Petitioners vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 4671 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Petitioners vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 7 October, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

                                 Judgment reserved on -19.09.2025
 JUD




                                Judgment delivered on - 07.10.2025


       HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                 Writ Petition (S/S) No. 293 of 2025

 Gopi Chand and others
                                                         ........Petitioners

                                  Versus

 State of Uttarakhand and others                        .....Respondents

 Present:-
        Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
        Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Ganesh Kandpal,
        Deputy Advocate General for the State.
        Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Subordinate
        Service Selection Commission.



Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this petition is made to the provisional

recommendation list dated 09.02.2025 ("provisional recommendation

list") made by the respondent no. 5, the Uttarakhand Subordinate

Service Selection Commission ("the Commission"). The petitioners seek

revision of the provisional recommendation list in accordance with

Rule 6 and Rule 15(6) of the Uttarakhand Subordinate Education

(Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 2014 ("the 2014 Rules") as

well as according to sub-section (6) of Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh

Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes

and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 ("the 1994 Act").

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. Briefly stated, the petitioners case is as follows. The

Commission issued an advertisement on 14.03.2024 inviting

applications from eligible candidates for selection on 1544 vacancies of

Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade in different subjects in the Department of

Secondary Education, Government of Uttarakhand. All the petitioners

belong to the reserve category of either Scheduled Caste or Other

Backward Class. They participated in the selection process and

appeared in the written examination that was held on 18.08.2024. The

Commission, on 10.01.2025, published a list of candidates for

document verification/scrutiny of the documents, which was to be

held between 14.01.2025 and 20.01.2025. The petitioners name also

appeared in that list. All the petitioners participated in the document

verification. Thereafter, the provisional recommendation list was

published by the Commission on 09.02.2025. It is the grievance of the

petitioners that against 1544 vacancies, the provisional

recommendation list was issued in respect of 1300 vacancies only,

which is in violation of Rule 15(6) of the 2014 Rules, which requires

the selecting body to prepare a select list, which shall include names,

25% more than the existing vacancies. It requires preparing one single

list. It also violates the provisions of the 1994 Act. The challenge to the

provisional recommendation list is also made on the ground that the

reserved category candidates, who secured more marks than the last

selected candidates in the open category, have to be shifted and

counted against the vacancies of the open category.

4. The Commission filed its counter affidavit. In para 7 and

8 of the counter affidavit, the Commission has stated that the merit

list is to be prepared for the rest of the vacancies very soon, but due to

the interim orders passed in a writ petition, the process has been

delayed. With regard to the allegations of the petitioners that the

candidates, who were required to be selected against the vacancies

available in the open category have been wrongly shown to be selected

in the reserve category, in para 9 of its counter affidavit, the

Commission has stated that the candidates have been selected in

order of the merit by giving preferences as exercised by them, as far as

possible. It is the case of the Commission that on 07.01.2021, a

Memorandum was also issued by the Commission ("Memorandum

dated 07.01.2021"), which requires that the candidates shall be given

a liberty to exercise an option to choose their place of posting at the

time of document verification/scrutiny. In view of this, as per their

merit, the Commission shall recommend the name of the selected

candidates in accordance of the option exercised by them. The name of

the selected candidates shall be recommended as per first preference,

as far as possible.

5. In its supplementary counter affidavit filed by the

Commission on 23.07.2025, in para 5, the Commission has made

reference to para 8 of the judgment in Special Appeal Nos. 721 of

2019, Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission v.

Rakesh Singh Paroria and others, and 722 of 2019, Uttarakhand

Subordinate Service Selection Commission v. Dalbeer Singh Danu and

others. It has been quoted as below:-

"8. It is, no doubt, true that Rule 15(6)(1) of the Rules requires the examining body to allot candidates in the place of their preference, and in case a candidate is not eligible to be appointed to the post of his first preference on the basis of his merit, then he has to be considered for appointment to the posts in the region for which he had exercised his second preference. In terms of Rules 15(5)(1) of the Rules, the respondents-writ petitioners were required to exercise their preference and, consequently, they ought to have indicated

Garhwal Region as their second preference, besides Kumaon Region as their first preference."

6. Another supplementary counter affidavit was filed by

respondent Commission on 11.08.2025, in which the Commission

writes that out of 1544 posts advertised, recommendation has been

forwarded against 1352 vacancies. In para 17 of this supplementary

counter affidavit, the Commission writes that the reason for not

recommending the names of the candidates against remaining

vacancies is that either the candidates were not found eligible or were

not found qualified otherwise, or the candidates were not available

against the categories as marked in the requisition sent by the

Department.

