RTET : ग्रेड थर्ड शिक्षक भर्ती का संशोधित परिणाम जारी होगा
RTET / Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility Test News
झुंझुनूं-!- पंचायतीराज वर्ष 2012 में हुई ग्रेड थर्ड शिक्षक भर्ती का आरटेट से प्रभावित संशोधित परीक्षा परिणाम जारी करेगा। पंचायतराज विभाग के शासन सचिव एवं आयुक्त ने जिला परिषद सीईओ को इसके आदेश जारी कर दिए है।
इसके तहत 21 अगस्त को कलेक्टर संशोधित परीक्षा परिणाम जारी करेगा। 21 से 23 अगस्त तक कट ऑफ लिस्ट जारी कर विभागीय वेबसाइट पर अपलोड की जाएगी। 24 अगस्त को वरीयता सूची में शामिल होने वाले व बाहर होने वाले अभ्यर्थियों की सूची तैयार होगी। 25 से 27 अगस्त तक नए चयनित अभ्यर्थियों के दस्तावेज की जांच होगी। 29 से 31 अगस्त के बीच जिला परिषद स्थापना समिति की बैठक में चयनित सूची का अनुमोदन होगा। एक से नौ सितंबर तक पंचायत समितिवार पोस्टिंग दी जाएगी।
झुंझुनूं में नहीं पड़ेगा विशेष प्रभाव
हालांकि इसका असर जिले में कोई विशेष नहीं रहेगा। जिले में विशेष योग्यजन ब\"ाों को पढ़ाने के विशेष शिक्षकों के 20 पदों के लिए भर्ती हुई थी। इसमें महज दो पदों पर ही नियुक्ति हुई थी।
News Sabhaar : Bhaskar (20.8.13)
**************************************
http://rhccasestatus.raj.nic.in/smsrhcb/rhbcis/jtextfile.asp?ID=SAW&nID=1638&yID=2012&doj=7%2F2%2F2013
Case No. SAW - 1638 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH:JAIPUR
(1) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1484/2012
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
(2) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1329/2012
Hemlata Kanojia vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(3) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1333/2012
Sunita Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(4) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1470/2012
Mukesh Kumar Jitarwal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(5) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1476/2012
Vikas Sankhala & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(6) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1496/2012
Sumer Singh Rajawat & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors.
(7) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1502/2012
Manju Kumari Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(8) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1512/2012
Mahesh Chand Nekela & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
(9) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1518/2012
Smt. Mamta Kumari & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
(10) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1532/2012
Babita vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
(11) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1533/2012
Bhanwari Kharia vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
(12) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1541/2012
Kuldeep Meena & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(13) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1542/2012
Shiv Raj Meena & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(14) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1556/2012
Mukesh Kumar Meena & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
(15) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1558/2012
Hari Singh Meena & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(16) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1567/2012
Manoj Kumari & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(17) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1573/2012
Ramesh Kumar Meena & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
(18) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1575/2012
Rajesh Kumar Raigar & Anr. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
(19) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1576/2012
Priyanka Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(20) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1580/2012
Bhanwar Lal Somarwal & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
(21) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1597/2012
Anita Meena & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(22) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1615/2012
Reena Chourasia vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(23) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1631/2012
State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Shimbhu Dayal Khateek & Anr.
(24) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1633/2012
State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Mohit Dixit
(25) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1638/2012
Anil Kumar & Anr. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
(26) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1646/2012
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Sunayna Dadich
(27) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1666/2012
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Vijay Singh
(28) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1667/2012
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Sanwar Mal Rakshawat
(29) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.59/2013
Rakhi Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date when the judgment
was reserved ::- 29.3.2013
Date of pronouncement
of judgment ::- 2.7.2013
PRESENT
Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Amitava Roy
Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Nisha Gupta
Mr.S.N.Kumawat, AAG )
Mr.Tanveer Ahmed )
Mr.Raghunandan Sharma )
Mr.Kuldeep Aswal )
Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma )
for Rajendra Yadav )
Mr.R.D.Meena )
Mr.Aswani Chobisa )-for the appellants.
Mr.A.R.Meena )
Mr.Gajendra Sharma )
Mr.J.S.Rathore )
Mr.Rajendra Soni )
Mr.Vijay Poonia )
Mr.V.B.Srivastava )
Mr.Sanjay Srivastava )
Mr.Vigyan Shah )
Mr.Shantanu Sharma )
Mr.Anand Sharma ) -for the respondents.
Mr.V.K.Gupta )
JUDGMENT
BY THE COURT (Per Hon'ble Amitava Roy, CJ)
The commonality of the issues and the identicalness of impeachments
cobble the proceedings and arguments having been advanced in an
analogous hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties, the instant adjudication would answer the surging debate. The
dissension centres around the
relaxation
granted by the State Government in the minimum pass marks to the
reserved category candidates in the Rajasthan Teachers Eligibility Test
(for short, hereafter referred to as “the RTET”) allegedly in
contravention of the norms to that effect embodied in the notification
dated 29.7.2011 of the National Council for Teacher Education (for
short, hereafter referred to as “the NCTE”), the
weightage accorded on the basis thereof in the eventual evaluation of
the contending candidates and the final results of the recruitment to
the post of Teacher in Level (I) Class I to V and Level (II) Class VI to
VIII in the School (s) as declared vide notification/circular dated
25.8.2012 under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education
Act, 2009 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2009”).
We have heard Mr.S.N.Kumawat, AAG, Mr.Tanveer Ahmed, Mr.Raghunandan
Sharma, Mr.Kuldeep Aswal, Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma for Rajendra Yadav,
Mr.R.D.Meena,Mr.Aswani Chobisa, Mr.A.R. Meena, Mr.Gajendra Sharma,
Mr.J.S.Rathore, Mr.Rajendra Soni, Mr.Vijay Poonia, Mr.V.B.Srivastava and
Mr.Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and
Mr.Vigyan Shah, Mr.Shantanu Sharma, Mr.Anand Sharma and Mr.V.K.Gupta,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
The factual
canvass with fringe variations qua the writ petitioners (Respondents in
the appeals) as available in the pleadings of S.B.Civil Writ Petition
No.13488/2012 Vikas Kumar Agrawal V/s The State of Rajasthan & ors.
(D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1484/2012) would suffice. The
assailment of the unsuccessful candidates having been sustained in the
original proceedings, the State-respondents and several selectee
candidates being aggrieved seek redress.
Referring to the Act of
2009, the writ petitioners have admitted that the NCTE in terms of
Section 23 thereof is the designated Nodal Agency to prescribe the
minimum qualifications of eligibility for appointment as Teacher for
Class I to VIII in all Schools including those administered by the
State Government, Local Bodies as well as those which are Government
aided and non-aided. The NCTE vide its notification dated 23.8.2010
published on 25.8.2010 in the Gazette of India in invocation of its
powers under the aforementioned legal provision, laid down the minimum
qualifications for appointment as Teacher, obligating a pass of Teacher
Eligibility Test (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the TET”) to be
an inalienable pre-qualification thererfor. The TET was to be conducted
by the appropriate Government in accordance with its (NCTE) guidelines
prescribed for the purpose. Clause 1(i)(b) and 1(ii)(b) of this
notification laid down the requirement of a pass in the TET in the
following terms:-
“Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to be
conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the
Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.”
The
guidelines for conducting the TET were thereafter forwarded by NCTE to
all Secretaries/Commissioners of Education of State Governments/UTs vide
its letter No.76-3/2010/NCTE/Acad dated 11.2.2011. Whereas in the
guidelines, the minimum passing percentage for TET was 60%, liberty in
terms of Clause 9(a) of the aforementioned guidelines was accorded to
the School managements (Government, Local Bodies, Government aided and
unaided) to grant concession to persons belonging to
SC/ST/OBC/differently abled persons etc., in accordance with their
extant reservation policy. Clause 9(b) provided that weightage should be
given to TET scores in the recruitment process.
According to the
writ petitioners, neither in the notification dated 23.8.2010 nor in
the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 of NCTE, the extent of percentage to
which relaxation could be granted in the qualifying marks for
appointment to the post of Teacher or for qualifying in the TET
examination, was mentioned.
In purported response to Clause 9(a)
of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, as the writ petitioners contend, the
State Government issued letter dated 23.3.2011 to the Secretary and
Coordinator, Rajasthan, Teacher Eligibility Test, Rajasthan Board of
Secondary Education, Ajmer conveying its decision to grant relaxation in
minimum pass marks in the TET examination to reserved category
candidates as encapsulated hereunder:
“(a) 10% to persons belonging to SC, ST, OBC, SBC and all women belonging to the general category.
(b) 15% to all women belonging to SC, ST, OBC, SBC and widowed and divorced women.
(c)
20% to persons covered under the definition of “persons with
disability” under Clause(t) of Section 2 of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995.”
