1. Validity of State recruitment rules for teachers prescribing selection criteria at variance with National Council for Teacher Education guidelines under the NCTE Act and RTE Act. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 688
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC. ETC. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SHIV KUMAR PATHAK AND ORS.ETC. ETC. – RESPONDENTS
Civil Appeal Nos. 4347-4375 of 2014 With Civil Appeal No. 4376 of 2014, Civil Appeal No. 9530 of 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 19087 of 2017 @ SLP(C)....... CC 10408 of 2014, Civil Appeal No. 9704 of 2017 @ SLP(C)no. 11671 of 2014, Civil Appeal No. 9705 of 2017 @ SLP(C)no. 11673 of 2014, W.P.(C)no. 135 of 2015, W.P.(C)no. 89 of 2015, Civil Appeal No.9707 of 2017 @ SLP(C)no. 62 of 2014, Civil Appeal No.9708 of 2017@ SLP(C)no. 1672 of 2014, Civil Appeal No.9709 of 2017@ SLP(C)no. 1674 of 2014, Cont. Petn(C)nos. 199 of 2015, 399 of 2015, 262 of 2016, 265 of 2016, 264 of 2016, 263 of 2016, 266 of 2016, 192 of 2016, 191 of 2016, 189 of 2016, 190 of 2016, 287 of 2016, 286 of 2016, 285 of 2016, 290 of 2016, 452 of 2016, 454 of 2016, 538 of 2016, 537 of 2016, 752 of 2016, 776 of 2016, 780 of 2016, 607 of 2017, 626 of 2017, 627 of 2017, 652 of 2017 and 651 of 2017 In Civil Appeal Nos. 4347-4375 of 2014 and Writ Petition (Civil)no. 100 of 2016
Decided On : 25-07-2017
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :- Rakesh Mishra, Rohit Singh, Vivek Singh, Garvesh Kabra, Amit Pawan, Vishwa Pal Singh, Advs.
For the Respondents:- Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, Abha R. Sharma, Gopal Singh, Alok Gupta, Advs.
For the Appellants :- Rakesh Mishra, Rohit Singh, Vivek Singh, Garvesh Kabra, Amit Pawan, Vishwa Pal Singh, Advs.
For the Respondents:- Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, Abha R. Sharma, Gopal Singh, Alok Gupta, Advs.
IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment of 66,655 teachers already made, not disturbed. State given liberty to fill up the remaining vacancies in accordance with law after issuing a fresh advertisement.
Headnote:National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act) – Sections 12 and 12A r/w section 23, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) – NCTE acting as an `academic authority' u/s 23 held, competent to issue Notifications dated 23rd August, 2010 laying down requirement of TET and 11th February, 2011 laying down weightage to marks obtained at TET – NCTE clarifying that while TET is mandatory, weightage to be given to the marks obtained in TET is not mandatory – Accepted as a possible interpretation and held as such – Appointments already made not disturbed. (Para 16, 19)
2013(10) ADJ 121 – Referred
Facts of the case:
This batch of cases involves the question of validity of decision of the State of Uttar Pradesh in prescribing qualifications for recruitment of teachers at variance with the guidelines of the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) dated 11th February, 2011 under Section 12(d) read with Section 12A of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act) and Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) on the ground of repugnancy of State law with the Central law on a subject falling in concurrent list.
Finding of the Court:
While TET is mandatory, weightage to be given to the marks obtained in TET is not mandatory
Result: Appeals disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- education law
Table of Contents
2. State contends selection norms differ from eligibility qualifications; petitioners argue Central law prevails over State law on concurrent subjects under Article 254 of the Constitution. (Para 12 , 13 )
3. NCTE is the competent academic authority; while minimum qualifications are binding, guidelines regarding weightage to test scores are directory and not mandatory. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Minimum qualifications prescribed by the authorized academic authority under the RTE Act are binding, but guidelines on weightage for recruitment are directory. (Para 16 )
5. High Court judgment quashing the State amendment is set aside; existing appointments are upheld, and remaining vacancies may be filled via fresh advertisement. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
6. Are NCTE guidelines on minimum qualifications for teachers binding on State Governments?
Yes, the NCTE, acting as the academic authority under Section 23 of the RTE Act and Sections 12 and 12A of the NCTE Act, is competent to issue notifications on minimum qualifications, and State Governments are obligated to act in accordance with them. (Para 16 )
7. Is the requirement to give weightage to Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) marks mandatory for recruitment?
