1. Challenge to notification under Section 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act regarding minimum graduation marks for teacher recruitment. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 689
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Adarsh Kumar Goel, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.
Neeraj Kumar Rai and ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.9732 of 2017 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14386 of 2015)
Decided On : 25-07-2017
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Eligibility criteria cannot be changed/modified arbitrarily.
Eligibility criteria cannot be changed/modified arbitrarily.
Subject
Education Law - Teacher Qualifications
Act Referred
Headnote
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE) – Section 23 (1) – Regulation 2011 as amended in 2003 – Appointment of teachers – Qualification requirements – Graduation along with B.Ed or its equivalent – No requirement of minimum percentage of marks in Bachelor's degree – NCET laying down requirement of prescribed percentage of marks in graduation for TET – Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 – Appellants denied eligibility – Notification dated 29th July, 2011 – Requirement of minimum percentage of marks held arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 5, 7 9)
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3964 of 2011; WP 772(SS) of 2011 – Cited with approval
2015(2) ADJ 795: 2015(4)ALJ 94 – Referred
Facts of the case:
The High Court repelled the challenge to the validity of notification dated 29th July, 2011 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) under Section 23 (1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE).
The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the candidates who had already passed B.Ed., had the requisite percentage in post graduation and are otherwise covered by notification dated 23rd August, 2010, will stand excluded only on the ground that their marks in graduation were less than the percentage prescribed in the notification dated 29th July, 2011.
Finding of the Court:
Appellants are entitled to relief similar to those covered by the Rajasthan and Uttarakhand High Courts judgments.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :- Ms. S. Janani, Adv.
For the Respondents:- Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Adv.
For the Appellants :- Ms. S. Janani, Adv.
For the Respondents:- Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether candidates with requisite post-graduation marks and B.Ed. qualifications are ineligible for teacher appointment solely due to insufficient marks in graduation under a subsequent notification. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
3. The court noted the statutory body's acceptance of similar claims in other High Courts and the government counsel's concession to treat the appellants on par. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
4. Candidates qualified for B.Ed. admission based on post-graduation marks under previous norms should not be excluded by subsequent notifications requiring minimum marks in graduation. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 )
5. Appeal disposed of with directions to treat appellants at par with similarly placed candidates in other High Court judgments. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. Does a subsequent notification requiring minimum graduation marks for teacher recruitment exclude candidates who were eligible for B.Ed. admission based on post-graduation marks?
No. If candidates obtained admission to B.Ed. or equivalent courses prior to the prescription of minimum qualifying marks in graduation, such requirements should not be insisted upon for their eligibility. (Para 6 , 9 )
7. Is the requirement of a minimum percentage of marks in graduation for B.Ed. qualified candidates constitutional?
The court noted that such a restriction is considered unreasonable, unjust, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Para 7 )
8. How should candidates similarly placed to those granted relief by other High Courts be treated when the statutory body accepts those judgments?
When a statutory body accepts judgments from other High Courts and the government counsel concedes parity, the court will grant similar relief to avoid discrimination. (Para 8 , 9 )
JUDGMENT
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
Leave granted.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 25th February, 2015 in Neeraj Kumar Rai and ors. v. State of U.P. and ors, 2015(2) ADJ 795, 2015(4)ALJ 94.
2. The High Court repelled the challenge to the validity of notification dated 29th July, 2011 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) under Section 23 (1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE). The challenge was raised on the ground of arbitrariness leading to violation of Article 14. Under the impugned notification, requirement of 50% marks in graduation was made mandatory apart from other qualifications for appointment of teachers in schools. The said requirement was not mandatory earlier for those who had 50% marks in post graduation at the time when they took admission to the B.Ed., which was also the relevant qualification for appointment as teacher in terms of notification dated 23rd August, 2010 under Section 23 of the RTE. Further contention of the appellants was that even according to the NCTE those who had 50% marks in post graduation, and were eligible for admission to B.Ed. on that basis, could be treated as qualified in terms of the said notification. The High Court held that once the petitioners are not covered by the notification dated 29th July, 2011, the stand of the NCTE to the contrary could not be relied upon.
3. Thus, the question for consideration is whether the candidates who had already passed B.Ed., had the requisite percentage in post graduation and are otherwise covered by notification dated 23rd August, 2010, will stand excluded only on the ground that their marks in graduation were less than the percentage prescribed in the notification dated 29th July, 2011.
4. The case of the appellants is that they had the post graduation and B.Ed. qualifications. They also had the TET qualification. In post-graduation their marks are more than 50%. The NCTE is a statutory body under the NCTE Act to achieve the planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system. It lays down qualification for recruitment of teachers and also criteria for admission to training in teacher education. The NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 prescribe qualification for recruitment of teachers. The said regulations were amended from time to time. Regulations were also framed for admission to teacher education programmes including for admission to B.Ed. The said regulations prescribed requirement of 45% / 50% either in graduation or in post graduation for admission to the B.Ed. which the appellants possessed. Only the impugned notification dated 29th July, 2011 prescribed requirement of 50% marks in graduation which was earlier optional for those who had 50% marks in post graduation. On that basis, the State of Uttar Pradesh declared candidates who were B.Ed. and TET and were otherwise qualified in terms of the qualifications laid down by the NCTE for appointment of teachers as ineligible. Some persons who were earlier appointed but their services were later terminated. The claim of similarly placed candidates was supported by the NCTE and was also upheld by the High Courts of Rajasthan and Uttarakhand which judgments were operative and had become final.
5. To appreciate the submissions reference may briefly be made to relevant notifications. The 2003 amendment to the 2001 regulations provides for requirement of graduation along with B.Ed or its equivalent without any minimum marks in graduation. The 2007 Norms and Standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme leading to B.Ed. require 45% marks either in Bachelor's degree or in Master's degree or any other qualification equivalent thereto. The 2009 Norms and Standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme through Open and Distance Learning System leading to B.Ed. do not provide for any minimum percentage of m
