authority which is so authorized by the Central Government is the National
Council for Teacher Education, (for short, NCTE). Therefore, NCTE is
competent to lay down the minimum qualification which a person needs to
possess for making him eligible for appointment as a teacher.
7. NCTE had issued a notification dated 23.08.2010 prescribing minimum
qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a Teacher in Class I
to Class VIII in a school referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act
with effect from the date of the notification. The notification dated 23.08.2010
was amended by notification dated 29.07.2011.
8. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to extract clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the
notification dated 23.08.2010. The same reads as under :
"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), Regulation 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)
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.
2. Diploma/Degree Course in Teacher Education.- For the
purposes of this Notification, a diploma/degree course in teacher
education recognized by the National Council for Teacher
Education (NCTE) only shall be considered. However, in case of
Diploma in Education (Special Education) and B.Ed (Special
Education), a course recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of
India (RCI) only shall be considered.
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 1st
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.
9. Paragraphs I, II and III of the notification dated 29.07.2011 read as
follows:
(I) For sub-para (i) of para 1 of the Principal Notification, the
following shall be substituted, namely:-
1. Minimum Qualification:-
(i) Classes I-V
(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks
and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name
known)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and
2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name
known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and
Procedure), Regulation, 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)
OR
Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary Education (By
whatever name known)
AND
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by
the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines
framed by the NCTE for the purpose.
II) For Sub-para (ii) of para 1 of the Principal Notification, the
following shall be substituted, namely:-
(ii) Classes VI-VIII
(a) Graduation and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by
whatever name known)
OR
Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in
Education (B.Ed.)
OR
Graduation with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in
Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE recognition
Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in
this regard.
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and
4-year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and
4-year B.A/B.Sc.Ed. or B.A. Ed./B.Sc.Ed.
OR
Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed. (Special
Education)
AND
(b) Pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the
appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed
by the NCTE for the purpose.
(III) For para 3 of the Principal Notification the following shall
be substituted, namely:-
(i) Training to be undergone.- A person-
(a) with Graduation with at least 50% marks and B.Ed.
qualification or with at least 45% marks and 1 year Bachelor in
Education (B.Ed), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition
Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in
this regard shall also be eligible for appointment to Class I to V up
to 1st January, 2012, provided he/she undergoes, after
appointment, and 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."
10. Another notification dated 13.11.2019 was issued by the NCTE. The
same reads as under:
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2019
F.No.NCTE-Reg/012/22/2019-US(Regulation)-HQ.-In exercise
of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
(35 of 2009) and in pursuance of the notification number
Government of India in the Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Department of School Education and Literacy
S.O. 750(E) dated 31st March 2010 published in the Gazette of
India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated
the 5th April, 2010, the National Council for Teacher Education
hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of
the Government of India, National Council for Teacher
Education, vide F. No. 61-3/20/2010-NCTE(N&S) published in
the Gazette of India, Part III, Section 4, dated the 23 rd August,
2010, namely:-
1. In the said notification in paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (ii), -
(A) in clause (a) for the words, figures, brackets and letters
"Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor in
Education (B.Ed), the words figure and letters "At least 50%
marks either in Graduation or in Post-Graduation and B.Ed."
shall be substituted.
(B) After clause (b), at the end, the following proviso shall be
inserted, namely:-
"Provided that minimum percentage of marks in graduation
shall not be applicable to those incumbents who had already
taken admission to the Bachelor of Education or Bachelor of
Elementary Education or equivalent course prior to the 29th
July, 2011."
2. This notification shall be deemed to have come into force on
the 29th July, 2011.
SANJAY AWASTHI, Member-Secy.
(ADVT.-III/4/Exty./304/19]
Note : The principal notification was published in the Gazette of
India, Extraordinary, Part III, Section 4, vide number F.No. 61-
3/20/2010-NCTE(N&S) dated the 23rd August, 2010 and was
subsequently amended vide number F. No. 61-1/2011-NCTE
(N&S) dated the 29th July, 2011.
