The requirement for weightage of TET marks is not mandatory, and the selection process must comply with Supreme Court directives without proceeding with earlier advertisements.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abdulla Kalam, Sri Rameshwar Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners in the leading Writ Petition No.10478 of 2022, Sri R.K.Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abdulla Kalam and Sri Jamil Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4933 of 2024 and other learned counsel in connected writ petitions, Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri Ashish K.Nagwanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Ms. Shruti Malviya, (Brief Holder) for State.

2. This bunch of writ petitions is filed by the petitioners that they have passed Teachers Eligibility Test (Primary Level) Examination- 2011 and their results were published on 25.11.2011, 30.11.2011 and 29.1.2015.

3. The issue as to whether marks obtained in TET Examination could be a sole criteria for filling up vacancies, was finally decided by Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Ors, ETC, ETC Vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak & Ors, ETC, ETC, 2018 (12) SCC 595 and its conclusions and directions given in its paragraphs 16,17,18,19 and 20 are reproduced hereinafter:

“ 16. There is no manner of doubt that the NCTE, acting as an ‘academic authority’ under Section 23 of the RTE Act, under the Notification dated 31^st March, 2010 issued by the Central Government as well as under Section 12 and 12A of the NCTE Act, was competent to issue Notifications dated 23rd August, 2010 and 11th February, 2011 The State Government was under obligation to act as per the said notifications and not to give effect to any contrary rule. However, since NCTE itself has taken the stand that notification dated 11th February, 2011 with regard to the weightage to be given to the marks obtained in TET is not mandatory which is also a possible interpretation, the view of the High Court in quashing the 15th Amendment to the 1981 Rules has to be interfered with Accordingly, while we uphold the view that qualifications prescribed by the NCTE are binding, requirement of weightage to TET marks is not a mandatory requirement.

17. As a result of above, in normal course the State would have been at liberty to proceed with the selection in terms of advertisement dated 7th December, 2012 in accordance with the amended rules by way of 15th amendment, in view of developments which have taken place during pendency of these appeals, the said advertisement cannot proceed and while upholding the said advertisement, relief has to be moulded in the light of developments that have taken place in the interregnum.

18. Vide interim order dated 25th March, 2014 this Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to fill up the vacancies of Assistant Teachers in terms of the impugned judgment. Thereafter, on 17th December, 2014, the said order was modified and the State was directed to appoint candidates whose names were not involved in malpractices in the TET test and who had obtained 70% marks (65% for SC, ST. OBC and physically handicapped or any other category covered by the Government policy for reservation). 54,464 posts have already been filled up in compliance of the orders of this Court. The said appointments were subject to result of these matters. It was also observed that if anyone without TET qualification is appointed his services will be terminated. Vide order dated 2nd November, 2015 it was noted that against 72,825 posts which were advertised, 43,077 candidates had completed training and were working while 15,058 candidates were undergoing training Around 14,690 posts were vacant. It was fur