Central Board Of Secondary ... vs 1. Vinitha T.M
2022 Latest Caselaw 9237 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
                                 &
              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
    WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944
                         WA NO. 440 OF 2022
APPELLANT/1st RESPONDENT IN W.P.C:

           CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,
           REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
           SHIKSHA KENDRA, 2,
           COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR,
           DELHI-110 092.
           BY ADV NIRMAL.S


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENTS IN W.P.C:

    1     VINITHA T.M
          AGED 35 YEARS
          W/O ARUN SREE PRASAD,
          M P VIHAR, VANDITHADAM,
          NEAR SIGNAL STATION,
          VELLAYANI P.O.,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-605 522.
    2     THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY THULASI HILLS,
          PATTOM PALACE P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 004.
          BY ADVS.
          SHABU SREEDHARAN
          STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN (B/O)
          JINSON OUSEPH
          CHITRA VIJAYAN
          SHYAM KUMAR M.P
          JOLLY GEORGE


     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Writ Appeal 440 of 2022

                                              2




                    P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
                          -------------------------------------------
                             Writ.Appeal No. 440 of 2022
                       -------------------------------------------------
                       Dated this the 10th day of August, 2022

                                    JUDGMENT

C.S.Sudha, J.

This appeal is against the judgment dated 03/03/2022 in W.P(C).No.6685/2022.

The appellant is the first respondent and the respondents herein, the petitioner and

the 2nd respondent respectively in the writ petition. The parties and the documents

will be referred to as described in the writ petition.

2. According to the writ petitioner she is a Hindu OBC, who has passed

Plus two and TTC. To apply for the post of Lower Primary School Assistant, one has

to qualify in the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET), which examination is conducted by

the Central as well as the State Governments. The petitioner scored 80 marks in the

CTET examination held by the first respondent CBSE, pursuant to which she was

issued Ext.P1 mark list. The 1st respondent normally issues an eligibility certificate

also to the candidates by endorsing in the mark list as 'qualified'. The cut-off marks

for qualifying the CTET in 2014 was 80 for general category; 78 for OBC and 72 for

SC/ST as is evident from Ext.P3 CTET 2014 cut-off published by the 1 st respondent.

Though petitioner had scored 80 mark and is eligible to get the eligibility certificate, Writ Appeal 440 of 2022

the 1st respondent in spite of repeated requests is not issuing the same. The petitioner

needs the eligibility certificate urgently as the 2 nd respondent has invited applications

to the post of Lower Primary School Assistant (LPSA) (Malayalam Medium) in the

Department of Education. As the 1st respondent is not acceding to the request, the

writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus directing the 1 st respondent to issue the

mark statement with the endorsement 'qualified' or issue the qualifying certificate of

CTET-2014 to the petitioner forthwith and also to direct the 2 nd respondent to grant

the petitioner sufficient time to produce the eligibility certificate and in the meantime

to permit her to attend the interview for selection to the post of LPSA in

Pathanamthitta District provisionally.

3. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment directed the 1 st

respondent CBSE to issue the eligibility certificate forthwith. Aggrieved, the 1 st

respondent CBSE has come up in appeal.

4. In the writ appeal, it is alleged that TET is conducted by the appropriate

Government in accordance with the guide lines framed by the NCTE. The Ministry

of Education vide letter dated 28/02/2011 has appointed CBSE as the Examining

Body for the conduct of TET on behalf of the Central Government. As per NCTE

notification No.76-4/2010/NCTE/Acad dated 11/02/2011, a person who scores 60%

or more in the TET examination will be considered to have qualified in the said

exam. Relaxation up to 5% in the qualifying marks in the minimum educational

qualification for eligibility is allowed to candidates belonging to reserved categories, Writ Appeal 440 of 2022

such as SC/ST/OBC/Differently abled. CTET has issued mark sheets to all candidates

who appear in CTET mentioning their marks only. The eligibility certificate is issued

to only those candidates who qualify the test criteria framed by the NCTE. The

petitioner herein has secured only 80 marks out of total 150 marks and the total

percentage would come to only 53.33%. Therefore, even if relaxation of 5%

available to an OBC candidate is given to the petitioner, then also she would not

attain the qualifying criteria of 55%. The petitioner is not entitled to get the

qualifying certificate in the light of the fact that she has never qualified the minimum

eligibility criteria. Ext.P3 was never issued by the first respondent in its official

website. No cut off marks as alleged by the petitioner has been given by the 1 st

respondent.

5. Heard the learned counsel for both sides.

6. Admittedly as per Ext.P1 mark list, the petitioner has scored 80 marks

out of a total of 150 marks in the CTET, which is equivalent to 53.33%. The fact that

a candidate who secure 60% or more marks in CTET will only be considered as

qualified and would be issued eligibility certificate is not disputed by the petitioner.

The claim of the petitioner that she belongs to the OBC is not disputed by the 1 st

respondent CBSE. Therefore, even if the petitioner is given 5% relaxation, in order to

qualify CTET, she should have secured 82.5 marks out of 150. As noted, the

petitioner has scored only 80 marks out of 150.

7. Further, the Information Bulletin issued by the CTET in February 2014, Writ Appeal 440 of 2022

a copy of which was handed over by the learned counsel for the CBSE during the

course of arguments, refers to the validity period of a CTET certificate. It says that

the validity period of the CTET qualifying certificate for appointment will be seven

years from the date of declaration of its results for all categories. Ext.P1 certificate

of the petitioner is dated 21/03/2014. Apparently the validity period of the certificate

has long expired.

In these circumstances, we hold that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs

prayed for. Hence, the impugned judgment is set aside and the writ appeal is

allowed.

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

Sd/-

C.S.SUDHA JUDGE

Jms/11.08