MP High Court Strikes Down 'Second Division' Criteria for Teachers, Emphasizes NCTE Regulations Primacy - 2025-03-27

MP High Court Quashes Ambiguous 'Second Division' Requirement for High School Teachers

Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh – In a significant judgment pronounced on March 17, 2025, a division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain , struck down the contentious "Second Division" criterion in Master's degrees for High School Teacher recruitment in the state. The court was hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging the validity of Column No.5 to Entry-1 of Schedule III of the M.P. State School Education Service (Educational Branch) Service Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018.

Petitioners Argue Ambiguity and Conflict with NCTE Norms

The petitioners, aspirants for High School Teacher positions, contended that the "Second Division" requirement in the Rules of 2018 was ambiguous and arbitrary. They highlighted the lack of uniformity across universities in Madhya Pradesh and India in defining "Second Division," with some universities considering it 45% and above, while others set the threshold at 50% or higher. This disparity, they argued, led to unfair selection processes where candidates with higher marks were disadvantaged compared to those from universities with lower "Second Division" cut-offs.

Furthermore, the petitioners asserted that the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) regulations, which aim to maintain uniform standards in teacher education, do not use ambiguous terms like "Second Division." Instead, NCTE regulations prescribe specific percentage requirements. They argued that in case of repugnancy between state rules and NCTE regulations, the latter should prevail, citing the concurrent legislative power over education and the NCTE's mandate to set teacher qualification standards.

State Defends 'Second Division' Criteria, Claims Autonomy

Representing the State, the Deputy Advocate General argued that the "Second Division" criterion was not arbitrary, as universities, being autonomous academic bodies, were best placed to determine divisional classifications based on their academic standards. The State contended that it was not bound to maintain uniformity with NCTE regulations, citing its power under Article 309 of the Constitution to determine service conditions for state employees. The State also argued against parity with rules of the Tribal Welfare Department which had more lenient qualification norms, stating the different needs and contexts of the departments.

Court Upholds Challenge, Cites Arbitrariness and NCTE Primacy

The High Court, after examining the arguments and relevant legal precedents, sided with the petitioners. Justice Vivek Jain , penning the order, emphasized the "manifest arbitrariness" of the "Second Division" criterion.

The court observed, "When examining the impugned provision of Schedule III on the touch-stone of the legal principles... we see that the rule making authority has simply mentioned particular division/class in place of specific percentage of marks. This is stated to be contrary to the regulations framed by the NCTE..."

Referencing the Supreme Court's judgments in Cellular Operators Assn. of India v. TRAI and Shayara Bano v. Union of India , the court reiterated that subordinate legislation must be reasonable and not manifestly arbitrary. It noted the UGC's own shift from division-based to percentage-based criteria, recognizing the inherent ambiguity of the former. The court pointed out the lack of a uniform standard for "Second Division" even amongst Madhya Pradesh State Universities, demonstrating the practical arbitrariness of the rule.

Addressing the conflict with NCTE regulations, the court invoked Article 254 of the Constitution concerning repugnancy in concurrent list subjects. It highlighted NCTE's statutory authority under the NCTE Act, 1993 and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, along with the Supreme Court's ruling in State of U.P. vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak , which affirmed the binding nature of NCTE qualifications on State Governments.

"The Supreme Court has conclusively held that it is not open to the State Government to frame any rule contrary to NCTE Regulation and that is exactly what has been done in the present case," the judgment stated.

The court also acknowledged the State's own Rules of 1998 providing 10% relaxation for SC/ST candidates, noting the absence of such a provision in the challenged rules as another flaw. While not mandating specific relaxations for OBC and PWD candidates, the court endorsed the expert committee's recommendation for a 5% relaxation for these categories in future recruitments.

Decision and Implications

Ultimately, the High Court quashed Column 5 of Entry-I of Schedule-III of Rules of 2018, declaring it ultra vires. The court mandated that NCTE regulations would govern teacher qualifications going forward. It also directed a supplementary recruitment process for the 2023 selection to accommodate candidates disadvantaged by the invalidated rule, ensuring those selected earlier would not be disturbed through measures like supernumerary posts. The judgment further urged the State to incorporate a 5% relaxation for OBC and PWD candidates in future recruitment rules.

This judgment provides significant relief to teacher aspirants in Madhya Pradesh and reinforces the primacy of NCTE regulations in maintaining uniform standards in teacher education across the country. It also underscores the judiciary's role in striking down arbitrary and ambiguous service rules that undermine fair recruitment practices.