Explanatory Memorandum
The amendment notification number F.61-1/2011-NCTE (N&S)
dated the 29th July, 2011 issued by the National Council for
Teacher Education was challenged before the Supreme Court
in the case of Neeraj Kumar Rai and others Vs State of U.P.
and Others in Civil Appeal No. 9732 of 2017 and the Hon'ble
Court vide its order dated the 25th July, 2017 had directed the
National Council for Teacher Education to issue a clarification
by way of a supplementary notification regarding the
percentage of marks specified therein. Necessary amendment
is required to be made retrospectively from the date of
notification of the said rules. It is certified that none will be
adversely affected by the retrospective effect being given to
the amendment rules."
11. NCTE had issued a Guideline dated 11.02.2021 on the subject of TET.
Clause 9 of the NCTE Guideline dated 11.02.2011 reads as follows:
"9. Qualifying marks. - A person who scores 60% or more in
the TET exam will be considered as TET pass. School
managements (Government, local bodies, government aided
and unaided):
(a) may 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."
12. Clause 2(v) of the Chhattisgarh Teacher Eligibility Examination
Direction, 2011, for short, TET Direction, 2011 reads as follows:
"(v) jkT; lsok ijh{kk ds izpfyr fu;ekuqlkj vuqlwfpr tkfr]
vuqlwfpr tutkfr] vU; fiNM+k oxZ ds vH;fFkZ;ksa dks 10 % dh
NwV nsrs gq, bl ijh{kk esa ik=rk gsrq 50 % U;wure vad ykuk
vko';d gksxkA"
13. In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India, the Governor of Chhattisgarh, had framed the rules
relating to the recruitment to the Chhattisgarh School Education Services
(Educational and Administrative Cadre), styled as Chhattisgarh School
Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and
Promotion Rules, 2019 (for short, the Rules of 2019) vide notification dated
05.03.2019.
14. We will advert to some of the provisions of the Rules of 2019 at an
appropriate place during the course of the judgment. For the present,
suffice it to say that the qualification prescribed in the advertisement was in
terms of the Rules of 2019.
15. The learned Single Judge, by referring to clause 2(v) of the TET
Direction, 2011, held that minimum pass percentage is fixed at 50% and 10%
relaxation is granted to the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC category and
as such, they will have to score minimum 40% marks. The learned Single
Judge was not correct in making the aforesaid observation.
16. A perusal of clause 2(v) of TET Direction, 2011 would go to show that
10% relaxation is granted to the SC/ST/OBC candidates and they have to
secure minimum 50% marks.
17. In paragraph 25, the learned Single Judge extracted paragraph 17 of the
decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Shiv Kumar Pathak & Others, reported in (2018) 12 SCC 595. In
the said paragraph, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that while the
qualifications prescribed by the NCTE are binding, requirement of weightage
to TET marks is not a mandatory requirement. The aforesaid aspect does not
fall for consideration in the present cases.
18. The learned Single Judge at paragraphs 21, 22 and 26, has observed
as follows:
"21. From bare perusal of notifications of 2010 & 2011, it is quite
vivid that the relaxation of 10% in qualifying marks was not given
for recruitment process, but was granted for passing of TET
examination. Thus, the passing of TET and appointment as per
Rules, 2019 for appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher/Teacher are completely different and the petitioners
cannot club both these things and claimed relaxation. It is quite
vivid that so far as relaxation of passing TET is concerned, it
was open to the State Government to give relaxation in favour of
reserved category as per the policy framed by them from time to
time with change in socio economic condition.
22. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that
when the petitioners were found eligible to pursue B.Ed., they
cannot be held ineligible to be considered for appointment by
granting relaxation. I am not persuaded by this submission as
granting of relaxation in essential qualification will dilute the
standard of education.
