Gauhati High Court
Sangita Roy vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 10 June, 2024
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010095962023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2601/2023
SANGITA ROY
DAUGHTER OF CHITARANJAN ROY,
RESIDENT OF ARYAPATTY,
HOUSE NO. 45,
SILCHAR, CACHAR, ASSAM,
PIN- 788001.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT
PRESENTLY KNOWN AS SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.
2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
PRESENTLY KNOWN AS THE SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI- 781019.
3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS CACHAR
SILCHAR ASSAM.
4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
HAILAKANDI ASSAM.
5:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
KARIMGANJ ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SECONDARY EDUCATION
Page No.# 2/7
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Date of hearing : 10.06.2024
Date of Judgment : 10.06.2024
Judgment & order(Oral)
Heard Ms. S. Dev, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. U. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education
Department, appearing on behalf of all the respondents.
2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding, has raised a
grievance with regard to the non-consideration of her case for appointment as
Post Graduate Teacher in the subject of Political Science(Bengali Medium)
against any of the vacancies that were so advertised vide the 2(two)
Advertisements, both, dated 28.12.2022, bearing No. GB-EST/Advertisement
(GT&PGT)/1/2022/7 and GB-EST/ Advertisement (GT& PGT)/1/2022/8.
3. The petitioner has contended that in pursuance of the Advertisements, in
question, she had submitted her candidature for being considered against the
post of Post Graduate Teacher in the subject of Political Science(Bengali
Medium).
4. The petitioner had applied for the said post as available in 3 Districts viz.
Cachar, Karimganj, and Hailakandi, as per the provisions made in this
connection in the said Advertisements. The petitioner was, thereafter, required
Page No.# 3/7
to appear in the selection process so involved. The petitioner, herein, appeared
in the said selection process. However, on publication of the merit list in the
matter; it was found that the name of the petitioner did not find a place therein.
On an enquiry, the petitioner was given to understand that her case for
appointment against the available vacancies were not so considered on account
of the fact that in her TET Examination for the Higher Secondary Level, she had
not achieved 60% marks in all the papers involved. The petitioner had
undertaken the TET Examination for the Higher Secondary Level in the year
2021 and had scored 64 and 54 marks respectively, in Paper-I and Paper-II of
the said TET Examination. Although the petitioner had an aggregate 60 marks in
the said TET Examination, however, she did not have the requisite 60% marks
in Paper-II. The petitioner belongs to the SC community and accordingly, she
having scored 55% marks in the said TET Examination, she was held to have
qualified the TET Examination.
5. It is contention of the petitioner herein that the reserved community seats
as advertised having been filled-up; the case of the petitioner was not further
considered against the unreserved vacancies available against the post of Post
Graduate Teacher in the subject of Political Science(Bengali Medium) in various
provincialized Colleges of the said 3 Districts only on the ground that she did
score 60% marks in her TET Examination and had qualified the said
Examination, basing on relaxed standards.
6. In view of the said position; an issue arises in the present proceeding as to
whether the petitioner having cleared the TET Examination with relaxed
standards, can now be denied consideration for appointment against a post
Page No.# 4/7
which was advertised as an unreserved post although she had scored marks
higher than the other candidates participating and now available in the fray for
the said post.
7. The said issue need not detain this Court any further in-as-much as the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Sankhala & ors. v. Vikas Kumar
Agarwal & ors., reported in (2017) 1 SCC 350, had concluded that on the basis
of the TET marks, a reserved category candidate had not got any advantage
while having his case considered against an unreserved post and accordingly,
permitted reserved category candidates clearing the TET with relaxed standards
to appear in the selection process and to have their cases also considered
against the unreserved posts involved.
8. The relevant part of the judgment, referred to above, is extracted
hereinbelow for a better understanding of the position:
"ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
27. The history of events, right upto the decision of the High Court, gives a clear
glimpse of the questions of law that need to be determined by this Court. At this
juncture, we would like to formulate these issues, as under:
i) Whether policy of the State as reflected in its letter dated March 23, 2011 deciding
to give relaxation ranging from 10% to 20% in TET marks to different reserved
categories as mentioned therein is valid in law?
ii) Whether NCTE notification dated July 29, 2011, which amends paragraph 3 of its
earlier guidelines/notification dated February 11, 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?
iii) Whether reserved category candidates, who secured better than general category
Page No.# 5/7
candidates in recruitment examination, can be denied migration to general seats on
the basis that they had availed relaxation in TET?"