It was, thereafter, that the Board of
Secondary Education, Ajmer (Nodal Agency for conducting TET examination
in the State of Rajasthan) issued advertisement No.1/11 dated 30.3.2011
wherein it was inter-alia provided that a person, who scores 60% marks
in the TET examination would qualify in it. However, relaxation on this
prescription was granted to the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC etc.
as contained in Clause 4(a), (b) & (c) of Part-II of the
advertisement.
Subsequent thereto, the NCTE vide notification
dated 29.7.2011 amended its earlier notification dated 23.8.2010
modifying the minimum qualifications for recruitment to the post of
Teacher at both Levels I and II. Under the reservation policy referred
to therein, it was prescribed that relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying
marks to the candidates belonging to reserved category such as
SC/ST,OBC/PH would be extended. According to the writ petitioners, in
view of this notification dated 29.7.2011, though the State Government
ought to have revoked its letter dated 23.3.2011 patently repugnant
thereto or ought to have limited the relaxation in minimum qualifying
marks in TET examination upto 5% to the reserved category candidates as
identified, results were declared and TET certificates were issued to
them by illegally adhering to the relaxation announced vide its letter
dated 23.3.2011.
The writ petitioners have further asserted that
recruitment of Teachers for primary and upper primary schools is made
by the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Rajasthan under the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules,
1996 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”) and
vide notification dated 11.5.2011, Rule 286 of the Rules of 1996 had
been amended and qualification for appointment of such Teachers had been
predicated to be that specified by the NCTE in exercise of its power
under Section 23 of the Act of 2009. From this point of view as well,
the writ petitioners have insisted that relaxation in excess of 5% in
the minimum pass marks in the TET examination could not have been
granted to the reserved category candidates and thus, only those amongst
them, who had scored 55% (60% - 5%) or more could have been declared to
have passed the said examination.
Noticeably, the writ
petitioners include those belonging to the general category, who claim
to have secured more than 60% marks in RTET examination, 2011 at both
the Levels. They have alleged that in view of this unwarranted and
impermissible relaxation ranging from 10% to 20% to different categories
of candidates of reserved status in violation of the notification dated
29.7.2011 of the NCTE, whereas only 33% candidates of general category
could succeed in the TET examination, their pass percentage of 60%
having remained undiluted, the percentage of successful OBC candidates
has soared to 61%, which according to them, is not only a patent
phenomena of reversed discrimination but is also subversive of the
underlying objective of TET examination i.e. national bench mark of
quality for securing higher level of academic excellence.
In this
backdrop, the advertisement (s) for recruitment as Teacher Gr.III
(Levels I and II) by conducting district level examination (s) was/were
issued for various districts and applications were also invited
district-wise. The writ petitioners' perception is that thereby
relaxation of 5% to reserved category candidates vis-a-vis eligibility
norms pertaining to academic qualification and pass percentage of TET
was accorded. The advertisement further mentioned that in the assessment
of merit for preparing the select list, 20% of the marks secured by the
candidate (s) in RTET would be added to that obtained in the
examination to be held.
Following the examination that was
conducted on 2.6.2012 for both the levels, the results were declared for
Level II on 25.8.2012. The writ petitioners have alleged that in view
of the relaxation in the eligibility norms and minimum pass marks in
the TET examination for the reserved category candidates, the cut off
level marks of the general category candidates stood pegged at 123.87.
By this, the candidates, who had been the beneficiary of such illegal
relaxation of minimum pass marks in the TET examination in
contravention of the notification dated 29.7.2011 of NCTE, were made to
intrude in their (general category candidates) quota of seats
prejudicially affecting their prospects inspite of their superior
performance and no fault of theirs. The assailment laid principally is
founded on grant of relaxation in minimum pass marks in the TET
examination beyond 5% in violation of the perceived prescription to the
contrary as engrafted in the notification dated 29.7.2011 of NCTE and
the overall impact on the final selection for recruitment, of such
illegal and impermissible advantage bestowed on the reserved category
candidates,
The State-respondents in their reply while
dismissing the challenge as frivolous and after-thought, have endorsed
the impugned action as a conscious initiative to ensure that persons
recruited as Teachers possess the essential aptitude and ability to meet
the challenges of teaching at the primary and upper primary level, the
same being the live purpose of the Act of 2009. While reiterating the
sequence of events commencing from the notification dated 23.8.2010 of
the NCTE, they have underlined the liberty granted to the State
Government in terms of Clause 9 (a) of the guidelines of the NCTE dated
11.2.2011 to accord grant relaxation to the reserved category candidates
of SC/ST, OBC, differently abled persons etc., in accordance with the
extant reservation policy. While asserting that a pass in the TET
examination was only a mandatory eligibility norm to enable a candidate
to participate in the main process of recruitment and that such a pass
per se did not confer upon him/her a right to be appointed, the
answering respondents averred that relaxation vide letter dated
23.3.2011 ranging from 10 to 20% category-wise had been granted as
permissible in terms of Clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011
of the NCTE.
They referred to S.B.Civil Writ Petition
No.10785/2011 instituted by Durga Dass and others repugning the process
initiated by advertisement for conducting RTET examination, 2011 as well
as the relaxation granted in terms of Clause 9(a) of the guidelines
dated 11.2.2011. Though a Single Bench of this Court vide order dated
9.9.2011, they have averred, restrained the issuance of eligibility
certificate to the candidates, who had been declared passed, in
D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.2664/2011 State of Rajasthan V/s
Durga Dass and ors., a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
6.1.2012 vacated the interim restraint observing that the Single Bench
lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter in view of the nature of the
challenges made. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed as
infructuous on 28.9.2012.
While admitting that vide notification
dated 23.8.2010, the NCTE had laid down the minimum qualifications for a
person to be eligible for appointment as Teacher for Class I to VIII in
the School (s) referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the Act of
2009, the State-respondents pleaded that relaxation upto 5% in the
qualifying marks as per notification dated 29.7.2011 had no bearing on
the norms of eligibility qua TET to be conducted by the appropriate
Government and that the correlation in this regard sought to be laid by
the petitioners, was wholly misconceived. The answering respondents
iterated that the NCTE permitted and granted relaxation upto 5% to the
candidates belonging to reserved category qua the qualifying marks in
the academic qualification i.e.senior secondary or its equivalent
examination, graduation etc. only and that the said concession had no
nexus at all with the pass marks to qualify the TET. They admitted that
vide notification dated 11.5.2011, Rule 286 of the Rules of 1996 was
amended and the qualifications for appointment as Teacher in the primary
and upper primary schools were prescribed attuned to the criteria
formulated by the NCTE in exercise of its power under Section 23(1) of
the Act of 2009. They referred as well to the circular dated 11.5.2011
(Annex.8 to the writ petition no.13488/2012) to highlight that the
candidates belonging to OBC/SBC/SC/ST etc., who had secured more marks
than those obtained by the last unreserved category candidate, were to
be construed against unreserved category and not against the vacancies
meant for reserved category irrespective of the fact whether or not
he/she had availed any of the special concessions available to them.
According to the respondents, in response to the advertisement for
recruitment of Teachers, candidates who were eligible and possessed of
the requisite qualifications as prescribed by the NCTE vide notification
dated 23.8.2010 as amended, were permitted to participate in the
process and on the completion of the written examination, a merit list
was drawn up on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates in the
written examination with the weightage of the marks secured in the RTET
examination. While denying that any ineligible candidate, as alleged
by the petitioners, had been allowed to participate in the selection
process, the respondents reiterated that the relaxation granted to the
reserved categories had been strictly in terms of the norms prescribed
by the NCTE. According to them, a candidate belonging to the reserved
category, who on the basis of the pattern of evaluation, secured marks
higher than the last candidate in the general category, was construed to
be in the general category and adjusted accordingly.
The NCTE in
its reply averred that as the “academic authority” designated under
the Act of 2009, it (NCTE) by its notification dated 23.8.2010 laid down
the minimum qualifications for a candidate to be eligible for
appointment as Teacher for Class I to VIII. These norms, which are
uniformly applicable to all the States, inter-alia enjoined that a
person to be eligible for such appointment would have to pass TET
conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with its (NCTE)
guidelines. These guidelines, the answering respondent stated, were
circulated vide its letter dated 11.2.2011 whereby in terms of clause-9
thereof, relaxation/concession of/to the qualifying norm of 60% in TET
examination was granted vis-a-vis candidates belonging to
SC/ST/OBC/differently abled persons in accordance with the extant
reservation policy. While clarifying that the process for conducting TET
and recruitment of Teachers is within the domain of respective State
Governments and that it had no role in these exercises, it (NCTE)
underlined that the State Governments were required to adhere to the
minimum qualifications and the guidelines stipulated by it. That the
extent of relaxation in the cut off marks to be granted was also within
the jurisdiction and realm of the respective State Governments
depending upon their existing reservation policy, was highlighted as
well. The answering respondent explained that the concept of relaxation
in TET score ingrained in clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011
did denote that the appropriate Government was authorized to grant such
concession in the minimum pass marks to be obtained in the TET
examination by the aforementioned reserved category candidates. This,
however, had no nexus with the lowering of minimum qualifying marks at
the secondary or graduation level(academic qualification) for entry in
the Teacher Education Course (s) for the reserved category candidates.
