Prithvi Raj Songara @APPELLANT@Hash State Of Rajasthan

Name of Pet.,Cat.,"Applied for

Subject",Marks (%),,"Date of

admission in

B.Ed. Course","% of marks

obtained in

the Recruit","% of Cut-

off Marks

,,,Grad.,"Post

Grad.",,,

Prithvi Raj

Songara",SC,"English (Non-

TSP)",39.72,43.88,22.10.2008,62.79,62.05

Bharat Lal

Kokhar",ST-TSP,English (TSP),43.722,49.444,03.08.2011,47.65,38.94

Sukha Lal

Pandor",ST-TSP,English (TSP),43.94,46.77,04.07.2014,42.11,38.94

Jaya Purohit,Gen,"English (Non-

TSP)",42.83,45.375,30.07.2009,68.38,67.93

Rajendra

Kumar","OBC/

ExService

Man","Social

Science

(Non-TSP)",42.77,47.33,25.09.2010,56.23,55.52

qualification of graduation in the eligibility criteria has already been allowed. The respondents shall not insist on the qualification of having 45% or 50%,,,,,,,

marks, as the case may be, in the bachelor's degree or master's degree etc. or any other equivalent qualification, in case incumbents have obtained",,,,,,,

admission in the requisite courses such as B.Ed., B.El.Ed, Senior Secondary etc. prior to prescription of the minimum qualifying marks by NCTE vide",,,,,,,

notifications dated 27.9.2007 and 31.8.2009. It is made clear that the incumbents, who have obtained the B.Ed. etc. before the minimum qualifications",,,,,,,

were prescribed vide notifications dated 27.9.2007 and 31.8.2009, shall be allowed to appear in the TET Examination. The incumbents, who have",,,,,,,

passed out B.Ed. Course from Jammu & Kashmir, have to be dealt with on similar yard sticks in case the qualification is otherwise recognized. Let",,,,,,,

NCTE specify categories of teachers under para 4 of Notification dated 23.8.2010. As prayed by NCTE, let amended notification be issued within one",,,,,,,

month covering aforesaid aspects.â€​ (emphasis supplied),,,,,,,

A perusal of the above directions would indicate that the Division Bench had clearly directed the respondents not to insist on the qualification of having,,,,,,,

45% or 50% marks, as the case may be, in the Bachelor’s Decree or Master’s Degree etc. or any other equivalent qualification, if the",,,,,,,

incumbents have obtained admission in the requisite course prior to prescription of minimum qualifying marks by NCTE vide notification dated,,,,,,,

27.09.2007 and 31.08.2009.,,,,,,,

The said aspect was again noticed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Kumar Rai (supra), wherein the specific question as raised in the present",,,,,,,

case was considered and observations were made as under:-,,,,,,,

“3. Thus, the question for consideration is whether the candidates who had already passed B.Ed., had the requisite percentage in post-graduation",,,,,,,

and are otherwise covered by notification dated 23rd August, 2010, will stand excluded only on the ground that their marks in graduation were less",,,,,,,

than the percentage prescribed in the notification dated 29th July, 2011.",,,,,,,

The case of the appellants is that theyhad the post-graduation and B.Ed. qualifications. They also had the TET qualification. In post-graduation their,,,,,,,

marks are more than 50%. The NCTE is a statutory body under the NCTE Act to achieve the planned and coordinated development of the teacher,,,,,,,

education system. It lays down qualification for recruitment of teachers and also criteria for admission to training in teacher education. The NCTE,,,,,,,

(Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 prescribe qualification for recruitment of",,,,,,,

teachers. The said regulations were amended from time to time. Regulations were also framed for admission to teacher education programmes,,,,,,,

including for admission to B.Ed. The said regulations prescribed requirement of 45% / 50% either in graduation or in post-graduation for admission to,,,,,,,

the B.Ed. which the appellants possessed. Only the impugned notification dated 29th July, 2011 prescribed requirement of 50% marks in graduation",,,,,,,

which was earlier optional for those who had 50% marks in post-graduation. On that basis, the State of Uttar Pradesh declared candidates who were",,,,,,,