xxx xxx xxx
26. Thus, the qualification prescribed by NCTE is binding
and requirement of weightage to TET mark is not requirement
for appointment. From bare perusal of Rules, 2019, it is quite
vivid that the qualification prescribed in the Rules of 2019 are at
par with the qualification prescribed by NCTE and even this
judgment does not deal with the relaxation with minimum
qualifying marks in the board examination or graduation which is
essential qualification for appointment. The petitioners are trying
the mix up the relaxation granted for TET with minimum
percentage required under the rules. Both the things cannot be
treated as one and the same as the recruitment rules governs
Page 33 of 34 the field of recruitment which has been framed
under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and is binding force.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in A.K.Bhatnagar & others Vs. Union
of India & others [(1991) 1 SCC 544] , has examined the effect
of rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India that it
has binding effect. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held at
paragraph 13 as under:-
"13. On more than one occasion this Court has indicated to the
Union and the State Governments that once they frame rules,
their action in respect of matters covered by rules should be
regulated by the rules. The rules framed in exercise of powers
conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are
solemn rules having binding effect. Acting in a manner contrary
to the rules does create problem and dislocation. Very often
government themselves get trapped on account of their own
mistakes or actions in excess of what is provided in the rules.
We take serious view of these lapses and hope and trust that the
government both at the Centre and in the States would take note
of this position and refrain from acting in a manner not
contemplated by their own rules. There shall be no order as to
costs."
19. WA No. 514/2022 arising out of WPS No. 2429/2022 was presented as
a lead case and Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing in WA No.
514/2022 had advanced the lead arguments, which was adopted by Mr. C.J.K.
Rao, Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap,
Mr. Raj Kumar Pali, Mr. Govind Prasad Mathur and Mr. Sashi Kumar
Kushwaha.
20. Lead arguments on behalf of the State-respondent had been advanced
by Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia,
learned Deputy Advocate General and Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government
Advocate, who had appeared in some of the cases, had adopted the
arguments of Mr. Pali.
21. Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel submits that clause III(ii) of the
notification dated 29.07.2011 makes it abundantly clear that relaxation up to
5% in the qualifying marks shall be allowed to the candidates belonging to
reserved categories such as SC/ST/OBC/PH and when NCTE has granted
such relaxation, the State/respondents acted illegally and arbitrarily in holding
the petitioners to be disqualified for recruitment to the post of Assistant
Teacher/Teacher. In this connection, he has relied on the decision in the case
of Vikas Sankhla & Others v. Vikas Kumar Agrawal & Others, reported in
(2017) 1 SCC 350. It is contended by him that the learned Single Judge did
not consider Clause III(ii) of the notification dated 29.07.2011. He has drawn
attention to the Chhattisgarh Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012, for short, Panchayat Teacher Rules, 2012,
as also to Chhattisgarh Shikshak (Nagriya Nikay) Samvarg (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013, for short, Nagariya Nikay Teacher Rules,
2013, to contend that relaxation up to 5% in the qualification marks are given
to the candidates belonging to reserved categories such as SC/ST/OBC/PH.
Since NCTE had allowed relaxation in respect of qualification and since in
similar recruitment rules 5% relaxation is granted in respect of minimum
qualification, absence of a specific clause relating to relaxation in the Rules of
2019 will not be of consequence as the appellants had been allowed to
participate in the recruitment process. It is submitted that Rules of 2019,
however, makes a reference that prescribed qualification would be as per
RTE Act. It is contended that if relaxation of 5% marks is given in the
recruitment process, the petitioners would be eligible to be appointed. In this
connection, he has also drawn attention of the Court to clause 5 of the
advertisement to contend that the petitioners are eligible to 5% relaxation in
minimum qualifying marks in higher secondary or graduation.
22. Mr. Pali submits that the advertisement did not stipulate that any
relaxation is given in respect of the educational qualifications and submission
of Mr. Siddiqui that clause 5 of the advertisement provides 5% of relaxation in
minimum qualification marks is not correct. It is further contended that Rules of
2019 does not provide any relaxation or for that matter, Paragraph III(ii) of
notification dated 29.07.2011 also does not provide relaxation in respect of
educational qualifications and that relaxation is given for the purpose of
training to be undergone by persons as required under Clause III(i)(a)(b). He
has relied on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others v. Vikas Kumar Singh, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 347,
Vikas Sankhala and others (supra) and V. Lavanya & Others v. State of
Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary & Others, reported in
(2017) 1 SCC 322.
23. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the materials on record.
24. Clause 5 of the advertisement is on the subject of reservation regarding
post. Clause v(1) refers to Chhattisgarh Lok Sewa (Anusuchit Jatiyon,
Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan)
Adhiniyam, 1994, for short, Act of 1994. No material has been placed on
record demonstrating that under the aforesaid Act of 1994, any relaxation of
educational qualifications is granted by way of notification. Therefore, the
contention of Mr. Siddiqui in this context is without any merit.