While reiterating that as per Clause 9(b) of the guidelines dated
11.2.2011, weightage of the marks secured in the TET examination had to
be accorded in the recruitment process, it was contended that relaxation
upto 5% marks to the candidates belonging to the reserved category was
with regard to the minimum marks specified in paragraph (1) of the
notification dated 23.8.2010 relatable to academic qualifications i.e.
senior secondary or graduation, as the case may be, for admission into
various Teacher Education Courses. According to the NCTE, the relaxation
was qua qualifying marks in the academic qualification in conformity
with the mandate of the National Council of Teachers Education
(Recognized Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009 (for short,
hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations of 2009”).
In the
rejoinder filed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13488/2012, the petitioner
therein while admitting that no challenge to any guideline or
notification of NCTE had been laid by him, did assert that the impugned
action of the State Government in granting relaxation as conveyed by its
letter dated 23.3.2011 was null and void being transgressive of the
notification dated 29.7.2011 clearly limiting the relaxation in the pass
marks to 5% under the extant reservation policy. While reiterating that
In view of this enjoinment, it was not permissible for the State
Government to grant relaxation beyond 5% in the qualifying marks for TET
examination under the garb of Clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated
11.2.2011, he pleaded that acting to the contrary by granting relaxation
from 10 to 20% for a pass in the TET, the very basic purpose of taking
the same had been compromised and thus, the entire selection process was
vitiated by the said irreversible infirmity. Asserting that the
notification dated 11.5.2011 adjusting the reserved category candidates,
who had availed the benefit of relaxations in the qualifying marks,
against the quota of the general category candidate is patently illegal,
the petitioner has referred to circulars dated 17.6.1996, 4.3.2002 and
24.6.2008 of the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan
indicating that such an accommodation was permissible if relaxation or
special concession was/were availed only with regard to fee. The
migration of the reserved category candidates benefited by the
concession qua qualifying marks for passing the TET into the portion of
the unreserved category candidate, has been repudiated thus to be
illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.
By an interim application,
the petitioners have also brought on record the fact that out of 40,000
posts of Teacher, only 20% candidates belonging to general category has
been selected in view of the arbitrary and unallowable large scale
relaxation granted to the candidates of reserved category in the
qualifying marks for TET in gross violation of the NCTE guidelines
resulting in induction of persons lower in merit thereby rendering the
salutary and underlying objectives of the Act of 2009 nugatory.
Mr.Kumawat in this backdrop has assertively urged that the State
Government having been empowered by the NCTE guidelines dated 11.2.2011
to grant concession to the reserved category candidates mentioned
therein vis-a-vis the prescribed qualifying 60% marks to pass the TET
examination in accordance with the extant reservation policy, it was
permissible for it to accord relaxation ranging from 10% to 20% and
thus, all pleas to the contrary are wholly untenable and are liable to
be rejected in limine. As the role to conduct the TET had been
exclusively left by the NCTE to the State Government, essentially
however, in accordance with its guidelines, the relaxation granted by
it (State Government) in terms of its policy as embodied in the letter
dated 23.3.2011 had been perfectly valid, he urged. Apart from
contending that the State Government had kept the NCTE informed of the
grant of such relaxation at all relevant times, he argued that as none
had challenged the concession so granted, the validity of TET had
remained unscathed. The learned Additional Advocate General maintained
that as a pass in the TET was only a condition of eligibility to
participate in the process of recruitment as Teacher in Level I and
Level II, the concession granted in the conduct thereof (TET) did not
have any bearing on the latter exercise. In addition to the plea of
estoppel against the respondent-writ petitioners to assail the State
Government's action to grant relaxation in TET in face of their
unqualified participation in the process of recruitment conducted
thereafter, learned counsel insisted that the select list eventually
drawn up was on the sole basis of merit and thus, the learned Single
Judge ought to have rejected the impeachment of the selection in
limine. Not only the relaxation of the qualifying marks to pass TET did
have the bearing only of facilitating participation in the otherwise
independent process of recruitment held subsequent thereto, the extent
of concession granted was dependent on various local factors varying
from State to State, he urged. The learned Additional Advocate General
emphasized that the concession in terms of the guidelines dated
11.2.2011 was distinctly different from and independent of the
relaxation of 5% permitted by the notification dated 29.7.2011, the same
being vis-a-vis qualifying marks in the senior secondary/graduation
tests and not qua TET. Mr.Kumawat asserted against alleged compromise on
merit and contended that in absence of any challenge to the guidelines
of the NCTE, the writ petitions ought to have been summarily rejected.
He questioned the maintainability of the writ petitions as well on the
ground of failure on the part of the petitioners to assail the
advertisement as well as to implead the selected candidates. Following
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Haridas Parsedia V/s Urmila
Shakya & Ors. ((2000) 1 SCC 81), Jitendra Kumar Singh & anr.
V/s State of UP and ors. ((2010) 3 SCC 119), Manish Kumar Shahi V/s
State of Bihar & ors. ((2010) 12 SCC 576) and Vijendra Kumar Verma
V/s Public Service Commission & ors. ((2011)1 SCC 150) and of this
Court in Sheikh Mohd.Afzal & anr. V/s The State of Rajasthan &
anr. (2008 (1) WLC (Raj.) 186) were relied upon.
The learned
counsel for the NCTE while adopting the arguments on behalf of the
appellant-State referred to the Regulations of 2009 to justify the grant
of 5% relaxation in the qualifying marks in the senior
secondary/graduation examination. According to him, such relaxation not
having been granted in the notification dated 23.8.2010 laying down the
minimum qualifications to be eligible for appointment as Teacher, the
same was permitted on representations being filed seeking such
concession. The learned counsel reiterated that relaxation in the
notification dated 29.7.2011 was with regard to marks in the qualifying
examination as referred to therein and was not relatable to the
concession granted for TET. The learned counsel endorsed the empowerment
of the State Government as per guidelines dated 11.2.2011 to grant
concession to the reserved category candidates as per its extant
reservation policy.
The learned counsel for some selectee
candidates also figuring as appellants in the batch urged that as the
adjudication in the writ proceedings had been undertaken ex-parte
against them, the impugned judgment and order is ab initio void and on
this ground alone is liable to be adjudged as such. Apart from
contending that neither any notice had been issued to them nor they were
heard in the proceedings, they demurred that even the applications
filed on their behalf seeking impleadment, were not considered on
merits. They raised the plea of estoppel against the respondents-writ
petitioners and underlined that they have unreservedly participated in
both the process without any cavil and emphasized that the selectee
candidates-appellants were higher in order of merit and that deferment
of appointment of many in view of the intervention of this Court at the
instance of the unsuccessful candidates has resulted in serious
prejudice to them. According to the learned counsels, the guidelines
dated 11.2.2011 had not been questioned by the
respondents-writ-petitioners and thus, the learned Single Judge erred
in dealing with the same while adjudicating the issues raised in the
writ proceedings. As relaxation in the marks for the TET in terms of the
guidelines of the NCTE had been pursuant to the reservation policy of
the State Government, the scrutiny thereof was beyond the purview of
judicial review, more so, as the exercise of State power is traceable to
authorization conferred by the NCTE, they urged. While contending that
the relaxation qua TET was in advancement of the spirit of the right to
education as embedded in the Act of 2009, the learned counsels endorsed
the stand of the State Government as well as the NCTE that the
concession contemplated in the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 was
distinctly different from that notification dated 29.7.2011 and operated
in independent domains. Apart from underlining that many other
Governments had accorded higher percentage of relaxation in TET and that
recruitment had been made only on the basis of the results in that
test, it was urged that the selectee candidates had scored higher than
the unsuccessful writ petitioners in the main recruitment process as
well. As the NCTE guidelines had not been challenged by the
respondents-writ-petitioners, in the overall scheme of evaluation of
comparative merit, the selectee candidates having been adjudged to be
superior on the said touchstone, the writ petitions ought to have been
dismissed, they insisted. That the assailment of the respondents-writ
petitioners was delayed in the face of time limit of 60 days as referred
to in the advertisement, was also asserted. Reliance was placed on the
following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabodh Verma &
ors. V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. ((1984) 4 SCC 251), Balco
Employees' Union (Regd.) V/s Union of India and ors. ((2002) 2 SCC 333),
K.H.Siraj V/s High Court of Kerala & ors. ((2006) 6 SCC 395), Union
of India & ors. V/s S.Vinodh Kumar & ors. ((2007) 8 SCC 100),
K.Manjusree V/s State of Andhra Pradesh & anr. ((2008) 3 SCC 512),
Dhananjay Malik & ors. V/s State of Uttaranchal & ors. ((2008) 4
SCC 171), Dingal and ors. V/s State of West Bengal & ors. ((2009) 1
SCC 768) and Vijendra Kumar Verma V/s Public Service Commission &
ors. ((2011)1 SCC 150).