7. Initially, one of the grounds for challenge to the

provisional recommendation list was that against 1544 vacancies, the

recommendation has not been made against all the vacancies, which is

in violation of Rule 15(6) of 2014 Rules. As stated, at one stage, in its

counter affidavit dated 08.07.2025, in para 7 and 8, the Commission

has stated that for remaining vacancies list shall be prepared shortly,

but finally when supplementary counter affidavit was filed by the

Commission on 11.08.2025, it is stated in para 17 of it, that the

reason for non-recommending the names of the candidates against the

remaining vacancies is that either the candidates were not found

eligible or were not found qualified otherwise , or the candidates were

not available against the categories as marked in the requisition sent

by the Department. This has not been further disputed by the learned

counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, the challenge on the ground that

the recommendation has not been made against all the advertised

vacancies has less merit for acceptance.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

provisional recommendation list is not in accordance with law. He

submits that a candidate belonging to reserved category, if in merit

migrates to the open category, he shall be counted against open

category alone; he cannot be considered under the reserved category,

to which he belongs to. It is argued that in the instant case the

reserved category candidates, who were required to be selected against

the vacancies available in open category, have wrongly been shown to

have been selected against the vacancies available in the reserved

category.

9. In para 13 of the writ petition, it is stated that it has not

been done in the instant case. Para 13 of the writ petition reads as

under:-

"13. That in the representation Petitioner pointed out that the reserve category candidates who were required to be selected against the vacancies available in Open Category have been wrongly shown to have been selected against the vacancies available in Reserve Category, consequently the Reservation Policy of the State has been violated and the reserve category candidate have failed to get selected in the Provisional Recommendation List dated 09th February 2025."

10. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the

petitioners has placed reliance on the provisions of Section 3(6) of the

1994 Act, which reads as under:-

"3. Reservation in favour of Scheduled Cast, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes-

.......................................................................................... .......................................................................................... ..........................................................................................

(6) If a person belonging to any of the categories mentioned in sub-section (1) gets selected on the basis of merit in an open

competition with general candidates, he shall not be adjusted

against the vacancies reserved for such category under sub-

section (1)."

11. This proposition is not disputed by the Commission or by

the State. It is admitted that if a reserved category candidate obtains

higher marks than the last selected candidate under unreserved

category, such reserve category candidate shall migrate to the open

category and he shall be entitled to be selected on the basis of his own

merit; his selection cannot be counted against the quota for vertical

reservation of the category, to which he belongs to.

12. But, according to the State and the Commission, it may

happen that a reserved category candidate, who has secured more

marks than the last selected candidate under general category, may

still be counted against the vacancies for reserved category. This may

happen while giving posting as per preference. It is argued that if a

reserve category candidate migrates to open category due to his own

merit, but if he does not find his first preference under the open

category, he may be given his first preference in the reserved category,

to which he belongs to. It is argued that it is the mandate of Rule 15(6)

of the 2014 Rules. Reference has also been made by the learned

counsel for the Commission to the judgment in the case of Alok Kumar

Pandit v. State of Assam & ors., (2012) 13 SCC 516.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

theory of preference would violate the provision of Section 3(6) of the

1994 Act, which mandates that if a candidate at his own merit

migrates to the open category, he shall be counted in the open

category and not in the reserved category, to which he belongs to.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that even the

preferences apply where there are different services; some higher,

some lower. He submits that in the instant case, all the vacancies are

to be filled up for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher L.T.

Grade; there is no difference in salary, etc.; therefore, the theory of

preferences, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, shall

not apply in the instant case.

14. In the case of Saurav Yadav and others v. State of Uttar

Pradesh and others, (2021) 4 SCC 542, certain principles have been

reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 26, which reads as

under:-

"26. The principle that candidates belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories are entitled to be selected in "Open or General Category" is well settled. It is also well accepted that if such candidates belonging to reserved categories are entitled to be selected on the basis of their own merit, their selection cannot be counted against the quota reserved for the categories for vertical reservation that they belong. Apart from the extracts from the decisions of this Court in Indra Sawhney [Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1] and R.K. Sabharwal [R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548] the observations by the Constitution Bench of this Court in V.V. Giri v. D. Susi Dora [V.V. Giri v. D. Susi Dora, (1960) 1 SCR 426 : AIR 1959 SC 1318] , though in the context of election law, are quite noteworthy : (AIR pp. 1326-27, paras 21-22) "21. ... In our opinion, the true position is that a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe does not forego his

right to seek election to the general seat merely because he avails himself of the additional concession of the reserved seat by making the prescribed declaration for that purpose. The claim of eligibility for the reserved seat does not exclude the claim for the general seat; it is an additional claim; and both the claims have to be decided on the basis that there is one election from the double-Member constituency.