25. Though by the notification dated 29.07.2011, the minimum qualification
for Classes I to V and Classes VI to VIII have been substituted, the same is
not very relevant for the purpose of this case as the entire thrust of the
argument is laid on clause III(ii). To appreciate the above, it will also be
necessary to take note of clause III(i). Clause III(i)(a) provides that (a) a
person 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 Classes I to
V upto 1st January, 2012, provided he/she undergoes, after appointment, an
NCTE recognized 6-months Special Programme in Elementary Education and
(b) a person with D.Ed (Special Education) or B.Ed (Special Education)
qualification shall undergo, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6-months
Special Programme in Elementary Education. Thus, there is no real change in
clause 3(b) of the notification dated 28.03.2010 and clause III(i)(b) of the
notification dated 29.07.2011.
26. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the
relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks as indicated in clause III(ii) is in
respect of the qualifying marks in the higher secondary or graduation for the
purpose of recruitment, while the contention advanced by the learned Deputy
Advocate General is that the same relates to relaxation for the purpose of
training to be undergone.
27. In Vikash Sankhla (supra), the issues to be decided, as recorded in
paragraph 38, read as follows:
"38.1.(i) Whether policy of the State as reflected in its letter
dated 23.03.2011 deciding to give relaxation ranging from 10%
to 20% in TET marks to different reserved categories as
mentioned therein is valid in law?
38.2.(ii) Whether NCTE Notification dated 29.07.2011, which
amends Para 3 of its earlier Guidelines/Notification dated
11.02.2011, provides 5% relaxation to the reserved category for
passing TET? If so, whether it would be applicable to the
reserved categories in the State of Rajasthan as well?
38.3.(iii) Whether reserved category candidates, who secured
better than general category candidates in recruitment
examination, can be denied migration to general seats on the
basis that they had availed relaxation in TET?"
The issues at paragraph 38.1(i) and 38.3.(iii) are not relevant for the
purpose of these cases and only the issue at paragraph 38.2(ii) is relevant.
28. In Vikash Sankhla (supra), relying on paragraph 3 of the Notification
dated 11.02.20211 of the NCTE, a contention was advanced by the
respondents belonging to the general category as well as those respondents
who belonged to reserved category but secured more than 55% marks in TET
that NCTE has stipulated 5% relaxation for TET examination, as it pertains to
the said examination. As a consequence, the action of the State Government
granting relaxation of more than 5% in TET examination is impermissible. The
counter argument of the appellants who belonged to reserved category and
who were the beneficiaries of the relaxation granted by the State Government
was that the relaxation provided in the aforesaid amended paragraph 3 had no
relation whatsoever with TET and on the contrary, it related to the qualifying
marks in graduation and B.Ed., etc.
29. At paragraph 45 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
found merit in the contention of the appellants and did not agree with the
respondents that the provision for relaxation up to 5% in qualifying marks
relates to TET. Reference was made to the qualifying marks as specified in
paragraph 9 of the Guidelines dated 11.02.2011 to which there was no
amendment. It was laid down that sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph 3 relating to
reservation policy allows relaxation upto 5% in qualifying marks. The relaxation
in sub-para (ii) of paragraph 3 under "Reservation Policy" is clearly relatable to
marks in graduation and B.Ed qualification meaning thereby insofar as
reserved category candidates such as SC/ST/OBC/PH are concerned, they
will be treated as qualified to undergo the training in case they pass graduation
with minimum 45% marks and B.Ed qualification with minimum 40% marks.