Mr.Vigyan Shah leading the arguments on
behalf of the respondents-writ petitioners has assiduously urged that
the underlying purpose of TET being to secure an uniform national
performance standard and quality in teaching, the relaxation in the
qualifying percentage of pass therein, is an apparent compromise with
this salutary objective and thus, the concession ranging from 10% to 20%
as accorded by the State Government is impermissible and invalid.
Moreover, no such concession was allowable during the process, but at
best at the time of appointment in terms of the extant reservation
policy of the State Government and that too, if construed to be
warranted, he insisted. While admitting that the validity of Clause 9(a)
of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 though had been assailed in Durga Das
(supra) before the Single Bench of this Court and that the interim
order of restraint passed therein initially was set aside by a Division
Bench of this Court, the learned counsel also admitted that the writ
petition was thereafter dismissed as infructuous. Referring to the
notification dated 29.7.2011, Mr.Shah emphatically urged that the
relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks did signify in no uncertain
terms that no candidate securing less than 55% marks could have been
declared to have passed TET. He insisted that a conjoint reading of
notifications dated 23.8.2010 and 29.7.2011 did unequivocally convey
this conclusion. He urged as well that the candidates, who had secured
marks between 55% to 60% on availing such relaxation could not be
accommodated against the seats identified for unreserved category, as
the same, if permitted, would denote compromise on merit, a consequence
extinctive of the cardinal objectives of the Act of 2009.
Referring to the circulars dated 17.6.1996, 24.6.2008 and 12.9.2012
referred to in the rejoinder laid in S.B.Civil Writ Petition
No.13488/2012, Mr.Shah has urged that in terms thereof, the reserved
category candidates availing the benefit of concession in qualifying
marks could not have been accommodated against the seats meant for open
category candidates. The learned counsel urged in this backdrop that the
circular no.F.7(1)DOP/A-II/99 dated 11.5.2011 of the Department of
Personnel, Government of Rajasthan permitting such migration is non est
or in the alternative, has a prospective effect and could not have been
applied to the selection process in hand.
Mr.Shah has thus urged
that only those reserved category candidates, who had availed the
benefit of age and fee relaxation, only could have permissibly migrated
into the quota earmarked for the general candidates and none others.
That in no view of the matter, relaxation/concession in excess of 5% in
the pass marks of TET could have been accorded by the Government in
supersession of the NCTE guidelines, has been emphatically underlined to
contend that the selection process being vitiated by gross
illegalities, no interference with the impugned judgment and order is
called for. Mr.Shah sought to endorse his arguments by referring to the
following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr.Preeti Srivastava
& anr. V/s The State of M.P.& ors. ((1999) 7 SCC 120), Andhra
Pradesh Public Service Commission V/s Baloji Badhavat & ors.
(2009(5) SCC 1) and Jitendra Kumar Singh & anr. V/s State of UP
& ors. ((2010) 3 SCC 119), of this Court in Sushil Sompura &
ors. V/s State of Rajasthan & ors. (D.B.Civil Writ Petition
No.3964/2011 decided on 20.5.2011) and of Punjab and Haryana High Court
in Shabir Khan & anr. V/s The State of Punjab ((2012)167 PLR 29).
The contentious pleadings and the assiduous submissions founded thereon have been duly assayed.
Before venturing into the thick of the controversy, it would be apt to
clear the deck qua two peripheral issues, namely, non-impleadment of
necessary parties and estoppel.
It has been emphatically asserted
that the selected candidates, not having been impleaded as respondents,
the writ petitions ought to have been rejected in limine. The decision
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabodh Verma(supra) and Dingal &
Ors.(supra) have been relied upon to reinforce this contention. In both
the decisions, their Lordships while disapproving the interference of
the jurisdictional High Court with the selection of candidates not
impleaded, did observe in the contextual facts that neither they nor
their representatives had been impleaded as parties.
Apart from
the impeachment of the recruitment process as a whole to be in violation
of the NCTE Regulations and the essence of the Act 2009, in the instant
proceedings, a scrutiny of the writ petitions involved disclose
impleadment of some of the respondents whose selection had been
impugned.
The State of Rajasthan and its functionaries as well as
the NCTE and the concerned Panchayati Raj institutions have been
impleaded as respondents. The pleadings of the State Government and the
NCTE in particular, attest the initiatives on their behalf to defend the
process undertaken. Further, elaborate arguments have been advanced
before the learned Single Judge as well as in the appeals on behalf of
the selected candidates figuring as appellants touching upon all
pertinent aspects of the debate projecting a complete spectrum of
assertions relevant to the issues. In this factual premise, we are of
the view that the interest of the selected candidates as a whole has
been adequately secured and that mere non-impleadment of all of them
does not render the impugned judgment and order illegal for want of
fairness in action.
On the plea of estoppel as well, we are not
inclined to non-suit the respondents/writ petitioners in view of legal
issues of moment raised, impelling scrutiny thereof in public interest. A
participatory process has been assiduously questioned on the ground of
contravention of the provisions of the Act 2009, the guidelines of the
NCTE, the Nodal Authority under the enactment, empowered to prescribe
the norms statutorily intended to administer the process of recruitment
of teachers to accomplish the constitutional vision of providing a free
and compulsory quality education to all children upto the age of 14
years. Though the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court based
on the doctrine of approbation and reprobation vis-a-vis candidates who
had unsuccessfully participated in a selection process does not admit of
any analysis, the invocation of the said doctrine has always been fact
oriented.
Noticeably the, oppugnment laid by the respondents/writ
petitioners is not merely in the procedural perspectives, but
questions the legality and validity of the grundnorms of the recruitment
process as a whole. This plea against the maintainability of the
challenge on the ground of estoppel also does not weigh with us.
The radix of the contentious debate, being patently traceable to the
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (referred
to also as 'Act 2009'), expedient it would be to retrace the Statement
of Objects and Reasons therefor summarily, before adverting to the rival
assertions.
With the insertion of Article 21A in the
Constitution of India by the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act,
2002 making it obligatory for the State to provide free and compulsory
education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years, in a
manner, as prescribed by a statute law to the effect i.e. Act 2009 was
enacted, to effectuate this ordainment of the National Charter. The
Statement of Objects and Reasons of this legislative instrument, while
acknowledging the crucial role of universal elementary education for
strengthening the social fabric of democracy through equal opportunities
to all, have recorded that notwithstanding, significant spatial and
numerical expansion of elementary schools in the country, yet the goal
of universal elementary education had remained elusive. Not only the
quality of learning had not been entirely satisfactory in the case of
children who could complete elementary education, the number of children
belonging to the disadvantaged groups and weaker sections, who dropped
out from schools even before completing elementary education, had been
noticeably large. In keeping with the underlying objective of Article
21A, the enactment thus, sought to guarantee the following :-
“(a)
every child has a right to be provided full time elementary education of
satisfactory and equitable quality in a formal school which satisfies
certain essential norms and standards;
(b) 'compulsory education'
casts an obligation on the appropriate Government to provide and ensure
admission, attendance and completion of elementary education;
(c)
'free education' means that no child, other than a child who has been
admitted by his or her parents to a school which is not supported by the
appropriate Government, shall be liable to pay any kind of fee or
charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and
completing elementary education;
(d) the duties and responsibilities
of the appropriate Governments, local authorities, parents, schools and
teachers in providing free and compulsory education; and
(e) a system for protection of the right of children and a decentralized grievance redressal mechanism.”
Not only, as it is clearly decipherable from the Statement of Objects
and Reasons of this enactment that the avowed objective thereof, is to
guarantee full time elementary education of satisfactory and equitable
quality to every child, the statute is edificed on the belief that the
values of equality, social justice and democracy and the creation of a
just and humane society can be achieved only through a provision of
inclusive elementary education to all. Free and compulsory education of
satisfactory quality thus, is the salubrious mission of this enactment.
For the present adjudicative purpose, it is however, inessential to
traverse the framework of the statute. Suffice it to state that the
comprehension for providing free and compulsory quality education to
children is discernibly the quintessential precept of the Act 2009.
Section 23 thereof deals with qualifications for appointment and terms
and conditions of service of teachers and endows the academic authority
authorized by the Central Government by notification to prescribe the
same, so as to be eligible for appointment as such. That the NCTE is
this academic authority, as envisaged in Section 23(1) of the Act 2009,
is a matter of record. Indubitably, therefore, NCTE is the statutorily
empowered authority to stipulate the minimum qualifications for
appointment of a teacher. Under the enactment, power to relax the
minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher however,
has been reserved with the Central Government in terms of Section 23(2).
The initiatives under scrutiny stem from this legislative backdrop.
The progression of events, as the pleadings would disclose, relate back
to the Notification No.F.No.61-03/20/2010/NCTE/(N&S) dated
23.8.2010 of the NCTE in the dominant exercise of its powers under
Section 23(1) of the Act 2009, thereby laying down the minimum
qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher
in Class I to VIII in a school referred to in Section 2(n) of the Act
2009. The minimum academic qualifications, as recited therein for the
two levels i.e.Level I Class I to V and Level II Class VI to VIII in
terms of the notification, are as follows:-
“Minimum Qualifications.-
(i) Classes I-V
(a)
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year
Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known).