B.Ed. and TET and were otherwise qualified in terms of the qualifications laid down by the NCTE for appointment of teachers as ineligible. Some,,,,,,,

persons who were earlier appointed but their services were later terminated. The claim of similarly placed candidates was supported by the NCTE,,,,,,,

and was also upheld by the High Courts of Rajasthan and Uttarakhand which judgments were operative and had become final.,,,,,,,

To appreciate the submissionsreference may briefly be made to relevant notifications. The 2003 amendment to the 2001 regulations provides for,,,,,,,

requirement of graduation along with B.Ed or its equivalent without any minimum marks in graduation. The 2007 Norms and Standards for Secondary,,,,,,,

Teacher Education Programme leading to B.Ed. require 45% marks either in Bachelors degree or in Masters degree or any other qualification,,,,,,,

equivalent thereto. The 2009 Norms and Standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme through Open and Distance Learning System,,,,,,,

leading to B.Ed. do not provide for any minimum percentage of marks in Bachelors degree. However, in the NCTE notification dated 23rd August,",,,,,,,

2010 the requirement of prescribed percentage of marks in graduation was laid down on which basis the said requirement was laid down in the,,,,,,,

impugned notification dated 29th July, 2011denying eligibility to the appellants.†    Â",,,,,,,

                                               (emphasis supplied),,,,,,,

After observing as aforesaid, Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sushil Sompura (supra) and",,,,,,,

judgment of Uttrakhand in Baldev Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttrakhand & Ors.: Writ Petition No. 772(SS) of 2011, decided on 20.08.2011 and",,,,,,,

directed as under:-,,,,,,,

“9. In view of fair stand of learned Additional Solicitor General and the view of Rajasthan and Uttarakhand High Courts, we do not find any reason",,,,,,,

to deny similar relief to the appellants. No doubt, as rightly held by the High Court the NCTE ought to have issued a clarification by way of a",,,,,,,

supplementary notification but the NCTE may now do so within one month from today. Accordingly, we direct that if the appellants or any other",,,,,,,

similarly placed persons are entitled to any further relief in terms of judgments of Rajasthan and Uttarakhand High Courts, they will be at liberty to put",,,,,,,

forward their claim before the concerned authorities who may take a decision thereon in accordance with law within one month. We have not,,,,,,,

examined any such claim in these proceedings except what has been stated hereinabove.†                    Â,,,,,,,

 (emphasis supplied),,,,,,,

From the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is apparent that the 2007 Norms & Standards for Teacher Education Programme",,,,,,,

leading to B.Ed. required 45% marks either in Bachelor’s Degree or in Master’s Degree and, therefore, during the period 27.09.2007 and",,,,,,,

31.08.2009, those who took admission in B.Ed based on having 45% marks in Post Graduation, would also fall within the same parameters as the",,,,,,,

Graduates and the non-mention by the respondents of the candidates having obtained 45% marks at Post Graduation level in Clause â€",,,,,,,

9.3 (ii) of the Advertisement is laconic, contrary to the directions of Division Bench in the case of Sushil Sompura (supra), which has been affirmed in",,,,,,,

the case of Neeraj Kumar Rai (supra) and, therefore, to the said extent, the action of the respondents cannot be sustained.",,,,,,,

Insofar as the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents that as the judgment in the case of Sushil Sompura (supra) pertains to TET,,,,,,,

examination, the same would have no application to the present recruitment are absolutely baseless, inasmuch as, in the case of Sushil Sompura",,,,,,,

(supra), this Court determined the implication of notification dated 27.09.2007 and 31.08.2009 and the same notifications forms the basis for the",,,,,,,

eligibility requirement as indicated by the respondents in the advertisement as well as the clarification as indicated in Clause â€" 9.3 of the,,,,,,,

Advertisement, wherein in the Advertisement itself it has been indicated that the same is based on judgment in the case of Sushil Sompura (supra).",,,,,,,

