Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12222

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
B. Anand, Administrative Member, Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
Jigmet Tsomo – Appellant
Versus
U.T of J&K through Commissioner / Secretary General Administration Department – Respondent
Original Application No. 61/194/2024|Original Application No. 210 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Akhail Ahmed Bardi
For the Respondents: Mr. Raghu Mehta, SCGSC

Unsuccessful candidates who participate in selection without protest cannot challenge eligibility criteria afterward; employers may require both CTET Paper I & II for teachers covering classes I-VIII.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Recruitment Rules - Teacher Eligibility Test (Paper I & II) - Challenge to requirement of both CTET Paper I (classes I-V) and Paper II (classes VI-VIII) along with B.Ed for general line teacher posts covering classes I-VIII - Recruitment rules specify graduation, B.Ed, and CTET - Subsequent clarification required both papers - Unsuccessful candidates who participated without protest cannot challenge process post-failure - Employer entitled to prescribe qualifications suited to post needs - Devesh Sharma judgment inapplicable to combined primary-upper primary posts - Principles of waiver, acquiescence, and non-interference in eligibility criteria upheld. (Paras 13, 15, 16, 19)

(B) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Courts cannot rewrite advertisement or decide equivalence of qualifications - If language clear, no interference; ambiguity remits to authority - Unsuccessful participants estopped from challenging after participation. (Paras 17, 18)

Facts of the case:
Applicants challenged advertisement and appointments for teacher posts, alleging contradictory eligibility (B.Ed + CTET I & II) violating Supreme Court rulings distinguishing primary (no B.Ed, CTET I) from elementary/secondary (B.Ed, CTET II) qualifications, seeking quashing of offers, re-verification, and fresh advertisement. Respondents defended combined requirement for teachers handling classes I-VIII per NCTE guidelines and rules, noting applicants participated but lacked qualifications.

Findings of Court:
Recruitment rules and clarifications validly required both CTET papers for general line teachers; applicants barred by participation without objection; process fair and within employer domain.

Issues: Whether combined B.Ed + CTET I & II eligibility for undifferentiated teacher posts contravenes NCTE norms and Supreme Court judgments; validity of rejecting candidates lacking both papers post-participation.

Ratio Decidendi: Requiring both CTET papers lawful for posts spanning primary-upper primary; unsuccessful candidates who participated cannot challenge post-failure (waiver/acquiescence); courts defer to employer on essential qualifications if clear and rational.

Result: Original Applications dismissed.

Table of Content
1. impugned order and advertisement qualifications (Para 1 , 2)
2. applicants challenge eligibility criteria arbitrariness (Para 3 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. respondents defend dual ctet requirement clarity (Para 6)
4. court examines recruitment rules and clarifications (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. waiver by participation in selection process (Para 16 , 17)
6. employer discretion in essential qualifications (Para 18)
7. respondents right to require both ctet papers (Para 19)
8. applications dismissed, process to continue (Para 20 , 21 , 22)

ORDER

(Per: Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member)

1. The present Original Applications have been filed by the applicants against the Government order no A/ 319/2024 EST SEC GZ- SED954.60 dated 23.02.2024 issued by the respondent department.

2. Brief fact of the case is that advertisement notice no.02 of 2023 dated 20.12.2023 no LHDC SSRB /2023/4191 -4220., provided the essential qualifications prescribed for the post of teacher Science and Math made B. Ed with (CIET) I&II as essential qualifications along with other requirements, as such the eligibility criteria is not as per as the present rules, not clear and not on compliance judgment of the hon'ble supreme court of India in case titled CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5068 OF 2023 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.20743 OF 2021) DEVESH SHARMA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Both the OA’s have been filed by same applicants on one issue.

3. Being aggrieved, the present applicants have come in with the present Original Applications, seeking the following relief:

i. That the applications/ petition are being filed for issuance of direction to consider the grievances of the applicants as stated in the above applications.

ii. Further quashing the impugned offer of appointment to the post of teacher group non gazetted dated 23.02.2024 order no A/ 319/2024 EST SEC GZ-SED954.60.

iii. Directing the respondent to comply with the rule of 2021 issued by the administration of union territory of Ladakh school education department of 2021.

iv. Directing the respondent not to proceed further till the disposal of the main petition OA. 194.2024.

v. Directing the respondents to clarify the present impugned notification whether the said post is for primary, or elementary or secondary level and their criteria runs in counter to the said post, as in the said post they have mentioned all together B.ed along with CIET 1 and CIET 2, if is primary level there is no need of B. Ed bachelors of education, or if it not for primary there no need of CIET 1 or if it is elementary or secondary of further there is need of CIET 2 not required of CIET 1.and readvertisement of the said notification in compliance with the rules.

vi. Directing the respondents to reconsider the DV (document verification) of the applicants as the applicants having the CIET 2, as mandated under the provision existing rules as eligible for said post.

vii. Directing the respondents to revisit the prescribed essential qualification for teaching post of said impugned notification 20.12.2023.

viii. Directing the respondent to comply with the above-mentioned judgments and directions given by the Hon'ble supreme court of India.

ix. Directing the respondent not to declare the present result till the clarification and the compliance of rules existing and NCTE act.

4. On Admission of the Origional Application, notices were issued to the official respondents and they have filed their counter affidavit. No notices have been issued to the private respondents and none appeared behalf of the private respondents and as such they have not file reply.

5. The learned Counsel for the applicants reiterated the ground taken by applicants in his OA. The grounds taken by the applicants is as follow:

i. That the essence of the conflict involves a notification issued by the National Council for Teachers' Education (NCTE). According to such notification all the applicants or candidates who are B.Ed. degree holders were q

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12222

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALB. Anand, Administrative Member, Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial MemberJigmet Tsomo – AppellantVersusU.T of J&K through Commissioner / Secretary General Administration Department – RespondentOriginal Application No. 61/194/2024|Original Application No. 210 of 2024

Unsuccessful candidates who participate in selection without protest cannot challenge eligibility criteria afterward; employers may require both CTET Paper I & II for teachers covering classes I-VIII.

Cases Referred (2)