OR
Senior
Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2-year
Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance
with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Education (Special Education)
AND
(b)
Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the
appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the
NCTE for the purpose.
(ii) Classes VI-VIII
(a) B.A./B.Sc. and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
OR
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.)
OR
B.A./B.Sc.
with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) in
accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations
issued from time to time in this regard.
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year BA/B.Sc. Ed or B.A. Ed./BSc.Ed.
OR
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed.(Special Education).
(b)
Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the
appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the
NCTE for the purpose.”
As would be patent from hereinabove, apart
from the minimum academic qualifications so prescribed for the two
levels, a pass in the TET, to be conducted by the appropriate Government
in accordance with the guidelines of the NCTE for the purpose, was an
inalienable essentiality. A candidate to be eligible for appointment as a
teacher in a class in both the levels thus, apart from being possessed
of the minimum academic qualifications so prescribed, was indispensably
required to pass the TET, as comprehended. Both these requirements for
the purpose of eligibility of a person for appointment as a teacher were
unmistakably conjunctive, and not in the alternative.
The NCTE
followed up this edict by a letter No.76-4/2010/NCTE/Acad dated
11.2.2011 addressed to all the Secretaries and Commissioners of the
State Governments/UTs, thereby circulating its guidelines for conducting
the TET by the appropriate Government, as required by its notification
dated 23.8.2010.
A plain perusal of the guidelines accompanying
the letter dated 11.2.2011, would reveal the abiding predication to
ensure against dilution of quality in such recruitment, and instead, to
secure induction of teachers possessed of essential aptitude and ability
to meet the challenges of teaching at the primary and upper primary
levels. While reiterating the mandate of a pass in the TET to be a norm
of eligibility, rationale therefor was enumerated as hereunder:-
“(i) It would bring national standards and benchmark of teacher quality in the recruitment process;
(ii)
It would induce teacher education institutions and students from these
institutions to further improve their performance standards;
(iii) It would send a positive signal to all stakeholders that the Government lays special emphasis on teacher quality.”
Conspicuously thus, the essence of the TET was to infuse a qualitative
content in the recruitment process and thus, set a national benchmark
for the sake of uniformity in the level of elementary education in the
country. The guidelines, apart from laying down the eligibility criteria
for appearing in the TET, did also in clause 9 thereof, prescribe the
qualifying marks for passing the TET as hereunder:-
“Qualifying marks.-
9.
A person who scores 60% or more in the TET exam will be considered as
TET pass. School managements (Government, local bodies, government aided
and unaided)
(a) may consider giving concessions to persons
belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently abled persons, etc., in accordance
with their extant reservation policy;
(b) should give weightage to
the TET scores in the recruitment process; however, qualifying the TET
would not confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment as it
is only one of the eligibility criteria for appointment.”
The above extract would proclaim that in terms of the guidelines of the
NCTE, a candidate who would score 60% or more in the TET, would be
construed to have passed the same. Liberty was however, accorded to the
School management (Government, local bodies, government aided and
unaided) to grant concessions to the persons belonging to SC/ST,OBC,
differently disabled etc., in accordance with their extant reservation
policy. Clause 9(b) though, made it obligatory to provide weightage to
the TET scores in the recruitment process clarified however, that a pass
in the TET would not per se confer a right on any person for
recruitment/employment, as such a pass was one of the eligibility
criteria for appointment. Clause 9 of the guidelines thus, present the
following salient features :-
(a) A candidate to pass the TET examination normally, has to score 60% or more;
(b)
School managements (Government, local bodies, government aided and
unaided) may grant concessions to the persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC,
differently abled persons etc., in accordance with their extant
reservation policy;
(c) weightage has to be given to the TET scores in the recruitment process;
(d) a pass in the TET examination would ipso facto not confer a right on any candidate for recruitment/employment.
(e) a pass in the TET Examination was one of the eligibility criteria for appointment/recruitment as a teacher.
Indisputably in these appeals, the competence of the NCTE either to
issue the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 to conduct the TET or to vest a
discretion amongst others to the State Government to grant relaxation as
contemplated in clause 9(a) in accordance with its extant reservation
policy has not been questioned. Patently as well the guidelines
circulated vide letter dated 11.2.2011 of the NCTE deal exclusively with
the modalities pertaining to TET. In our estimate also, the legislative
empowerment of the NCTE to lay down the minimum qualifications for
appointment as a Teacher, as is evident from Section 23 of the Act,
2009, does not obdurately limit it to prescribe only the academic
qualifications but also permit prescription of essential norms of
eligibility to effectuate the underlying objectives of the enactment.
While irrefutably, concessions as contemplated to the reserved
category candidates, have to be essentially in conformity with the
extant reservation policy, the TET scores, due to the weightage to be
accorded to it, would unmistakably contribute to the eventual
performance of a candidate qua his/her recruitment. A candidate who
thus, pass the TET would be eligible to participate in a process of
recruitment to the post of a teacher in both the levels, provided he/she
is possessed of the academic qualifications prescribed therefor and
would further be entitled to weightage of the marks scored by him/her in
the TET examination, if he/she passes the same. Axiomatically thus, for
a candidate who pass the TET in terms of the modalities prescribed and
is otherwise academically qualified to partake in the process of
recruitment of a teacher as contemplated, he/she would have the benefit
of weightage of his/her marks in the said examination to adjudge
finally, his/her performance for selection. Viewed thus, vis-a-vis the
candidates who pass the TET, the marks secured by them in this
examination would form an integral segment of their final scores on the
basis whereof, the merit list for recruitment would be drawn up. A pass
in the TET consequently, though at the initiation of the process of
recruitment would be a criterion of eligibility, the marks secured
therein would eventually get integrated in the performance of a
candidate for his/her eventual assessment of comparative merit for
selection for recruitment. A pass in the TET, in this composite scheme
of evaluation of a candidate thus, in the ultimate analysis, transforms
itself from a norm of eligibility to a contributory ingredient of
overall performance of a candidate deciding his/her prospect of
selection for eventual recruitment. The factum of being successful in
the TET, as comprehended in clause 9, therefore, has an undeniable
impact, in our comprehension, on the process of recruitment.
Be
that as it may, the State Government in the School Education Department,
acting on the guidelines, vide its letter No.PS/PSE/2010/91 dated
23.3.2011 addressed to the Secretary, & Coordinator, Rajasthan
Teacher Eligibility test, Rajasthan Board for Secondary Education,
Ajmer, decided to grant the following concessions to the persons
belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward
Classes, differently able to persons etc., as contemplated in paragraph 9
of the guidelines of the NCTE circulated vide its letter dated
11.2.2011:-
“(a) 10% concession may be given to all the persons
belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes,
Special Backward Classes, and all women belonging to the General
Category.
(b) 15% concession may be given to all the women belonging
to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Special
Backward Classes, and all widowed and divorced women.
(c) 20%
concession may be given to all the persons covered under the definition
of “person with disability” under clause (t) of section 2 of the Persons
with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995.”
Certain clarifications regarding persons pursuing any of the teacher education courses were also provided.
A bare perusal of this letter dated 23.3.2011 however, does not
disclose any reference to the extant reservation policy of the
government, as mentioned in clause 9 of the letter dated 11.2.2011 of
the NCTE. Subsequent thereto, on 30.3.2011, Board of Secondary
Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer issued an advertisement for the RTET-2011 to
be held on 22.5.2011. The last date for submission of the application
form was mentioned to be 18.4.2011. The norm of eligibility i.e. minimum
academic qualifications for appearing in the said test were the same,
as enumerated in the notification dated 23.8.2010 of the NCTE. While 60%
or more marks was prescribed for a pass in the said test for the
general category candidates, concessions to the extent as set out in the
letter dated 23.3.2011, were accorded to the three classes of reserved
category candidates mentioned therein. There is no dissensus at the Bar
that the parties in the fray did eventually take the TET and results
thereof were declared on 28.8.2011. In between, Notification
No.F.No.61-1/2011/NCTE/(N&S) dated 29.7.2011 was issued by the NCTE
in exercise of its powers under Section 23(1) of the Act 2009
introducing the amendment of its earlier notification dated 23.8.2010
laying down minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for
appointment as a teacher. This notification though occasioned
alterations in the minimum academic qualifications, it retained the
requirement of a pass in the TET to be conducted by the appropriate
Government in accordance with its guidelines. However, thereby paragraph
3 of the principal notification dated 23.8.2010 was substituted as
hereunder:-
“(i) Training to be undergone.- A person-
(a) with
Graduation with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification or with at
least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance
with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from
time to time in this regard shall also be eligible for appointment to
Class I to V up to 1st January, 2012, provided he/she undergoes, after
appointment, an NCTE recognized 6-month Special Programme in Elementary
Education;
(b) with D.Ed.(Special Education) or B.Ed.(Special
Education) qualification shall undergo, after appointment an NCTE
recognized 6-month Special Programme in Elementary Education.