For better appreciation, paragraph 45 is extracted herein below:
"45. We find merit in the contention of the appellants and do
not agree with the respondents that the provision for relaxation
upto 5% in qualifying marks at all relates to TET. In the first
instance, it is to be noted that insofar as qualifying marks for
TET are concerned, they are prescribed in para 9 of the
guidelines dated February 11, 2011. There is no amendment to
the said para. Amendment is incorporated in para 3 of the
principal notification dated February 11, 2011 which we have
already reproduced above. Original para 3 gives the rationale for
including TET as a minimum qualification. Though, it is not
understood as to why that para is substituted by the aforesaid
amended para vide notification dated July 29, 2011. Be that as it
may, a reading of amended para 3 clearly brings out that it
incorporates two aspects. First aspect touches upon the training
to be undergone by a person and this training can be undergone
by those persons who have certain specified marks in
graduation and D.Ed. (Special Education) or B.Ed. (Special
Education). Training is for 6 months duration i.e. 6 months
special programme in elementary education. Insofar as persons
having graduation and B.Ed. qualification are concerned,
minimum marks in the graduation or B.Ed. are also prescribed. It
is stipulated that graduation should be with at least 50% marks
and B.Ed. qualification with at least 45% marks. However, those
who have done D.Ed. (Special Education) or B.Ed. (Special
Education), no minimum marks in obtaining those qualifications
are prescribed. What follows is that person who is graduate with
B.Ed. qualification, he/she should have minimum 50% marks in
graduation and 45% marks in B.Ed. qualification. It is in this
context second aspect of the amended provision in sub-para (ii)
of para 3 mentions about 'Reservation Policy' and allows
relaxation upto 5% in qualifying marks. This relaxation is,
therefore, clearly relatable to marks in graduation and B.Ed.
qualification, meaning thereby insofar as reserved category
candidates such as SC/ST/OBC/PH are concerned, they will be
treated as qualified to undergo the training in case they pass
graduation with minimum 45% marks and B.Ed. qualification with
minimum 40% marks. We are clear in mind that this relaxation of
5% does not relate to TET at all. Had it been so, this notification
dated July 29, 2011 would have amended para 9 and,
particularly, sub-para (a) of para 9 which deals with concessions
to reserved category candidates that has not happened and is
left intact."
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the view of the High Court of
Rajasthan on the specific aspect of amended paragraph 3 which was partly
extracted in paragraph 46. At paragraph 46, it was observed as follows:
"46. We may mention that High Court in the impugned
judgment has also read the said amended para 3 in the same
manner we have interpreted. We affirm the view of the High
Court on this specific aspect. We would like to reproduce the
following discussion from the judgment of the High Court
wherein additional reasons for arriving at this particular
conclusion are given: (Vikas Kumar Agrawal case, 2013 SCC
OnLine Raj 2043)"
31. The relevant paragraph of the judgment of the High Court of
Rajasthan is extracted herein below:
"...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 of concession 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 23.08.2010, 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 notification, which is clearly impermissible. The notification
dated 29.07.2011 having regard to the scheme and purport
thereof has to be essentially co-related with the one dated
23.08.2010, which originally did not contemplate any relaxation.
Logically, thus, this notification does not supersede the
guidelines dated 11.02.2011 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."
32. A perusal of the above paragraph goes to show that following the
issuance of the notification dated 23.08.2010, NCTE had received
representations from the State Governments and other stakeholders that in
respect of SCs/STs, etc. relaxation up to 5% in the qualifying marks should be
allowed since such relaxation is permissible by NCTE for admission in various
teacher education courses. Following the meeting that was held on
16.03.2011, it was decided that relaxation of 5% in qualifying marks in
secondary (or its equivalent) or in BA/B.Sc, would be available to SCs/STs,
etc. in accordance with the extant policy of the State Government/UTs and
other school managements. That this accommodation of NCTE by way of 5%
marks qua the academic qualification, was also stated to be evident from the
provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms
and Procedure) Regulations, 2009 and the norms and standards for various
education courses as specified in the appendices thereto and referred to in the
course of argument on that behalf. It was also observed that the explanation of
NCTE with regard to the nature of the relaxation granted under the caption
"reservation policy" traceable to paragraph 3 of the principal notification dated
23.08.2010 with reference amongst others to the 2009 Regulations, cannot be
ignored or discarded. It was categorically laid down that the notification dated
29.07.2011 having regard to the scheme and purport thereof has to be
essentially co-related with the one dated 28.03.2010, which originally did not
contemplate any relaxation.