22. In this connection we may refer by way of analogy to the provisions made in some educational institutions and universities whereby in addition to the prizes and scholarships awarded on general competition amongst all the candidates, some prizes and scholarships are reserved for candidates belonging to backward communities. In such cases, though the backward candidates may try for the reserved prizes and scholarships, they are not precluded from claiming the general prizes and scholarships by competition with the rest of the candidates."

15. Where is the question of preferences then?

16. The Commission in its counter affidavit dated

08.07.2025, in para 10, has placed reliance on an office memorandum

dated 07.01.2021 issued by the Commission, which requires that the

candidates shall be given liberty to exercise their option to choose their

place of posting on the basis of preference at the time of document

verification/scrutiny. Accordingly, the recommendation shall be made

in accordance with the option exercised by them and the names of the

selected candidates shall be recommended as per the first preference,

as far as possible.

17. Rule 15(6) of the 2014 Rules is important. It requires that

the list of selected candidates in excess to 25% of the vacancies shall

be forwarded. It shall be cadre-wise. Before proceeding further, it may

be apt to note that there are two categories, for which the Commission

had advertised 1544 posts. Rule 4 of the 2014 Rules speaks of service

cadre. It is region-wise and in each region, there will be general

category and women category. There are two regions - one is Garhwal

Region and another is Kumaon Region. In each region, there is further

classification of general and women branches. It is admitted to the

learned counsel for the parties that inter se transfers between these

two regions are not routine. There is a special procedure, in which

transfer from one region to another region may be made. This, Rule 4

of the 2014 Rules establishes that there are two cadres of Assistant

Teacher L.T. Grade in the State of Uttarakhand. One is Garhwal

Region and another Kumaon Region.

18. It further requires that if a candidate despite having

secured his position in merit does get his first preference, he shall be

given his second preference. It means preferences have been given

weightage while making recommendation under Rule 15(6) of the

2014 Rules.

19. Now, suppose a reserved category candidate by securing

higher marks than the last selected candidate in general category,

migrates to the open category and opts for Garhwal Region. In the

open category, he is not getting his first preference, but if he is

counted against the reserved category, to which he belongs to, he gets

his first preference. In such circumstances, should not such candidate

be given his first preference and his recruitment be counted against

the reserved category? Why his choice/preference should not be

honoured?

20. In the case of State of Bihar & others v. M. Neethi

Chandra and others, (1996) 6 SCC 36, the dispute was not with regard

to any cadre or any appointment. It was with regard to allotment of

courses /colleges in the medical colleges. In para 5 of the judgment,

the issue has been stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in para

13, the Hon'ble Supreme Court answered it as follows:-

"5. It appears that because of para 6 of the resolution quoted above, which was applied in allotment of seats in various branches of the postgraduate medical courses in the State of Bihar, some candidates in the reserved categories found themselves in a disadvantageous position. The candidates in various reserved classes who could qualify on merit were treated on a par with the general candidates and were allotted branches which would fall to them on merit-cum-choice basis which led to allotment of such courses, which because of their low position in general merit, were not of their choice while the course/college of choice was available to a candidate qualifying for the reserved seat although they were lower in merit position. This led to the filing of various writ petitions before the High Court of Patna which were decided by the impugned judgment."

"13. At the same time, as pointed out above, all is not well with the Government Circular No. 20 as it operates against the very candidates for whom the protective discrimination is devised. The intention of Circular No. 20 is to give full benefit of reservation to the candidates of the reserved categories. However, to the extent the meritorious among them are denied the choice of college and subject which they could secure under the rule of reservation, the circular cannot be sustained. The circular, therefore, can be given effect only if the reserved category candidate qualifying on merit with general candidates consents to being considered as a general candidate on merit-cum-choice basis for allotment of college/institution and subject."

(emphasis supplied)

21. The rule is that merit should not become

disadvantageous to a reserved category candidate. In the case of Alok

Kumar Pandit (supra), the issue has been discussed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and in para 24, the principles have been summed up.