(ii) Reservation Policy:
Relaxation up to 5% in the qualifying marks shall be allowed to the
candidates belonging to reserved categories; such as SC/ST/OBC/PH.”
In
Item No.(ii) of this paragraph, under the caption “Reservation Policy”,
it was provided that relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks would
be allowed to the candidates belonging to the reserved categories
i.e.SC/ST/OBC/PH.
Whereas, the respondent-State insists that this
relaxation is qua the minimum marks in the qualifying examination of
senior secondary/graduation etc., the respondents/writ petitioners
maintain it to be relatable to the pass marks in the TET. According to
them, the results of the TET prepared and declared in terms of the
letter dated 23.3.2011, were thus non est, to the extent of concession
being granted to the reserved category candidates, above 5% in the marks
secured in the TET, the same being apparently repugnant to the
prescription to this effect contained in the notification dated
29.7.2011. They thus, contend that the reserved category candidates who
secured less than 55% marks in the TET could not have been declared to
have passed the said examination, so as to enable them to participate
further in the recruitment process for appointment to the post of
teacher in Levels I and II.
The original paragraph 3 of the
principal notification dated 23.8.2010 needs to be recalled to
appropriately analyze this otherwise irreconciliable orientations. For
ready reference it is quoted hereunder:-
“3. Training to be undergone.- A person -
(a)
with BA/B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification shall
also be eligible for appointment for class I to V upto Ist January,
2012, provided he undergoes, after appointment, an NCTE recognized
6-month special programme in Elementary Education.
(b) with
D.Ed.(Special Education) or B.Ed (Special Education) qualification shall
undergo, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6-month special
programme in Elementary Education.”
A cursory perusal of
the contents of this quote would demonstrate that paragraph 3 of the
notification dated 23.8.2010 dealt exclusively with the aspect of NCTE
recognized 6-months Special Programme in Elementary Education by way of
training of the persons with qualifications mentioned therein, after
appointment. There was neither any comprehension nor any provision for
reservation or relaxation of marks. Academic qualifications with minimum
percentage of marks was however, referred to.
In the amended
paragraph 3, introduced by the notification dated 29.7.2011, apart from
modified academic qualifications with percentage of marks, relaxation
upto 5% in the qualifying marks was provided for the candidates
belonging to the reserved categories, such as SC/ST/OBC/PH. The texts of
the two paragraphs of the notifications dated 23.8.2010 and 29.7.2011
when juxtaposed, in our estimate, connote that the concession of 5% in
the qualifying marks pertains to the percentage of marks in the
qualifying examination of Senior Secondary/Graduation etc. and not to
the percentage of pass marks in TET. The schemes of the notifications
dated 23.8.2010 and 29.7.2011 do not permit the interpretation, as
asserted on behalf of the respondents/writ petitioners. Both these
notifications, in clear terms, deal with the minimum qualifications of a
person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher of which a pass in
the TET, as clarified by the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, was a norm of
eligibility.
This view is fortified by the letter No.
F.No.61-1/2011/NCTE/N&S dated 1.4.2011 of the NCTE addressed,
amongst others, to all Secretaries and Commissioners of the State
Governments/UTs clarifying that following the issuance of the
notification dated 23.8.2010, it had received representations from the
State Government and other stakeholders that in respect of SCs/STs etc.
relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks should be allowed, since such
relaxation is permissible by the NCTE for admission in various teacher
education courses. Referring to the minimum marks in the notification
dated 23.8.2010, in senior secondary (or its equivalent) or in
B.A./B.Sc., it was elucidated that following its meeting held on
16.3.2011 it was decided that relaxation upto 5% in such qualifying
marks would be available to SCs/STs etc., in accordance with the extant
policy of the State Government /UTs and other school managements. There
is no reference of such relaxation to pass marks in the TET. This
accommodation of the NCTE, by way of concession of 5% marks qua the
academic qualifications, is also evident from the provisions of the
National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms &
Procedure) Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as '2009
Regulations') and the norms and standards for various education courses
as specified in the Appendices thereto and referred to in the course of
arguments on its behalf. The explanation of the NCTE with regard to the
nature of the relaxation granted under the caption “reservation policy”
traceable to paragraph 3 of the principal notification dated 23.8.2010
with reference amongst others to the 2009 Regulations cannot be ignored
or discarded. The pleadings to this effect and the arguments advanced
project its consistent stand on this facet of the debate. Relaxation
upto 5% in the qualifying marks in the amended paragraph 3 of the
notification dated 23.8.2010, in our comprehension, is thus wholly
unrelated to the percentage of pass marks in the TET. The sanction of
relaxation of 5% in the qualifying marks, in our comprehension, thus has
no nexus with the pass marks in the TET. Any endeavour to relate it to
the percentage of marks in the TET, would be doing violence to the tone,
tenor and contents of the notifications, which is clearly
impermissible. The notification dated 29.7.2011 having regard to the
scheme and purport thereof has to be essentially co-related with the one
dated 23.8.2010, which originally did not contemplate any relaxation.
Logically, thus, this notification does not supersede the guidelines
dated 11.2.2011 governing the conduct of the TET. The respondents'/writ
petitioners' plea of disqualification of reserved category candidates
securing less than 55% marks in the TET thus, cannot be sustained.
Meanwhile, one Durga Das and seven others inter alia in S.B.Civil Writ
Petition No.10785/2011 invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court to annul clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 of the NCTE
and clause 4(a) of the advertisement dated 30.3.2011 dealing with the
relaxation in the minimum pass marks accorded to the reserved category
candidates in the RTET-2011. A Single Bench of this Court by order dated
9.9.2011 while noticing that the results of the said examination had
been declared on 28.8.2011, in the interim, restrained the Board of
Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer from issuing any eligibility
certificate on the basis thereof to the candidates who had been
declared to have passed by availing the aforementioned concessions.
The application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India moved
by the department having been rejected on 8.12.2011 the State of
Rajasthan preferred D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.2664/2011, and by
order dated 6.1.2012, a Coordinate Bench of this Court held that as
the challenge involved impugnment of statutory guidelines, the learned
Single Judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the same. The interim
restraint was thus, vacated and the matter was ordered to be listed
before a Division Bench. Subsequent thereto however, this petition was
dismissed as infructuous on 28.9.2012. There was thus, no adjudication
on merit of the assailment of the validity of clause 9(a) of the
guidelines dated 11.2.2011 and clause 4(a) of the advertisement dated
30.3.2011 for the RTET-2011 designed on the relaxation granted by the
State Government vide its letter dated 23.3.2011. The attention of this
Court has not been drawn to any other pending assailment either of
clause 9 of the guidelines or the relaxation granted by the State
Government vide its letter dated 23.3.2011 or paragraph 4(a) of the
advertisement dated 30.3.2011. This notification dated 29.7.2011,
therefore, as the relaxation referred to therein does not relate to the
percentage of marks to be secured in the TET to pass the same, cannot be
construed to be in supersession either of the guidelines dated
11.2.2011 or the letter dated 23.3.2011 of the State Government.
While the matter rested at that, advertisement(s) were issued for
filling up vacant posts of teachers in Level I (Class I to V) and Level
II (Class VI to VIII) under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994
(hereinafter referred to as '1994 Act') and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj
Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as '1996 Rules'). One of such
advertisement dated 24.2.2012 issued by the office of Zila Parishad,
Chittorgarh is on record. Meanwhile, by a notification dated
11.5.2011 issued by the State Government in the Rural Development and
Panchayati Raj Department, had notified the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj
(Second Amendment) Rules, 2011 framed in exercise of powers under
Section 102 of the 1994 Act amending Rule 266 of the 1996 Rules was
notified. Thereby it was clarified that the academic qualifications for
the post of primary and upper primary school teachers to be filled up
100% by direct recruitment would be as stipulated by the NCTE under Act
2009. By way of amendment in Rule 273 of the 1996 Rules, it was provided
further that the District Establishment Committee, as contemplated
therein, would prepare the merit list of the candidates by adding 20% of
the marks secured by them in the TET to those obtained in the written
test to be conducted for the recruitment. This prescription apparently
is traceable to the cognate concept engrafted in clause 9(b) of the
guidelines dated 11.2.2011 eluded hereinabove.
Be that as it
may, Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2011 were in
force at the time of issuance of the advertisement(s) for direct
recruitment to the post of teachers in the aforementioned two levels
under the 1994 Act and 1996 Rules (as amended). Though this
advertisement mentioned that the exercise would be subject to the
decision in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.2664/2011 in the face of
the disposal thereof as infructuous on 28.9.2012, this recital, as on
date, is of no consequence.
