Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Laxmi Raturi - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & others - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 779 of 2016
Decided On : 22-04-2016
OBC Category - Teacher Eligibility Test - The court held that marks obtained by the petitioner in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) have to be calculated for the OBC category candidate, and if a candidate secures the minimum qualifying marks under the OBC category, she would get the benefit in the TET examination as well.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, belonging to the Rawalta Community, appeared in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) and was selected for the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Math). The question before the court was whether the marks obtained by the petitioner in TET have to be calculated for a General category candidate or OBC category candidate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the case of the petitioner was squarely covered by a previous decision of the court, which held that marks obtained by candidates from the Rawalta Community should be determined in the category of OBC, and if a candidate secures the minimum qualifying marks under the OBC category, she would get the benefit in the TET examination as well. The court disposed of the present writ petition in the same terms and conditions as the previous judgment.
Issues: The issue was whether the marks obtained by the petitioner in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) have to be calculated for a General category candidate or OBC category candidate.
Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi was that marks obtained by candidates from the Rawalta Community should be determined in the category of OBC, and if a candidate secures the minimum qualifying marks under the OBC category, she would get the benefit in the TET examination as well.
Final Decision: The present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms and conditions as the previous judgment, and a certified copy of the order was to be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
1. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of this Court passed in WPSS No. 290 of 2014 (Km. Babita Vs State of Uttarakhand decided on 16.07.2014). For the sake of convenience, brief facts are stated as under:-
2. The petitioner belongs to a community known as “Rawalta Community”, which has been declared Other Backward Class (in short “OBC”) in the year 2004 i.e. vide order dated 31.01.2004. The OBC certificate, however, was not given to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared in a test known as Teachers Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as “TET”) in the year 2013 in which she procured 58% marks. The qualifying marks for a General category candidate are 60% whereas for OBC category candidate it is 50%. The petitioner obtained caste certificate from the authority concerned on 13.02.2014. The petitioner appeared in a selection process for the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Math), in which she has been selected.
3. The question before this Court is as to whether the marks obtained by the petitioner in TET have to be calculated for a General category candidate or OBC category candidate.
4. A similar controversy has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 16.07.2014 in WPSS No. 290 of 2014 (Km. Babita Vs State of Uttarakhand & others) and has held that in such cases, the marks would be determined for the “Rawalta Community” in the category of OBC and if a candidate secure minimum qualifying marks under the OBC category, she would get the benefit in TET examination as well.
5. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents submit that the matter is squarely covered by the said judgment passed by this Court in WPSS No. 290 of 2014 (Km. Babita Vs State of Uttarakhand & others).
6. In view thereof, the present writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms and conditions as made in the WPSS No. 290 of 2014 (Km. Babita Vs State of Uttarakhand & others).
7. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner today itself, on the payment of usual charges.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