Para 24 of the judgment in the case of Alok Kumar Pandit (supra)

reads as under:-

"24. As a sequel to the above, the questions framed in this appeal are answered in the following terms:

24.1. A reserved category candidate who is adjudged more meritorious than the open category candidates is entitled to choose the particular service/cadre/post as per his choice/preference and he cannot be compelled to accept appointment to an inferior post leaving the more important service/cadre/post in the reserved category for less meritorious candidate of that category. 24.2. On his appointment to the service/cadre/post of his choice/preference, the reserved category candidate cannot be treated as appointed against the open category post."

22. It is true that in the instant case, the appointment is to

be made against one post only, which is Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade,

but as per Rule 4 of the 2014 Rules, there are two cadres, one in

Garhwal Region and another Kumaon Region. Difference is of the

territories. In the case of M. Neethi Chandra (supra) also, there was no

dispute in regard to any service. There it was an exercise of opting for

a particular college or course and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that

case held that "However, to the extent the meritorious among them

are denied the choice of college and subject which they could

secure under the rule of reservation, the circular cannot be

sustained". Between Garhwal Region and Kumaon Region, transfers

are not routine. The distances are far from one corner to other corner

of these two regions. Therefore, preferences shall get place here and if

preferences are given, it will not violate the mandate of Section 3(6) of

the 1994 Act. Therefore, the exercise, which the Commission has done

by giving preferences, has rightly been so done.

23. If a reserved category candidate, who otherwise can

compete in the open category could not get his first preference in

the open category, such candidate has rightly been pushed in the

reserved category by giving him first preference. By doing so, the

Commission has, in fact, prevented the merit of such candidate

being a casualty to his preference.

24. This much was the pleaded case of the parties. During

the course of hearing, another question was raised.

25. It is argued that another factor that has been taken into

consideration is the marks obtained by the candidates in Teachers

Eligibility Test ("TET"). It is argued that for a candidate to be appointed

as an Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade, it is necessary for such candidate

to qualify TET. Different marks are allotted to different categories of

candidates. It has been displayed in the advertisement dated

14.03.2024 as below:-

Category UK.Wo. Ex. Ser. D.F.F. DIVYANG ORPHAN OTHER

SC 60 75 75 75 60 60

ST 60 75 75 75 60 60

OBC 75 75 75 75 75 75

E.W.S. 90 75 75 75 90 90

Gen./U.R. 90 75 75 75 90 90

26. Learned counsel for the Commission argued that if a

Scheduled Caste candidate secures marks higher than the last

selected candidate under general category, he should be considered

under the open category, provided he had also obtained such marks in

his TET, which are applicable to open category candidate.

27. It is rebutted on behalf of the petitioners. Learned

counsel for the petitioners submits that TET is not part of recruitment

process; the merit list that is prepared under the 2014 Rules is based

on the syllabus given under the 2014 Rules itself. He submits that

reference to TET marks cannot be taken for migration of a reserved

category candidate into the open category. He refers to Rule 15(6) of

the 2014 Rules to argue that the written examination shall be

conducted for recruitment to the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade

on the subject as given in the annexure to the 2014 Rules. It is argued

that TET marks is not a part of syllabus for the recruitment. The merit

list, according to Rule 15(6) of the 2014 Rules is to be prepared

without counting the marks obtained in TET. Therefore, it is argued

that the procedure that has been adopted by the Commission while

considering the TET marks for appointment is violative of Section 3(6)

of the 1994 Act as well as it violates the provisions of Rule 15(6) of the

2014 Rules.

28. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance

on the principle of law as laid down in the cases of V. Lavanya and

others v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2017) 1 SCC 322, Arvind Kumar

Shukla and others v. Union of India and others, 2018:AHC:156705,

Vikas Sankhala and others v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal and others, (2017)

1 SCC 350, Rajneesh Dwivedi v. State of Uttarakhand and others (Writ

Petition (S/B) No. 139 of 2019) and Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v.

State of Maharashtra and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912.

29. In the case of V. Lavanya (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, inter alia, 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

underpriviledged and create and equal level-playing field."