33. In V. Lavanya & Others (supra), the dispute revolved around relaxation
of 5% marks to the reserved category candidates in TET, approved by the
State Government, which was contended to be in contravention of the norms
embodied in Notification dated 23.08.2010 issued by the NCTE. The NCTE
guidelines dated 11.02.2011 prescribed 60% marks to be declared as pass in
TET. The guideline No. 9 of the Guidelines dated 11.02.2022 enabled the
State Government to grant concessions/relaxations to persons belonging to
SCs/STs/OBCs/differently-abled persons, etc. The issues that had fallen for
consideration in that case were as follows:
(i) Whether the State Government has the competence to give
relaxation of 5% marks in the TET and whether such
relaxation provided by the State Government was legally
justified?
(ii) Having regard to the stand of the Government in the earlier
round of writ petitions not to relax the qualifying marks for
TET, whether the Government ie stopped from granting
relaxation?
(iii) Whether granting relaxation of 5% marks in TET amounts
to change in the criteria of selection of teachers after the
selection process commenced?
(iv) Whether prescribing 40% marks as a weightage for the
academic performance is arbitrary and does not take into
consideration different streams of education and subjects of
study?
34. While being entirely in agreement with the judgment in Vikas Sankhla
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, with regard to question No. (i) further
observed that granting relaxation to SC/ST/OBC/Physically Handicapped and
denotified communities is in furtherance of the constitutional obligation of the
State to the underprivileged and create an equal level-playing field and
therefore, an affirmative action taken by the State Government granting
relaxation for TET would not amount to dilution of standards. The issues No.
(ii), (iii) and (iv) are not relevant for deciding these cases.
35. In view of the above discussion, the argument of the learned Deputy
Advocate General that paragraph III(ii) relates to relaxation for the purpose of
training to be undergone, is found to be without any merit.
36. In Vikas Kumar Singh & Others (supra) relied on by Mr. Pali, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that relaxation cannot be prayed as a
matter of right and if a conscious decision is taken not to grant relaxation,
merely because the rule permits relaxation, no writ of mandamus can be
issued directing the competent authority to grant relaxation in qualifying
service and that relaxation may be at the discretion of the competent authority.
The present is not a case where a writ of mandamus is sought for. The
question that has arisen for consideration is whether in view of paragraph III(ii)
of Notification dated 29.07.2011 issued by NCTE providing for relaxation of 5%
in educational qualification to the SCs/STs/OBCs, candidates had been
arbitrarily refused relaxation, although they were permitted to appear in the
examination pursuant to the advertisement issued.
37. In Panchayat Teacher Rules, 2012, providing for minimum eligibility for
Lecturer (Panchayat), for Teacher (Panchayat) and for Assistant Teacher
(Panchayat), a note being Note-1 is given which provides that relaxation up to
5% in the qualification marks shall be given to the candidates belonging to
reserved categories such as SC/ST/OBC/PH.
38. In Nagriya Nikay Teacher Rules, 2013, a note being Note-1 is appended
after minimum qualification for Lecturer (Municipal), minimum qualification for
Teacher (Municipal) and minimum qualification for Assistant Teacher
(Municipal), which reads as follows:
"Note-
1. Reservation Policy: - Relaxation upto 5% in the
qualification marks shall be given to the candidates
belonging to reserved categories such as Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes/
Physically Disabled."
39. The State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) is
designated as academic authority in the State under the RTE Act. On
27.01.2022, the Director, SCERT had sent a letter to the Directorate of Public
Instructions, Raipur to mention 5% relaxation in the minimum qualification
marks to the SC/ST/OBC/PH in the Rules of 2019 as per the reservation
policy.
40. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to take note of some provisions of
Rules of 2019.
41. Rule 2(j) of the Rules of 2019 reads as follows:
"Lecturer (Panchayat)/Lecturer (Urban Body), Teacher
(Panchayat)/Teacher (Urban Body) and Assistant Teacher
(Panchayat)/Assistant Teacher (Urban Body)" means the
persons appointed for teaching in schools of the department
and under the administrative control of District Panchayat,
Janpad Panchayat, Municipal Corporation, Municipalities or
Nagar Panchayat".
