MP High Court Strikes Down 'Second Division' Teacher Recruitment Rule as Arbitrary and Contrary to NCTE Percentage Standard - 2025-04-25

MP High Court Invalidates 'Second Division' Requirement for Teachers, Mandates NCTE Standards and Reservation Relaxation

Jabalpur: In a significant ruling affecting teacher recruitment in Madhya Pradesh, the High Court, comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain , has struck down a state rule that prescribed a 'Second Division' in the Masters Degree as a minimum educational qualification for High School Teachers (Uchch Madhyamik Shikshak). The court deemed the requirement manifestly arbitrary due to inconsistent grading standards across different universities and found it contrary to the specific percentage-based qualifications mandated by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE).

The decision came in a batch of writ petitions led by Avnish Tripathi and others, challenging Column 5 to Entry 1 of Schedule III of the M.P. State School Education Service (Educational Branch) Service Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018. The petitioners argued that the term "Second Division" was ambiguous, as different universities in Madhya Pradesh and across India applied varying percentage cut-offs for awarding divisions. This lack of uniformity, they contended, led to arbitrary selections where candidates with lower percentages but a "Second Division" were eligible, while those with higher percentages but a "Third Division" (due to their university's criteria) were excluded.

Furthermore, the petitioners highlighted that NCTE regulations, which govern teacher standards nationwide and derive authority from the NCTE Act and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), uniformly prescribe minimum qualifications based on specific percentages, not divisions. They argued that the state rules, being inconsistent with NCTE regulations, should yield to the central standards under Article 254 of the Constitution (Concurrent List).

Another crucial point raised by the petitioners was the state rules' failure to incorporate the 10% relaxation in minimum qualifying marks for Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidates, a provision already available under the State's own M.P. Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Rules, 1998, framed under the authority of Articles 16(1) and 16(4) of the Constitution. They also pointed out a disparity with recruitment rules for the Tribal Welfare Department, which required only a pass in the PG degree without specifying a division.

The State government, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, defended the rule, arguing that prescribing a division was within the state's wisdom and universities were competent academic bodies to define divisions based on their standards. The State contended it was not bound to maintain uniformity with the Tribal Welfare Department rules or strictly adhere to NCTE regulations, citing its power under Article 309 of the Constitution. It also argued that providing reservation benefits like relaxation is an enabling provision, not mandatory, and no mandamus could be issued to force the State to incorporate it. Additionally , the State raised objections regarding the delay in filing petitions after selection processes were initiated and completed.

After hearing extensive arguments, the High Court's bench delivered its verdict.

On the ambiguity of "Second Division," the court noted: "Unless this exercise is undertaken and it is conclusively established by any regulatory body established for that purpose which determines that particular marks of a particular University are equivalent to particular marks of some other particular University, the prescription of Division/Class in place of percentage is manifest arbitrary subordinate legislation."

The court found that prescribing a division without a uniform percentage standard or an equivalence mechanism was "manifest arbitrary," citing the principle laid down in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) that subordinate legislation can be struck down if it is "capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle."

Addressing the inconsistency with NCTE regulations, the bench referenced Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and the Supreme Court's judgment in State of U.P. vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak (2018), which held that state governments are obligated to adhere to NCTE qualifications. The court noted that NCTE Regulations, particularly the 2014 regulations framed under Section 12A of the NCTE Act, prescribe minimum qualifications for Senior Secondary Teachers (Classes XI-XII), requiring a Post Graduate Degree with at least 50% marks (or 45% for those qualified under earlier 2002/2007 regulations) and a B.Ed. degree, based on specific percentages. The court held: "Therefore, the Regulations framed by the NCTE would take primacy over the statutory rules framed by the State Government for a matter, which falls in the concurrent list and has held so by the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Pathak (supra). The said impugned entry stands quashed for the said two reasons."

Regarding relaxation for SC/ST candidates, the court acknowledged that while providing relaxation is discretionary for the State under Article 16(4), the State of Madhya Pradesh had already exercised this power by framing the 1994 Adhiniyam and 1998 Rules, which included a 10% relaxation clause (Rule 4A) for SC/ST candidates in minimum qualifying marks. The court found the non-inclusion of this relaxation in the impugned recruitment rule to be "ultra vires the Adhiniyam 1994 and Rules 1998". The court noted the State's own expert committee had recommended inserting a specific percentage and providing 5% relaxation for SC, ST, and OBCs, as well as PWD candidates, though the committee suggested it be prospective.

Consequently, the High Court struck down Column 5 of Entry-I of Schedule III of the 2018 Rules. It declared that the minimum qualifications laid down by NCTE for Senior Secondary classes (which includes teachers for Classes IX-XII in MP) would apply. The court further held that SC and ST candidates are entitled to a 5% relaxation in minimum qualifying marks in the Masters/Post Graduate Degree for past recruitments, in line with Rule 4A of the 1998 Rules. For future recruitments, the State was directed to incorporate the expert committee's recommendation of 5% relaxation for SC, ST, OBC, and PWD candidates.

Considering the potential impact on selections already made, the court protected appointments made pursuant to the 2018 recruitment process, citing delay in filing petitions. However, for the 2023 recruitment process, which occurred during the pendency of the petitions, the court ordered a supplementary recruitment process within six months. Candidates who were previously ineligible or whose forms were rejected due to the struck-down rule or lack of SC/ST relaxation will be allowed to participate and compete for the advertised 2023 posts. The State was granted liberty to adjust candidates already appointed in the 2023 selection process who might be affected, by creating supernumerary posts or other means.

The petitions were thus allowed and disposed of with these directions, aiming to ensure fairer and more uniform standards in teacher recruitment in the State.