RTET : ग्रेड थर्ड शिक्षक भर्ती का संशोधित परिणाम जारी होगा
RTET / Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility Test Newsझुंझुनूं-!- 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
