Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 921
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. NAGAMUTHU, J.
P. Jayabharathi & Others
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary to Government & Others
Writ Petition Nos. 5590, 4182 to 4184, 7146, 7371, 7681, 7754 to 7757, 5985, 8354, 10850, 2780, 2781, 2782, 5842, 5843, 5591, 6361, 6648, 7315, 7316, 7317, 7213, 7626, 7859, 5680, 9008, 10849 & 10843 of 2014 and connected MPs
Decided on : 29-04-2014
For the Petitioners:C. Selvaraj, Senior Counsel for M/s. C.S. Associates, L. Mouli, S. Namonarayanan, S. Kadarkarai, M.R. Jothimanian, R. Karunagaran, T.K.S. Gandhi, R. Bharath Kumar, G. Sankaran, Dakshayani Reddy, S. Vijayan, M/s. Sai Bharath, Ilan, S. Kasirajan, R. Kumaravel, D. Shivakumaran, D. Almas Banu, Advocates.
For the Respondents:A.L. Somayaji , Advocate General Assisted by D. Krishnakumar, R. Rajeswaran, Special Government Pleaders, M. Dig Vijaya Pandian, Additional Government Pleader.
The grading system adopted by the Government for awarding weightage marks for selection was arbitrary, irrational, and discriminatory, and violated Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
The Court held that the grading system adopted by the Government in the impugned Government Order prescribing the method for awarding weightage marks for selection of Secondary Grade Teachers and Graduate Assistants is unconstitutional and violates Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, candidates who appeared in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB), challenged the Government Orders (GOs) issued by the School Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, relating to the relaxation of pass marks for certain categories of candidates, the retrospective application of the relaxation, and the method of awarding weightage marks for selection.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Court held that the impugned GO relaxing the pass percentage for certain categories of candidates was valid and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it was a policy decision of the Government and there was no discrimination against any candidate. 2. The Court held that the retrospective application of the relaxation to the TET held in the year 2012 was not permissible, as it would materially affect the chances of candidates who had already been appointed as teachers. 3. The Court held that the grading system adopted by the Government for awarding weightage marks for selection was arbitrary, irrational, and discriminatory, and violated Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned GO relaxing the pass percentage for certain categories of candidates was valid and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the retrospective application of the relaxation to the TET held in the year 2012 was permissible? 3. Whether the grading system adopted by the Government for awarding weightage marks for selection was arbitrary, irrational, and discriminatory, and violated Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned GO relaxing the pass percentage for certain categories of candidates was valid and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it was a policy decision of the Government and there was no discrimination against any candidate. The Court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in K.Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512 and Tamil Nadu Computer Science, B.Ed., Graduate Teachers Welfare Society v. Higher Secondary School Computer Technical Assistant and others [Civil Appeal No.4187 of 2009 arising out of SLP (C) No.25097 of 2008 dated 09.07.2009]. 2. The Court held that the retrospective application of the relaxation to the TET held in the year 2012 was not permissible, as it would materially affect the chances of candidates who had already been appointed as teachers. The Court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in G.Ms.No.25, School Education (TRB) Department, dated 06.02.2014 and G.O.Ms.No.29, School Education (TRB) Department, dated 14.02.2014. 3. The Court held that the grading system adopted by the Government for awarding weightage marks for selection was arbitrary, irrational, and discriminatory, and violated Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and another [AIR 2007 SC 950] and Raj Kumar and others v. Shakti Raj and others, (1997) 9 SCC 527.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions challenging the grading system adopted by the Government for awarding weightage marks for selection and set aside G.O.Ms.No.252, School Education (Q) Department, dated 05.10.2012 and G.O.Ms.No.29, School Education (TRB) Department, dated 14.02.2014 to the extent of the grading method prescribed for awarding weightage marks. The Court directed the Government to issue a Government Order expeditiously prescribing any other scientific rational method for awarding weightage marks for Higher Secondary, D.T.Ed.,/D.E.Ed.,/Degree/B.Ed.,/TET for Secondary Grade Teachers/Graduate Assistants, as the case may be and make selection accordingly.
1. Since common issues are involved in all these writ petitions, they were heard together and they are disposed of by means of this common order.
2. The common facts involved in all these writ petitions are as follows:
"With a laudable object of providing free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years, the Parliament enacted “The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009” and the same was brought into force w.e.f 27.08.2009. Section 23 of the said Act stipulates the qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers. Sub Section (1) of Section 23 states that any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an Academic Authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher."
3. In pursuance of the said provision, the Central Government authorised the “National Council for Teacher Education” (hereinafter referred to as “NCTE”) as the Academic Authority empowering it to lay down the minimum qualifications for appointment as teacher. The NCTE, in turn, issued a notification (vide F.No.61-03/20/2010/NCTE (N&S), dated 23.08.2010) laying down the following minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in Class 1 to VIII.
Minimum Qualification:
(i) Classes I - V:
(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2- year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50 % marks and 2- year Diploma in Education (Special Education)
AND
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.
(ii) Classes VI-VIII
(a) B.A./B.Sc. and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
OR
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed)
OR
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year B.A./B.Sc. Ed or B.A. Ed./B.Sc. Ed.
OR
B.A/B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 year B.Ed (Special Education)
AND
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.”
4. As seen above, a pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as “TET”) to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE for the said purpose is compulsory.
5. The NCTE thereafter issued guidelines by its proceedings in No.76-4/2010/NCTE/Acad, dated 11.02.2011 for conducting TET. Para 9 of the said notification reads as follows:
“Para 9.Qualifying marks:
A person who scores 60% or more in the TET exam will be considered as TET pass. School managements (Government, local bodies, government aided and unaided)
(a) may considered giving concessions to persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently abled persons, etc., in accordance with their extant reservation policy;
(b) should give weightage to the TET scores in the recruitment process; however, qualifying the TET would not confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment as it is only one of the eligibility criteria for appointment."
6. Thereafter, the Government of Tamil
