MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT GWALIOR BENCH
J.K.Maheshwari, J.
Anil Gupta and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. and Ors. - Respondent
W.P. No. 3284 of 2013
Decided On : 10-06-2013
B.Ed. - Teacher Eligibility Test - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, Section 23(1) - Notification dated 21-11-2011 - Notification dated 25-8-2010 - Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005 - Rule 6(5) - SC/ST/OBC/PH category relaxation
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, holding B.Ed. degrees, were disqualified from the Samvida Shala Shikshak eligibility test due to subsequent amendment requiring D.Ed. qualification. The court referred to a previous judgment and discussed the qualifications, recruitment rules, and relaxation conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were not entitled to claim parity with candidates having requisite qualifications and that the relaxation of marks did not apply to the Higher Secondary Examination.
Issues: Disqualification based on qualifications, relaxation of marks for SC/ST/OBC/PH category
Ratio Decidendi: Recruitment in public services should strictly adhere to the terms of the advertisement and recruitment rules. Fixation of qualification for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The relaxation of marks applies to the qualifying examination, not the Higher Secondary Examination.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to extend the same benefit to the petitioners as in a previous case.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners before this Court are having the degree of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) and they had appeared in Samvida Shala Shikshak (Grade III) eligibility test conducted in the year 2011 and were declared qualified. The case of the petitioners is that during the counselling the petitioners were disqualified on the ground that they were having B.Ed. degree while as per the subsequent amendment the qualification of D.Ed. was required. When the matter is taken up today, counsel appearing for both the parties have submitted that the controversy involved in the present Writ Petition has already been decided by the order dated 21-3-2013 passed in W.P. No. 4529/2013 [reported in 2013 (2) MPLJ 206] in the matter of Smt. Sanyogita Thakur and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others by the principal seat at Jabalpur and they have further submitted that in the light of the said judgment a number of Writ Petitions have already been disposed of by this Court and have referred to the order dated 10-4-2013 passed in W.P. No. 4717/2013 Sursingh Mourya v. State of M.P. and three others and other connected Writ Petitions.
2. The learned Single Judge in the matter of Smt. Sanyogita Thakur (supra) has disposed of the Writ Petition by holding as under --
“5. While inviting the attention of this Court to clause 7.2 of the advertisement issued for Teacher Eligibility Test it is contended that as per aforesaid clause separate merit lists of the candidates who possess the requisite qualification and the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualification were prepared. In view of the relaxation granted by the Central Government in exercise of power under section 23(1) of the 2009 Act vide Notification dated 21-11-2011 even the candidates who do not have requisite qualification were allowed to appear in the Teacher Eligibility Test. In view of the aforesaid notification the State Government has to give priority in the matter of appointment to the eligible candidates who have requisite qualifications as per the Notification dated 25-8-2010 issued by the National Council of Teacher Education and thereafter to consider other candidates as per relaxation granted by the aforesaid notification. It is also submitted that there are more than 49,000 posts of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III, out of which only 25,000 candidates having requisite qualifications have applied for counselling. Remaining 24,000 posts of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III shall be filled up from the eligible candidates under the Notification dated 21-11-2011 issued by the Central Government. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the State Government shall obtain extension from the Central Government to fill up the remaining posts of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III and shall hold a separate counselling for the candidates who are eligible in view of the Notification dated 21-11-2011 issued by the Central Government and shall prepare a separate merit list based on inter se merit of such candidates.
6. I have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Madhya Pradesh Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005 came into force with effect from 6-5-2005. Thereafter the Parliament enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 which came into force w.e.f. 26-8-2009. Section 23(1) of the aforesaid Act provides 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. Under section23(2) of the 2009 Act, the National Council for Teacher Education has been authorised by the Central Government. By Notification dated 23-8-2010 the National Council for Teacher Education in exercise of power under section 23(1) of the 2009 Act prescribed the qualifications. By an order dated 11-2-2011 the National Council for Teacher Education issued
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.