2022 Supreme(Megh) 66

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
H.S. Thangkhiew, J.
Bloomingstar J. Diengdoh & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State of Meghalaya & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C). No. 369 of 2020 with WP(C). No. 56 of 2021, WP(C). No. 83 of 2021, WP(C). No. 84 of 2021, WP (C) No. 400 of 2020, WP (C) No. 401 of 2020, WP (C) No. 402 of 2020, WP (C) No. 403 of 2020, WP (C) No. 404 of 2020, WP (C) No. 405 of 2020, WP (C) No. 406 of 2020, WP (C) No. 407 of 2020, WP (C) No. 408 of 2020, WP (C) No. 409 of 2020, WP (C) No. 410 of 2020, WP (C) No. 414 of 2020, WP (C) No. 415 of 2020, WP (C) No. 416 of 2020, WP(C). No. 432 of 2020, WP(C). No. 438 of 2020, WP(C). No. 458 of 2020, WP(C). No. 462 of 2020, WP(C). No. 465 of 2020, WP(C). No. 470 of 2020
Decided On : 28-10-2022

IMPORTANT POINT
Teachers who have not passed the MTET examination cannot seek regularization of their services, and the statutory provisions of the Right to Education Act, 2009, and the NCTE Act, 1993, mandate possessing the minimum qualification as laid down by the academic authority authorized by the Central Government.

Headnote:

MTET - Eligibility of Assistant Teachers - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, NCTE Act, 1993 - 23(1) of the Right to Education Act, 2009, NCTE Act, 1993 - 4, 15, 18 - The court discussed the eligibility of teachers based on the Meghalaya Teachers Eligibility Test (MTET) qualification and the cut-off date of its implementation, analyzing the statutory compliance and the requirement of passing the MTET examination. The court referred to the case of Probirth D. Marak & Ors. v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. and the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of UP and Another v. Anand Kumar Yadav and Others to establish that teachers who have not passed the examination cannot seek regularization of their services. The court also highlighted the statutory provisions of the Right to Education Act, 2009, and the NCTE Act, 1993, and emphasized the mandatory nature of possessing the minimum qualification as laid down by the academic authority authorized by the Central Government.

Fact of the Case:

The writ petitions challenge the advertisement for selection of MTET passed candidates for the post of Assistant Teachers. The petitioners, appointed as Assistant Teachers on a contractual basis before the implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the NCTE notification No. 76-4/2010/NCTE/Acad dated 23rd August, 2010, seek exemption from the NCTE norms and regularization of their services due to over 10 years of service.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the petitioners, being on contractual service, have not made out grounds for the grant of any reliefs as prayed. However, the State respondents were directed to consider allowing the petitioners who have since qualified the MTET examination to participate in any further selection for the post of Assistant Teacher.

Issues: The eligibility of teachers based on the MTET qualification and the cut-off date of its implementation, the requirement of passing the MTET examination, and the regularization of services for teachers appointed before the implementation of the NCTE norms.

Ratio Decidendi: Teachers who have not passed the MTET examination cannot seek regularization of their services. The statutory provisions of the Right to Education Act, 2009, and the NCTE Act, 1993, mandate possessing the minimum qualification as laid down by the academic authority authorized by the Central Government.

Final Decision: The writ petitions stand dismissed, but the State respondents were directed to consider allowing the petitioners who have since qualified the MTET examination to participate in any further selection for the post of Assistant Teacher.