****************************************************************************************************
****************************************************
"60. Having regard to the respective submission is noted above, first aspect that needs
consideration is as to whether relation in TET pass marks would amount to
concession in the recruitment process. The High Court has held to be so on the
premise that para 9(a) dealing with such relaxation in TET marks forms part of the
document which relates to the recruitment procedure. It is difficult to accept this
rationale or analogy. Passing of TET examination is a condition of eligibility for
appointment as a teacher. It is a necessary qualification without which a candidate is
not eligible to be considered for appointment. This was clearly mentioned in
guidelines/notification dated February 11, 2011 These guidelines pertain to
conducting of TET. Basic features whereof have already been pointed out above. Even
para 9 which provides for concessions that can be given to certain reserved categories
deals with 'qualifying marks' that is to be obtained in TET examination. Thus, a
person who passes TET examination becomes eligible to participate in the selection
process as and when such selection process for filling up of the posts of primary
teachers is to be undertaken by the State. On the other hand, when it comes to
recruitment of teachers, the method for appointment of teachers is altogether
different. Here, merit list of successful candidates is to be prepared on the basis of
marks obtained under different heads. One of the heads is marks in TET So far as
this head is concerned, 20% of the marks obtained in TET are to be assigned to each
candidate. Therefore, those reserved category candidates who secured lesser marks in
TET would naturally get less marks under this head. We like to demonstrate it with
an example Suppose a reserved category candidate obtains 53 marks in TET, he is
treated as having qualified TET. However, when he is considered for selection to the
post of primary teacher, in respect of allocation of marks he will get 20% marks for
TET. As against him, a general candidate who secures 70 marks in TET shall be
awarded 14 marks in recruitment process. Thus, on the basis of TET marks reserved
category candidate has not got any advantage while considering his candidature for
the post. On the contrary, "level playing field" is maintained whereby a person
securing higher marks in TET, whether belonging to general category or reserved
category, is allocated higher marks in respect of 20% of TET marks. Thus, in
recruitment process no weightage or concession is given and allocation of 20% of TET
marks is applied across the board. Therefore, the High Court is not correct in
observing that concession was given in the recruitment process on the basis of
relaxation in TET.
61. Once this vital differentiation is understood, it would lead to the conclusion that
no concession becomes available to the reserved category candidate by giving
relaxation in pass marks in TET insofar as recruitment process is concerned. It only
enables them to compete with others by allowing them to participate in the selection
process. In this backdrop, irrespective of circular dated May 11, 2011, the reserved
category candidates who secured more marks than marks obtained by the last
candidate selected in general category, would be entitled to be considered against
unreserved category vacancies. However, it would be subject to the condition that
these candidates have not availed any other concession in terms of number of
attempts, etc., except on fee and age."
Page No.# 6/7
9. Applying the conclusions as reached by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Vikas Sankhala(supra) to the facts involved in the present proceeding;
it is the considered view of this Court that the petitioner, herein, could not have
been denied a due consideration only on the ground that she did not score 60%
marks in all the Papers involved in her TET Examination and the petitioner
having cleared the said TET Examination albeit with relaxed standards, she
could not have been denied a due consideration against the unreserved post as
available in the matter and advertised vide the said Advertisements.
10. In view of the above conclusion as reached in the matter as well as
applying the ratio available in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of Vikas Sankhala(supra); it is hereby directed that the
respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent No. 2 shall now
consider the case of the petitioner against any of the advertised posts of Post
Graduate Teacher in the subject of Political Science(Bengali Medium) in any of
the 3 Districts i.e. Cachar, Karimganj and Hailakandi, and thereafter, reckoning
the merit position as obtained by the petitioner in the selection process involved
and if it is found that the petitioner, in view of the marks scored by her; is
entitled to be so appointed in any of the vacant posts including unreserved post
of Post Graduate Teacher in the subject of Political Science(Bengali Medium)
available in any of the 3 Districts, referred to above; the respondent No. 2 shall
proceed to appoint the petitioner, herein, against any one of such posts basing
on her merit position as obtained in the connected selection process.
11. The above exercise as now required to be carried-out along with the
issuance of the order of appointment to the petitioner, herein, shall be so
Page No.# 7/7
carried-out and concluded by the respondent No. 2 within a period of 60 days
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
12. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition stands
allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
