IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.
Dipankar Gogoi, S/o. Durna Gogoi & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam, Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary Secondary Education, Dispur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) Nos. 4455, 4361, 4065, 4198, 3435, 3739, 4109, 3881, 4303, 4189, 3882, 3633, 4038, 4192, 3703, 4377 of 2020, WP(C) No. 978 of 2021
Decided On : 18-05-2022
Constitution of India – Article 226, 14, 16 – NCTE Act, 1993 – Sections 12 and 12A – Appointment - Whether they have in aggregate, as indicated in this judgment, for which two months’ time has been granted for doing needful. Director of Secondary Education, Assam may go ahead with the process of verification. However, no final appointment would be made without undertaking the exercise as indicated in the reliefs as granted in this writ petition so as to prevent any uncertainty to prevail while carrying out such exercise. [Para 52]
Finding of the court: D
irector of Secondary Education, Assam is proposing to comply with judgment and order of this Court and re-visits marks of candidates to ascertain whether they have in aggregate, as indicated in this judgment, for which two months’ time has been granted for doing needful – Hence, Court is of considered opinion that Director of Secondary Education, Assam may go ahead with process of verification – However, no final appointment would be made without undertaking exercise as indicated in reliefs as granted in this writ petition so as to prevent any uncertainty to prevail while carrying out such exercise
Results: Writ petition stands disposed of.
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.,
ii. The second set of writ petition would include W.P.(C) 3882/2020, where prayer is to award grace marks as the petitioners have got the aggregate qualifying marks in both papers, but have not got qualifying marks in one paper;
iii. The third set of writ petition would include W.P.(C) 3435/2020, where the candidates would not qualify despite award of 5 grace marks and therefore, prayer is to the effect that they be given further grace marks and declared to be qualified. However, the case of the petitioners is that they had secured 60% in the aggregate, yet as they had not secured 60% in one part out of two parts, the petitioners were declared unsuccessful in the TET exams.
iv. The fourth set of writ petitions would include W.P.(C) 3633/2020, where the petitioner is also seeking award of grace marks and W.P.(C) 3703/2020 is also included herein, as it has been alleged that they were wrongly denied marks for correct answers given and therefore, prayers have been made for re-evaluation.
Case of the petitioners:
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners is that they are all graduates in different stream and that except for having TET qualification then, they otherwise have all the requisite qualification for being selected and appointed as teacher in the High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools in the State. On 13.11.2019, the Member Secretary, TET Empowered Committee had issued an advertisement bearing no. RMSA/Special TET/ 842/2017/172 in online portal inviting applications for medium wise (Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Manipuri and Hindi medium) TET for Secondary level to be conducted by the Government of Assam. The pre-requisite for being eligible for appearing in TET was that the intending candidate must have Graduate/ Post Graduate Degree from a recognized University with 50% marks and a Degree of B.Ed. from National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE for short). It was specifically mentioned therein that the candidates would have to qualify in both the parts separately to qualify in the examination. Moreover, for general category candidates, 60% marks was required to be obtained in each part, i.e. Part-I and Part-II of the question booklet and in case of candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC/MOBC/
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.