Rule 2(s) defines 'Teacher' as follows:
"Teacher" means the teacher of E-Cadre, T-Cadre, E(L.B.)
and T(L.B.), appointed for the purpose of teaching in
Government Schools of the State;"
42. Section 4 of the Rules of 2019 under the heading "Constitution of the
service" provides that the service shall consist of the following persons,
namely: -
"(a) Persons, who at the time of commencement of these rules, are
holding substantively or in an officiating capacity, the posts specified
in Schedule I;
(b) Persons, recruited to the service before the commencement
of these rules;
(c) Persons, recruited to the service in accordance with the
provisions of these rules.
(d) Persons, Who were recruited by the provisions of
Chhattisgarh Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 under the notification of
Panchayat and Rural Development Department, dated 17th
August 2012 and recruited by the provisions of Chhattisgarh
Shikshak (Nagriya Nikay) Samvarg (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 under the notification of
Urban Administration and Development Department, dated 8th
March, 2013 and have completed eight years of service and
those have not given the option of continuing in the employer
department and have been included in the service through
absorption."
43. Rule 8(II) of the Rules of 2019 is on the subject of educational
qualification and experience and the same reads as follows:
"8. Condition of eligibility for direct recruitment.-
xxx xxx xxx
(II) Educational qualification and experience -
The candidate must possess the educational qualifications and
experience as prescribed for the service as shown in column (5) of
Schedule III. For Preliminary education, the prescribed qualification
will be applicable as per provisions of Right to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009;"
44. Rule 11(4) of the Rules of 2019 provides that at the time of recruitment
in service, the provisions of Act of 1994 and the directions issued under the
said Act by the General Administrative Department of the Government from
time to time, shall be applicable.
45. Rule 22(2) of the Rules of 2019 provides that nothing in these rules shall
affect reservation and other concession provided to the SCs/STs/OBCs in
accordance with the orders issued by the State Government, from time to time,
in this regard.
46. Section 3(1) of the RTE Act provides that every child of the age of 6 to
14 years shall have the right to free and compulsory education in a
neighborhood school till completion of his or her elementary education.
47. Section 2(f) of the RTE Act defines elementary education to mean the
education from first class to eighth class.
48. What is preliminary definition as referred to in Rule 8(II) is, however, not
spelt out anywhere. It appears that the word 'preliminary' occurring in Rule
8(II) is a typographical error and the same should have been printed as
'elementary'. Rule 8(II) of the Rules of 2019 provides that for 'preliminary
education'(read elementary education), the prescribed qualification will be
applicable as per provisions of RTE Act.
49. Column 5 of the Schedule-III of Rules of 2019 shows that minimum
educational/technical qualification for Assistant Teacher is as per Annexure-I(i)
and that of Teacher as per Annexure-I(iii). For the post of Lecturer, educational
qualification/technical qualification is prescribed as per Annexure-I(iii).
Actually, in Annexure-I(ii), educational qualification for Teacher is prescribed,
and therefore, we are of the opinion that in Schedule-III, it is wrongly recorded
that the qualification prescribed for Teacher is as per Annexure-I(iii). It should
have been as per 'Annexure-I(ii)'. It will be necessary, at the cost of repetition
to state that the qualification prescribed in the advertisement for the post of
Teacher is in terms of Annexure-I(ii).
50. It is seen that a teacher of Panchayat Teacher Rules, 2012 and of
Nagriya Nikay Teacher Rules, 2013, after completion of eight years of service,
can also become a member of service under the Rules of 2019 through
absorption. It is already noticed that under Panchayat Teacher Rules, 2012 as
well as Nagriya Nikay Teacher Rules, 2013, relaxation of 5% in the
qualification marks are given to the candidates belonging to reserved
categories such as SC/ST/OBC/PH. Since there is reference to RTE Act,
necessarily, the Rules of 2019 takes within its fold the minimum qualification
as prescribed by NCTE.
51. In view of the above discussion, the order of the learned Single Judge is
set aside. The writ appeals are allowed holding that the SC/ST/OBC
candidates are entitled to 5% relaxation in their academic qualifications and
such of the writ petitioners who would consequently fulfil the minimum
qualification shall be entitled to be appointed pursuant to the advertisement
dated 09.03.2019.
52. No cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Sanjay Agrawal)
Chief Justice Judge
Amit / Hem
