KALYAN RAI SURANA
Dipankar Gogoi, S/o. Durna Gogoi – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam, Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary Secondary Education, Dispur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard the learned senior counsel and the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D.J. Das, learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 5 to 717 in W.P.(C) 3739/2020.
2. Based upon common facts, similar issues arise for determination in these series of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At the instance of the learned senior counsel and counsel appearing for all the parties, these matters were heard in the admission stage. These writ petitions have broadly been segregated under four following categories, viz.,
Ram Sarup vs. State of Haryana
Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P.
Dr. (Maj.) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Surender Singh & Ors.
Taniya Malik v. Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Anand Kumar Yadav
Ashish Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Bishnu Biswas & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.
Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore v. G. Hemlatha & Ors.
Bhanu Pratap v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors.
Orissa Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Rupashree Chowdhary & Anr.
Himani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi
K. Manjushree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
A.P. Cooperative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Ltd. v. D.S. Rao
Umrao Singh v. Punjabi University
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Education v. Amit & Anr.
Raj Kumar & Ors. v. Shakti Raj & Ors.
Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan & Ors.
Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh
S. Sumnyan & Ors. v. Limi Niri & Ors.
Matiur Rahman Bhuyan & Anr. v. State of Assam & Anr.
State of U.P. & Ors. v. Shiv Kumar Pathak & Ors.
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
J.C. Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh & Anr.
S. Sumnyan & Ors. v. Limi Niri & Ors.
Passing the TET examination is a necessary qualification for appointment as a teacher, and denial based on marks below 60% for unreserved category is not legally valid.
Though the rejection of the candidatures of the petitioners appear to be on the ground of not acquiring the TET qualification within a particular age, it is an admitted fact that all the petitioners ....
The judgment emphasized the limited review jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and highlighted that no vested rights could accrue to the petitioners due to an advertisement th....
In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation in the guidelines, re-evaluation is not permissible.
The Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory qualification for all candidates seeking appointment as teachers in elementary education, effective from the notification date of 23.08.2010, and can....
Reserved category candidates clearing the TET with relaxed standards should be permitted to have their cases considered against unreserved posts, and the TET marks should not be a deciding factor for....
Candidates should not be penalized for minor discrepancies in reported marks if such discrepancies do not affect the overall merit list, as per the provisions of the relevant government orders.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.