No, the requirement to give weightage to TET marks is directory and not mandatory. The NCTE has clarified that while qualifying the TET is a mandatory eligibility requirement, the weightage given to those marks in the selection process is a suggestion. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
8. Does Central law prevail over State law regarding teacher qualifications in a concurrent list subject?
Yes, since education falls under the Concurrent List, law made by Parliament, such as the NCTE Act and RTE Act, prevails over inconsistent State laws by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution. (Para 13 , 16 )
JUDGMENT
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
This batch of cases arises out of judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 20th November, 2013 in Shiv Kumar Pathak and Ors. v. State of U.P. and ors., 2013(10) ADJ 121 and involves the question of validity of decision of the State of Uttar Pradesh in prescribing qualifications for recruitment of teachers at variance with the guidelines of the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) dated 11th February, 2011 under Section 12(d) read with Section 12A of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act) and Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) on the ground of repugnancy of State law with the Central law on a subject falling in concurrent list.
2. The following questions for consideration were framed by this Court vide its order dated 2nd November, 2015:
a) Whether the NCTE guidelines fixing the minimum qualification are arbitrary and unreasonable?
b) Whether the marks obtained in the TET Examination is the sole criterion for filling up the vacancies?
c) Whether the High Court is justified in declaring [sic quashing] the 15th Amendment brought in on 31.08.2012 to the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981?
d) Assuming, the guidelines framed by the NCTE are treated as intra vires, the question will be what interpretation would be placed by the Court on the concept of weightage as mentioned in the guidelines of the NCTE?
3. It will be appropriate to mention the background facts briefly for deciding the above questions. The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 was enacted by the State of Uttar Pradesh to regulate basic education. The Act sets up a Board which is to organize, coordinate and control the imparting of basic education and teachers' training. The State of Uttar Pradesh framed 1981 Rules under the Act to deal with the appointment of teachers.
4. In the wake of Eighty-Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of India inserting Article 21A for providing free and compulsory education to children of age of 6 to 14 years, the RTE Act was enacted. The RTE Act inter alia lays down qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers. The Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 23 of the Act, issued Notification dated 31st March, 2010 authorising the NCTE as the "academic authority" to lay down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. The NCTE thereafter issued Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 laying down qualifications for appointment of teachers for elementary education. The NCTE also issued guidelines dated 11th February, 2011 for conduct of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) and also providing for weightage to the marks in the said test for recruitment of teachers. The 1981 Rules of the State were amended on 9th November, 2011 (the 12th Amendment) to bring the same in consonance with the Notifications dated 23rd August, 2010 and 11th February, 2011. Accordingly, the TET was held on 13th November, 2011 and result thereof was declared on 25th November, 2011. Thereafter on 30th November, 2011, an advertisement was issued for appointment of `trainee teachers' in primary schools. The candidates submitted their applications. However, the said advertisement was cancelled and a fresh advertisement dated 7th December, 2012 was issued which came to be challenged and has been set aside by the impugned judgment. The justification given by the State of Uttar Pradesh for such cancellation is that the result of TET was influenced by the money consideration. On 31st December, 2011 the amount of several lacs was seized with lists of candidates. FIR No. 675 of 2011 was lodged. Residence of Director of Secondary Education was also searched leading to recovery of certain lists and cash. The State constituted a high powered committee headed by the Chief Secretary on 10th April, 2012 which gave its report dated 1st May, 2012. It was recommended that ca