Another submission of the respondent-State that Post Graduation cannot be equated to Graduation as in Clause â€" 9.3 (ii) only Graduation and,,,,,,,

equivalent has been indicated, has been noticed for rejection only, inasmuch as, as already determined hereinbefore the respondents were bound to",,,,,,,

indicate ‘Graduation or Post Graduation’ insofar as the period between 27.09.2007 and 31.08.2009 is concerned in clause 9.3(ii), in view of the",,,,,,,

notification of NCTE laying down eligibility requirement for B.Ed. by its notification dated 27.09.2007, which has been specifically noticed in the case",,,,,,,

of Sushil Sompura (supra) and Neeraj Kumar Rai (supra).,,,,,,,

In view of above discussion, the respondents are required to take into consideration the marks obtained by candidates in Post-Graduation as well, who",,,,,,,

have taken admission in B.Ed. during the period 27.09.2007 and 31.08.2009, for the purpose of adjudging their eligibility for the post of teacher Grade-",,,,,,,

III (Level-2).,,,,,,,

However, it is made clear the said aspect would have relevance only for the purpose of eligibility and in so far as the award of marks is concerned,",,,,,,,

marks are only required to be awarded based on the marks obtained by the candidates at the Graduation level as per the application form.,,,,,,,

If the above determination is applied to the facts of the present case, it would be apparent that the petitionerPrithvi Raj Songara had obtained",,,,,,,

admission in B.Ed. on 22.10.2008 and is entitled for relaxation of 5% in the minimum marks (45%) as obtained in Post-Graduation i.e. he would be,,,,,,,

eligible in case he had obtained 40% marks in Post-Graduation and as he obtained 43.88% marks, he is eligible and having obtained more marks than",,,,,,,

the cut-off as is reflected from the table hereinbefore, the petitionerPrithvi Raj Songara being eligible and within the cut-off is entitled to relief.",,,,,,,

Similarly, petitioner-Jaya Purohit having obtained the admission in B.Ed. on 30.07.2009 i.e. before the cut-off of 31.08.2009 and having obtained",,,,,,,

45.375% marks in Post-Graduation, which is higher than the cut-off, is also entitled to relief.",,,,,,,

So far as the petitioners â€" Bharat Lal Kokhar, Sukha Lal Pandor and Rajendra Kumar are concerned, they have obtained admission in B.Ed. on",,,,,,,

03.08.2011, 04.07.2014 and 25.09.2010 respectively, are not entitled to any relief, inasmuch as post 31.08.2009 notification, the only criteria for",,,,,,,

admission to B.Ed. was minimum percentage of marks in Bachelor’s Decree as per NCTE Regulations and, therefore, their marks in Post-",,,,,,,

Graduation cannot be taken into consideration for judging their eligibility in terms of NCTE Regulations. This Court in the case of Puran Mal (supra),,,,,,,

after thoroughly considering the issues involved in the matter, laid down as under:-",,,,,,,

“In view of the above discussion, as the petitioners have obtained less than 50% marks in graduation and have taken admission in B.Ed. course",,,,,,,

after 31.08.2009, as per the NCTE Regulation dated 29.07.2011 and the directions in the case of Sushil Sompura (supra), they are ineligible for the",,,,,,,

post of Teacher Gr. III (Level-II) and, therefore, are not entitled to any relief in the present writ petitions.â€​",,,,,,,

As such so far as the cases of the above petitioners i.e. Bharat Lal Kokhar, Sukha Lal Pandor and Rajendra Kumar are concerned, the same are",,,,,,,

covered by judgment in the case of Puran Mal (supra) and, therefore, the said petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Â",,,,,,,

In view of the above discussion, SBCW No.14141/2018 (Prithvi Raj Songara v. State & Ors.) and SBCW No.13877/2018 (Jaya Purohit v. State &",,,,,,,

Ors.), are allowed. The respondents are directed to include the names of the petitioners in their respective select list as per their merit, allot them",,,,,,,

Districts as per their merit and after counseling, if they are otherwise found fit, accord them appointment strictly in accordance with their merit.",,,,,,,

The needful be done by the respondents within a period of three weeks from the date of this order.,,,,,,,

SBCW No.14145/2018 (Bharat Lal Kokhar v. State & Ors.), SBCW No.13977/2018 (Sukha Lal Pandor v. State & Ors.) and SBCW No.14039/2018",,,,,,,

(Rajendra Kumar v. State & Ors.), have no substance, the same are, therefore, dismissed.",,,,,,,