30. In the case of Arvind Kumar Shukla (supra), the Hon'ble

Allahabad High Court has discussed the TET and held that TET is only

an eligibility qualification to participate in the process. It is not

selection for appointment. In para 14 of the judgment, the Hon'ble

Court observed as follows:

"14. Further, submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the reserved category candidates have availed the benefit of reservation in TET Exam, they should not be given benefit of reservation in selection and recruitment of the Assistant Teacher. I find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Qualifying the TET Exam as per Rules is not a guarantee for employment. It is eligibility qualification to participate in the selection process. There is a difference between eligibility qualification and selection for employment. Reservation in educational institution is provided under Article 15 of the Constitution. Merely because a person has secured admission in a course, which makes him eligible to participate in the selection process, does not amount to secure employment for which he becomes eligible after completing the course. Therefore, the reservation in employment cannot be denied to a person who belongs to reserved category candidate and has secured admission in a course to become eligible for such an employment on the ground that he has already secured admission on the basis of reservation in getting admission in a course to acquire eligibility."

31. In the case of Vikas Sankhala (supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court discussed various factors of TET and in para 84.2

observed as below:-

"84.2. Migration from reserved category to general category shall be admissible to those reserved category candidates who secured more marks obtained by the last unreserved category candidates who are selected, subject to the condition that such reserved category candidates did not avail any other special concession. It is clarified that concession of passing marks in TET would not be treated as concession falling in the aforesaid category."

32. In the case of Rajneesh Dwivedi (supra), a Division Bench

of this Court held that the TET is only screening test to qualify for

inclusion in the merit list. In para 39, an issue was raised by the Court

and in para 67 it has been replied. It is as follows:-

"39. It is no doubt true that a concession in marks is given to applicants from the reserved categories, and a lower threshold (i.e. lower minimum marks) is prescribed in the screening test for them to qualify for inclusion in the merit list of candidates to be called for interview. The question which necessitates examination is whether such a concession, extended to candidates belonging to the reserved categories in the screening test, would disable them from migrating to the general category at the interview stage, even in case they are found more meritorious in the interview, than candidates from the non-reserved categories."

"67. The concession in the screening test of lower minimum marks, extended in favour of SC/ST/OBC candidates, relates to their eligibility to appear for interview. At the stage, at which such concessions are extended to them, the actual selection process does not commence. It commences only when all the candidates, who were short-listed in the ratio of 1:3, are called for interview. Prescription of a lower minimum marks in the screening test, for applicants from the SC/ST/OBC categories, is only to bring them within the zone of consideration of 1:3, so that they can participate in the interview on merit. Once a candidate appears for interview,

he competes against all the available posts in the general category, and it matters little to which category he belongs, for all candidates are required to appear for the interview which is common to all short-listed candidates irrespective of the category to which he belongs, reserved or unreserved."

33. In the case of Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust (supra),

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the judgment given by the

Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Shukla

(supra) and held that TET is one of the minimum qualifications that

may be prescribed under Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free

and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

34. On the other hand, learned Advocate General as well as

learned counsel for the Commission placed reliance on the principle of

law as laid down in the case of Government (NCT of Delhi) and others

v. Pradeep Kumar and others, (2019) 10 SCC 120.

35. In the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra), the judgment given

in Vikas Sankhala (supra) was distinguished and in para 22, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-

"22. As earlier discussed, this case concerns qualifications obtained with concession in pass marks. Such concession would have a direct impact on standards of competence and merit in the recruitment of Special Education Teachers. The principles of reservation under the Constitution of India are intended to be confined to a specifically earmarked category and the unreserved category must be protected, to avoid dilution of competence and merit. If Vikas Sankhala [Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal, (2017) 1 SCC 350 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 203] is interpreted shorn of its peculiar facts, as has been suggested by the respondents' counsel, it would in our perception, considering that respondents secured the qualification under relaxed norms, would lead to dilution of merit in the unreserved category. The arguments made to the contrary by the respondents is therefore rejected."

36. Admittedly, the 2014 Rules do not provide that the

marks obtained in TET shall have any bearing in preparation of merit.

Rule 15(6) of the 2014 Rules speaks of a written test on a syllabus

given in its annexure. It is also admitted that a candidate to be

qualified to be appointed as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade has to

qualify TET. As quoted hereinabove, there are different marks

prescribed for different category of candidates to qualify TET.

37. In the case of Vikas Sankhala (supra), multiple questions

were framed by the Hon'ble Court for determination. Question no. (iii)

as framed in para 38.3 reads as follows:-

"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?"

38. It is this question, which has been answered in para

84.2, which has already been quoted hereinabove.