The advertisement enumerated the
minimum academic and professional qualifications for both the levels of
posts in conformity with those prescribed by the notification dated
29.7.2011 of the NCTE. Clause 7(3) mentioned that the reserved category
candidates, as adverted to therein, would be accorded concession of 5%
in the qualifying marks. In the eligibility norms contained in clauses
7(1) and 7(2), noticeably whereas, clause 7(1)(ka) and 7(2)(ka) dealt
with the minimum academic qualifications, clause 7(1)(kha) and 7(2)(kha)
pertained to the criteria of passing the TET. Though the
respondents/writ petitioners taking this clue, have insisted that the
concession of 5% to the qualifying marks thus, extends to the percentage
of pass marks in TET, so much so that reserved category candidates
securing less than 55% marks therein should be construed to be
unsuccessful in the said examination, and thus, disqualified to
participate in the exercise initiated by the advertisement, we are
unable, in view of the true purport of the notification dated 29.7.2011
detailed hereinabove, to lend our concurrence to this plea. In our
comprehension, the notification dated 29.7.2011 accorded a concession of
5% only to the minimum percentage of marks in the prescribed
qualifying examination i.e. Senior Secondary, Graduation etc.. This
relaxation was neither intended by it nor was permissible to be
correlated with the percentage of pass marks in the TET. As a matter of
fact, the State respondents in the process initiated by the
advertisement, granted concession of 5% to the reserved category
candidates only vis-a-vis their academic qualifications as set out in
clause 7(1) (ka) and 7(2)(ka) thereof. To this extent, this initiative
is not transgressive of the notification dated 29.7.2011.
Clause
15 of the advertisement however, proclaimed in unambiguous terms that
20% of the marks obtained by a candidate in the TET would be added to
those secured in the test to follow, to determine the final merit list.
The performance of the successful candidate in the TET thus, apparently
was contemplated to have due weightage in the eventual assessment of
their merit and suitability for appointment to the posts involved. This
modality of selection did accord as well with Rule 273 of the 1996
Rules as amended by Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules,
2011. It is in this overall perspective that the respondents/writ
petitioners successfully pleaded vitiation of the recruitment process
due to excessive and prohibited relaxations in favour of the reserved
category candidates in defeasance of the solemn constitutional objective
for installing a national benchmark in the standard of teaching. They
contended that by such unregulated concessions, impermissible advantages
have been heaped on the reserved category candidates, thus,
irreversibly compromising with the aspired quality of teaching rendering
the whole exercise to be a farce. The State respondents contend to the
contrary and assert that as the eventual merit has been ascertained on
the basis of composite performance of the candidates in the TET and the
recruitment test, the imputation of compromise with merit is wholly
fallacious.
Significantly on the date of publication of the
guidelines of the NCTE vide its letter dated 11.2.2011 contemplating
weightage to the TET scores in the recruitment process, no concession in
the qualifying marks in the academic qualifications was in
contemplation, as would be evident from the notification dated
23.8.2010. This materialized only vide notification dated 29.7.2011 and
was limited to the reserved category candidates as mentioned therein.
Coupled with the relaxation granted vide the letter dated 23.3.2011 of
the State Government, these candidates thus, on the completion of the
recruitment process as a whole, had availed concessions in the marks in
the qualifying examinations as well as in the marks scored by them in
the TET. The reserved category candidates who thus, did qualify in the
TET examination on the basis of the concessions awarded by the State
Government vide its letter dated 23.3.2011, availed second relaxation
also qua their academic qualifications vide NCTE notification dated
29.7.2011 to participate in the recruitment process for eventual
selection for the post involved. These candidates, therefore,
indisputably stood doubly advantaged on these counts vis-a-vis their
general category counterparts. There is no demur that in view of the
weightage of marks obtained in the TET, many candidates though had
performed better in the recruitment test, had lagged behind in the
overall tally, resulting either in their ouster from the merit list or
their relegation down below in the order. Considering the cumulative
bearing of all these inseverable aspects pertaining to the process of
recruitment, the inescapable conclusion is that a pass in the TET though
construed to be a norm of eligibility for participating in the
recruitment test for selection, the weightage of the marks secured
therein for the determination of the decisive merit for recruitment,
makes it an inextricable constituent of the whole exercise and cannot be
divorced therefrom. The impact of the relaxation granted to the
reserved category candidates in the matter of pass marks in the TET thus
assuredly, has a bearing on the ultimate asssesment of merit.
Concession to these candidates in the qualifying marks in the relevant
academic examinations to render them eligible to participate in the
recruitment test, is undeniably an added advantage to them. This tranche
of concession however, being in accordance with the NCTE Regulations
2009, having regard to its legislatively assigned role under Section
23(1) of Act 2009, though cannot per se be faulted with, the concession
in pass marks of the TET can, by no means, be beyond the extant policy
of the State Government for reservation to the categories of the
candidates intended to be benefited thereby. As the marks secured in the
TET, to reiterate, have a bearing on the ultimate assessment of merit
of the candidates, the extent of relaxation and/or concession granted to
the reserved category candidates on this count, is thus of utmost
significance. Not only the letter dated 23.3.2011 referred to
hereinabove whereby the State Government had accorded concession to the
extent of 10 to 20% to the different categories of candidates in the
pass marks in TET does either refer to the extant policy of reservation
or disclose any basis therefor, no explanation in this regard is also
forthcoming in the pleadings of the State respondents.
It cannot
be gainsaid in the face of the unequivocal ordainment contained in
clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 that the authorities/local
bodies including the Government while left at liberty to grant
concessions to the persons belonging to the categories mentioned
therein, were required to adhere to their extant reservation policy. The
State Government was thus inflexibly bound by its extant reservation
policy, if desirous of sanctioning any relaxation, as permitted. The
word “extant” as defined amongst others in the Webster's Comprehensive
Dictionary means “still existing and known; leaving”. The State
Government was thus obliged, if at all willing to grant concessions as
comprehended in clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, to accord
the same strictly in accordance therewith. Any departure from its
extant reservation policy per se is impermissible as the State
Government was not vested with any authority to do so. To reiterate, no
endeavour has at all been made to demonstrate that the concessions
granted by the letter dated 23.3.2011 were in conformity with its extant
reservation policy in force at the relevant point of time. Grant of
such concession by formulating a new policy being not allowable in terms
of clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, such benefit, if
accorded on the basis of the concessions as contained in the letter
dated 23.3.2011, would have a vitiating effect.
Though such
relaxation granted by the various State Governments have been cited
before us to justify the concessions granted by the State of Rajasthan,
except for the State of Andhra Pradesh, no such wide range of
concessions as provided by the letter dated 23.3.2011, has been
accorded. It is unclear as well, as to whether the extent of concession
granted by the State of Andhra Pradesh is in conformity with its extant
policy of reservation. If it is so, the incentives so granted would be
in harmony with the letter and spirit of clause 9(a) of the guidelines
dated 11.2.2011. If not, the concession granted by the said State
Government per se would not render the predication of clause 9(a) of the
guidelines dated 11.2.2011 limiting the relaxation to the candidates
of the extant policy ipso facto redundant or violable.
In the
face of the all pervading prescript for accomplished teaching as the
constitutional imperative embodied in the Act 2009, no concession or
relaxation incompatible therewith can receive judicial imprimatur.
Clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 only makes it optional for
the State to grant relaxation and/or concession in the pass marks in
TET so as to render a candidate qualified to participate in the
recruitment test. The discretion so granted cannot be applied to
emasculate the underlying purpose of the Act 2009. Any concession
beyond the permissible limits, as outlined by the guidelines dated
11.2.2011, would evidently have the potential of compromising with the
standard of education, so zealously sought to be secured by the
constitutional mandate in Article 21A yield whereof is Act 2009. If the
State Government is, in terms of Clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated
11.2.2011, left at liberty to grant the relaxation, however, strictly in
accordance with its extant reservation policy, the relaxation and/or
concession granted for its validity, would have essentially to withstand
the scrutiny on the basis thereof.
In the wake of the above, on
a conjoint consideration of the materials on record as a whole, we are
thus, constrained to hold that the concession granted by the State
Government vide its letter dated 23.3.2011 to the reserved category
candidates, as mentioned therein, is not in conformity with clause 9(a)
of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 of the NCTE. Consequentially, the
participation of the reserved category candidates declared to have
passed the TET on the basis of such relaxation as a whole in the
recruitment test initiated by the advertisements issued under the 1994
Act and 1996 Rules and culminating in the selection of the candidates,
cannot be held to be valid. As a corollary, the results of the RTET-2011
are interfered with to the extent of participation of the reserved
category candidates benefited by the relaxation granted by the State
Government in excess of its extant reservation policy. Though conscious
of the fact that the process pertaining to the RTET-2011, as such is not
directly under challenge before us, having regard to the entire gamut
of facts attendant on the recruitment process as a whole of which it
(RTET-2011) is an inseverable segment, this determination, in our
opinion, is inevitable. The results of RTET- 2011 as a consequence, have
to be redrawn. Axiomatically, the participation of the reserved
category candidates who would now have to be declared unsuccessful, in
the recruitment test initiated by the advertisements under the 1994 Act
and 1996 Rules, would have to be declared illegal. Resultantly the
eventual results of the selection process would also have to be
necessarily prepared afresh.
