Praveen Kumar Mishra vs The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand at Ranchi and Others

In the writ petition main challenge by the petitioner is to Rule 5 under Chapter 2 and Rule 14 under Chapter 3 of the Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rule, 2012 on the ground that the aforesaid Rules are ultra-vires the Constitution of India. The relevant and material provisions of 2012 Rules are extracted below:

English Translation

A candidate must obtain minimum 60 percent marks for qualifying in the examination. However, for the candidates belonging to Schedule Caste/Tribe, Backward Caste and Handicapped categories minimum qualifying marks shall be 52 percent.

English Translation

50 percent posts for direct recruitment of Inter Trained Teacher and Graduate Trained Teacher shall be reserved for para teachers who are in continuous service for 2 (two) years under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. This reservation shall be horizontal i.e., this reservation is applied only under the fixed quota for each category (S.C, S.T, Other Backward caste and General). In case, required number of para teachers do not qualify then these vacancies shall be filled up from other qualified candidates according to the reservation quota."

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

Contending that the Teacher Eligibility Test is not part of the recruitment process and it is only a screening test to ensure the basic standard of eligibility of the candidates, relaxation for SC/ST, backward caste and handicapped candidates in the minimum qualifying marks cannot be sanctioned in law, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 5 violates the mandate of Article 14, 16 and 335 of the Constitution of India.

We do not find any substance in the contention. Fixing different cut-off marks for different category of candidates has been a well recognised practice and the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that fixing cut-off marks is primarily an executive decision which is normally not interfered with by the Courts, unless it is found arbitrary. In "A. Marx v. State of T.N." (2014) 13 SCC 329, writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the Teachers Recruitment Board to extend the constitutional benefits of reservation in Tamilnadu Teacher Eligibility Test (TNTET), 2013 by assigning minimum qualifying cut-off marks for each communal category. The Hon''ble Supreme Court held thus;

"5. ...whether the cut-off marks stipulated for the reserved category candidates have to be reduced or not, is entirely a matter for the State Government to decide. The Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot grant such relaxation/concessional marks, as the same is the decision to be taken by the State Government. Taking into consideration a variety of factors, the State/authorities concerned in their wisdom would fix the cut-off marks and the court cannot substitute its views to that of the experts...."

The scheme of the Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rule, 2012 discloses that the Teacher Eligibility Test is merely a screening test. Clause 8 reads; "On the basis of qualifying in Teacher Eligibility Test, there shall not be claim/right of appointment against the post of Teacher/Instructor because this is only eligibility test examination". The Rules further provide that 5% relaxation is granted in the essential qualifying criteria under Rule 4 (i) and 4 (ii) for the SC/ST, backward caste and handicapped candidates. Now, if in the recruitment, relaxation in essential qualification for different category of candidates is granted, we are of the opinion that in the screening test also, if different cut-off marks is fixed for different category of candidates, it would not violate Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It would in no manner breach the mandate under Article 335 of the Constitution of India also. We cannot lose sight of the fact that this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3099 of 2011 directed the State Government to follow guidelines issued by the National Council For Teacher Education. The guidelines issued by the National Council For Teacher Education provide that a person must possess the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). In the light of the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3099 of 2011, the Jharkhand Primary Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012 have been framed which detail the procedure for appointment on the post of teachers in the Elementary Schools. The respondent-State has pleaded that in tune with the qualifying marks fixed for TET by the NCTE whereunder, relaxation from securing minimum 60% marks in the test has been granted to SC/ST, OBC and differently abled candidates, the 2012 Rules also provide different cut-off marks for general category candidates and for SC/ST, backward caste and handicapped candidates.

Referring to the decision in "Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath & Ors." , (2009) 5 SCC 1, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the purpose of holding a screening test is to ensure the basic standard of eligibility of the candidates and even at the stage of admission to the main examination the rule of reservation of posts cannot be applied. On a scrutiny of the facts in "Baloji Badhavath" (supra) we find that what has been termed a screening test was, infact, a preliminary test and it was a part of the selection process. The test conducted by the Jharkhand Academic Council, that is, Teacher Eligibility Test is one of the essential eligibility criteria which a candidate seeking appointment on the post of teacher must possess. As noticed above, in the recruitment also relaxation in minimum marks in the educational qualification has been extended to the SC/ST, backward caste and handicapped candidates.

The petitioner''s challenge to Rule 14 is equally untenable. Under Rule 14, 50% seats in direct recruitment of Inter-trained Teachers and Graduate Trained Teachers have been reserved for the Para Teachers working continuously for 2 years under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. Such reservation would be applied category-wise that is, the reservation would be horizontal. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there cannot be more than 50% reservation is also liable to be rejected. By applying reservation under Rule 14 in each category, it has been ensured that the reservation does not exceed the reservation policy of the State Government. Moreover, seats reserved on the basis of experience do not violate the mandate of Article 14, 16 and 335 of the Constitution of India. Infact, reservation of 50% seats for the Inter-trained Teachers and Graduate Trained Teachers serves a meaningful purpose and it achieves the goal of providing education through experienced teachers.

In the context of Rule 14, the respondent-State has pleaded that the Para Teachers are a separate group of persons who have acquired vast experience in teaching the children. The learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the State Government took a policy decision to utilize the rich experience of Para Teachers for teaching the children so that the children are benefited from their reservoir of experiences. It is pleaded that the Para Teachers have not been extended any relaxation in educational and other essential qualifications.

In so far as, the prayer seeking quashing of the selection process of Primary Teachers pursuant to Advertisement No. 95 of 2012 is concerned, in view of the discussion hereinabove, the same cannot be granted. The respondents have pleaded that the District Superintendent of Education of Dhanbad, Koderma, Hazaribagh and other districts have prepared merit list and the same has been uploaded on the website. It is stated that the process of appointment in other districts is nearing completion.

We find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.