39. It may be noted that in the case of Vikas Sankhala

(supra), for preparation of merit, weightage of 20% of TET marks were

given in the final score and this flat weightage of 20% marks was given

to all categories of candidates, to which they belonged to. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that it provided "a level playing field". In para 77,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

"77. It was also pointed out that insofar as recruitment process is concerned, weightage of 20% of TET marks was given in the final score. This flat weightage of 20% of TET marks given to all candidates irrespective of the categories to which they belong, provided a level-playing field. In this manner, those candidates who had secured more marks in TET were placed at advantageous positions by giving the said

weightage. The other effect was that those candidates in reserved category who had secured less marks than 60% and became eligible to participate in the selection process by virtue of concession in the eligibility criteria of TET pass marks, naturally got less marks under this head. Therefore, as far as recruitment process is concerned, no such benefit had accrued to the reserved category candidates."

40. As to how it made level playing field, this has further

been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas

Sankhala (supra) in para 80 and 81 of the judgment. Para 80 and 81

of the judgment read as under:-

"80. Having regard to the respective submissions noted above, first aspect that needs consideration is as to whether relaxation 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.............................................. .............................................................................................. .............................................................................................. ............................................................................................. 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 would 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.

81. 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 the Circular dated 11-5-2011, 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."

41. In the case in hand, it is true that the 2014 Rules does

not provide for inclusion of marks obtained in TET for preparation of

merit under Rule 15(6). But, the fact remains that in the

advertisement that was issued on 14.03.2024, inviting applications for

appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade, the qualifying

marks in TET were displayed below point no. 4. This table as

contained in the advertisement has already been extracted

hereinbefore.

42. The advertisement in the instant matter does not only

speaks that a candidate should qualify TET before applying for

appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher, but it also further gives

the marks required for each category of candidates to secure for

qualifying TET.

43. In the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra), the three-Judges

Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court distinguished the principle of law

as laid down in the case of Vikas Sankhala (supra). The weightage of

20% marks of TET, which was given in the case of Vikas Sankhala

(supra) was held to be a component neutralising the benefit of

eligibility given to the reserved candidate. In para 18 and 19 of the

judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

"18. The decision of Vikas Sankhala [Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal, (2017) 1 SCC 350 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 203] was arrived at due to certain peculiar facts in the case. The recruitment process of teachers therein stipulated that 20% of the final result calculation of every aspirant will be based on the candidate's TET result marks. Thus, candidates who obtained CTET qualification after availing concession, had naturally secured lower marks in the total aggregate compared to those, who appeared in the unreserved category and did not avail such concession in pass marks. In those facts, it was held that the resultant reduced marks in the 20% component will neutralise the benefits of eligibility given to reserved candidates, who thereafter had to compete with unreserved students without any concessions and also overcome the disadvantage they had in the 20% component. On this aspect, the following was the Court's observation: (Vikas Sankhala case [Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal, (2017) 1 SCC 350 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 203] , SCC p. 385, para 81)

"81. 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."

The above excerpts reveal the Court's concern for maintaining equality in the recruitment process. However, in the present recruitment process, in the absence of a compensatory disadvantage or balancing factor, the ratio in Vikas Sankhala [Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal, (2017) 1 SCC 350 :

(2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 203] cannot be applied for the respondents who obtained CTET qualification by virtue of concession given to OBC categories. In other words, the concession benefit is not neutralised in the Delhi recruitment process. Thus, a level playing field and a fair treatment is not achieved, by inappropriately applying the ratio of Vikas Sankhala [Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal, (2017) 1 SCC 350 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 203] without having regard to the peculiarity of facts of that case where, a different selection yardstick was applied.

19. As noted above, although there was no balancing out of the relaxation for the selection process in Delhi unlike the process in Vikas Sankhala [Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal, (2017) 1 SCC 350 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 203] decision, the CAT erroneously applied the ratio of the Rajasthan case for giving relief to the respondents."

(emphasis supplied)

44. As stated, in the advertisement dated 14.03.2024, the

marks required under each category of candidates to qualify for TET

has been given in the advertisement. There is no weightage given to

the marks obtained in TET. In the instant case, there is no component

to neutralise the benefit of eligibility given to the reserved category

candidates in TET. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra), this

Court holds that the Commission did not commit any error in

taking into consideration the marks obtained in TET for

appointment of the candidates.

45. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the

view that the Commission has rightly applied the reservation policy.

The provisional recommendation list has been prepared in accordance

with law. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ

petition deserves to be dismissed.

46. The writ petition is dismissed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 07.10.2025

Avneet/