The aspect of migration of reserved
category candidates availing fully or partially the benefits of
concession on account of fee, age and other norms to the quota otherwise
allotted for the general category candidates next needs to be
addressed. According to the respondents/writ petitioners, in view of
the cumulative effect of concessions granted in the qualifying marks in
the prescribed academic examinations and weightage of marks secured in
the TET by them after availing the relaxation in the percentage of pass
marks therein, the allotments of the general category candidates have
been usurped by their reserved category counterparts. Though this has
not been denied by the State respondents, they justified the same on the
yardstick of superior merit assessed in the process of recruitment
comprised of two segments i.e.TET and recruitment test.
Attention
of this Court has been drawn to circular No.F-7(2) DOP/A-II/96 dated
17.6.1996 of the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel
(A-Gr.II). The relevant excerpt thereof hereinbelow:-
“CIRCULAR – ORDER
Sub : Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other backward Classes in posts/services under the Government.
According
to the existing rule and circulars issued by the Government from time
to time, reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes have been made to the extent of 16%, 12% and 21%
respectively in the matter of direct recruitment. The matter under
consideration of this department is as to whether:-
(1) the
candidates belonging Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes who get selected on general merit shall be counted
against the reserve vacancies or general vacancies; and
(2) Whether
those who get in the merit list as a result of special concession given
to them in terms of age and attempts should be considered against
general vacancies or reserve vacancies.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The matter has against been examined in consultation with Law Deptt.
and the Law Deptt. have advised that the quota of post for which every
citizen is eligible to compete in entirely different to reserve quota
and for recruitment to the post falling in open competition quota, the
condition of eligibility can be different to the conditions of
eligibility for recruitment to the post of reserve quota. Therefore, the
candidates belonging to SC/ST and OBC who get selected fulfilling the
conditions of eligibility regarding age limit and attempts prescribed
for general candidates can be placed on general merit list and those who
get placement in the merit list as a result of special concession given
to them in terms of age and attempts should not be considered as the
general candidates but should be considered against reserve vacancies.”
By a later circular No.F.7(1) DOP/A-2/99 dated 4.3.2002 issued on the
same issue by the same department, it was provided that the candidates
belonging to the aforementioned reserved categories, if do not avail
concession except on fee and secure marks above the last general
category candidate, he/she would be accommodated against the vacancies
for general category and not for the reserved categories.
Vide
circular No.F.15(24) DOP/AII/75 dated 24.6.2008 again of the same
department, it was clarified in this regard as hereunder:-
“6.2 In
the state, members of the SC/ST/OBC can compete against non-reserved
vacancies and be counted against them, in case they have not taken any
concession (like that of age, etc) available to them other than that
relating to payment of examination fee in case of direct recruitment. On
the other hand, women, persons with disabilities, sportspersons,
in-servicemen or non-gazetted employees and ex-servicemen are counted
against their respective category, even if they are suitable for
selection against non-reserved or open competition vacancy/post. But it
may be noted that if any remaining candidate of these categories after
providing the vacancies/posts reserved for them are more meritorious
than the last person of the open competition category, such candidate
will be selected even if it leads to selection of more candidates than
that provided by virtue of reservation.”
The more or less
consistent notion on the issue of migration of reserved category
candidates to general quota that emerges from these circulars is that it
is permissible, if such candidates compete without availing any special
concession in terms of age, attempts and otherwise except on fee.
Admittedly, this had been the accepted dictum on the issue, on 30.3.2011
on which advertisement was published for the RTET- 2011.
However, vide circular No.F.7(1) DOP/A-II/99 dated 11.5.2011, it was
provided, in supersession of the aforementioned circular dated 4.3.2002,
as follows:-
“(a) If a candidate belonging to BC/SBC/SC/ST
irrespective of whether he has availed of or not any of the special
concessions which are available to the candidate belonging to these
categories and he secures more marks than the marks obtained by the last
Unreserved category candidates who is selected, such a candidate
belonging to BC/SBC/SC/ST shall be counted against the unreserved
category vacancies and not the vacancies reserved for the BC/SBC/SC/ST,
as the case may be.”
This circular evidently had been
applied by the State respondents for effecting migration of reserved
category candidates availing the benefits of concessions, narrated
hereinabove, to enable them to migrate to the unreserved category
vacancies.
Incidentally, the circular dated 11.5.2011 was not in
existence on 11.2.2011 whereunder in terms of clause 9(b) thereof,
weightage of marks in the TET in the recruitment process was mandated.
Performance in the TET to follow, was thus, envisaged to be a
constituent in the overall process of evaluation of merit of a candidate
belonging to the reserved category or otherwise. Patently, therefore,
as on that date i.e.11.2.2011 and hence the circular dated 24.6.2008 on
the issue of migration of reserved category candidates into general
quota, the vacancies, was in force. This circular, to reiterate, did
not permit such migration except in the eventuality of relaxation in the
matter of payment of examination fee in case of direct recruitment.
Such migration was however, prohibited in case other concessions had
been availed.
As by guidelines dated 11.2.2011, the TET, for all
practical purposes, was made an integral part of the recruitment
process, the norms on the issue of migration as stipulated by the
circular dated 24.6.2008 could not have been altered by one dated
11.5.2011 for their application to the exercise already underway. The
permissibility of migration facilitated thereby, for all practical
purposes, introduced a selection criteria subsequent to the initiation
of the process vide the advertisement dated 30.3.2011, which was
impermissible as has been propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court times out
of number and amongst others in K.Manjusree (supra).
In Jitendra
Kumar Singh and anr. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court while dwelling on
the true purport of reservation in favour of social and educationally
backward classes as contemplated, in particular, in Article 16 of the
Constitution of India rejected the plea that relaxation in fee or age
ought to deprive the candidates belonging to the reserved category of
opportunity to compete against general category candidates. It was held
that concession in fee and age relaxation only enables certain
candidates belonging to the reserved category who fall within the zone
of consideration and that such concession do not, in any manner, tilt
balance in favour of the reserved category candidates in the preparation
of final merit/select list. Their Lordships observed that concessions
and relaxations in fee or age provided to the reserved category
candidates are to enable them to compete with the general category
candidates and it is only thereafter that the merit of the candidates
is to be determined without any further concession in favour of the
reserved category candidates. This view was reiterated by a coordinate
Bench of this Court in Mangla Ram Vishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors., 2011(1) WLC (Raj.) 148. This view has since been endorsed also by a
Single Bench of this Court in its judgment and order dated 27.4.2012
rendered in batch of writ petitions, the leading case being S.B.Civil
Writ Petition No.15152/2011 Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
In Dr.Preeti Srivatava (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court did sound a
caveat that norms for admission do have a direct impact on the standards
of education. Qua reservation in the higher echelons of education, it
was emphasized that dilution in qualifying marks between the reserved
category candidates ought to be limited to a reasonable extent, bearing
in mind the supervening public interest, so much so that the concept of
merit is not wiped out in its entirety. That while considering the
segments of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for appointment,
maintenance of efficiency of administration has been stressed upon by
Article 335, was underlined as well.
The same concern
reverberated in Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (supra). While
dilating on the scope and content of Articles 15, 16 and 335 of the
Constitution of India, it was observed that vacancies are not to be
filled up by way of charity as the constitutional scheme is to have
candidates who would be able to serve the society and discharge the
functions attached to the post. Emphasis on merit was highlighted as
well. While acknowledging inability of the disadvantaged groups or the
socially backward people to compete with those in the general category,
it was observed that the same did not denote that they (disadvantaged
groups) would not be required to meet the basic minimum criteria laid
down therefor. It was underscored as well that relaxation of marks for
candidates belonging to reserved category candidates was not a
constitutional mandate at the threshold and was permissible only for the
purpose of promotion.
In all thus, in the attendant facts, the
circular dated 11.5.2011 was inapplicable to the recruitment process.
Even otherwise, the reserved category candidates having availed a
variety of relaxations and concessions, their migration to the general
quota vacancies was invalid in view of the pronouncement in Jitendra
Kumar Singh(supra).
In the wake of the determinations made
hereinabove, the appeals fail and are dismissed. To reiterate, the
results of the RTET 2011 are set aside to the extent of participation of
the reserved category candidates benefited by the relaxation granted by
the State Government in excess of its extant reservation policy. The
results of RTET 2011 has, therefore, to be re-cast. The participation of
the reserved category candidates in the final recruitment test, who
would thus have to be declared unsuccessful in the RTET 2011, has also
to be declared illegal. Consequently, the eventual final results in the
selection process have to be prepared afresh and declared accordingly.
In undertaking this exercise to prepare the final results, the decision
recorded herein on the aspect of migration of reserved category
candidates into the quota of general category candidates would also be
complied with.
(Nisha Gupta)J. (Amitava Roy)CJ.
Parmar/skant
All the corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Shashi Kant Gaur, PA
http://rhccasestatus.raj.nic.in/smsrhcb/rhbcis/jtextfile.asp?ID=SAW&nID=1638&yID=2012&doj=7%2F2%2F2013
