Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Teacher Recruitment Case: Manilal vs. State of Rajasthan (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 10 September 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 675

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Can a candidate be denied a teaching position despite securing admission to a B.Ed. course before a crucial date, simply because they had less than 50% marks in their graduation? The Supreme Court of India addressed this issue in a recent case concerning teacher recruitment in Rajasthan. The core question revolved around the eligibility criteria for teacher positions, specifically concerning candidates who had enrolled in teacher training programs before a specific cut-off date but did not meet the 50% graduation marks requirement. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, with the opinion authored by Justice K.V. Viswanathan.

Case Background

The case involves an appeal by Manilal, who applied for a Teacher Grade III Level II position in the Scheduled Area (TSP) of Rajasthan. The Rajasthan Panchayat i Raj Act, 1994 and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 governed the recruitment process. An advertisement was issued on 11 September 2017, for 1455 posts. Manilal, who had 44.58% marks in his graduation, applied for the post. He had secured admission to the B.Ed. course on 23 October 2009, the date he paid his fees. The minimum qualifying percentage for admission to the B.Ed course for the reserved category was 40% marks in graduation, which he fulfilled. Despite this, his name was not included in the provisional list of selected candidates because he had less than 45% marks in his graduation.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Manilal, aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature, filed S.B. Civil Writ No. 16005 of 2018 in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. Rakesh Gaur, who was similarly situated, also filed a writ petition. Both writ petitions were dismissed on 27 November 2018. Subsequently, Manilal filed D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 997 of 2019, and Rakesh Gaur filed D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 224 of 2019. On 23 October 2021, an interim order was passed in Manilal’s case, directing the respondents to appoint him as a teacher. However, his appointment was later cancelled on 7 June 2022. On 10 March 2022, the Division Bench allowed Rakesh Gaur’s appeal. However, Manilal’s appeal was dismissed on 27 April 2022, by relying on a different case, which led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The recruitment process was governed by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. The advertisement for the teacher posts specified the minimum educational qualifications as per the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) notifications and the Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009. Clause 6.3 of the advertisement stated that candidates who had taken admission in teacher training courses before the issuance of notification dated 27.09.2007 by the National Teachers Education Council were not required to secure minimum percentage in graduation. Further, those who had taken admission after 27.09.2007 but before 31.08.2009 were required to secure minimum 45 percent at graduation level. Those who had taken admission after 31.08.2009 were required to secure minimum 50 percent at graduation level. The NCTE issued a supplementary notification on 13 November 2019, clarifying that the minimum percentage of marks in graduation would not apply to those who had already taken admission to B.Ed. or equivalent courses prior to 29 July 2011. This notification was made applicable from 29 July 2011.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that he had secured admission to the B.Ed. course on 23 October 2009, before the cut-off date of 31 August 2009, as per the advertisement.
• He contended that the supplementary notification of 13 November 2019, issued by the NCTE, clarified that the minimum percentage of marks in graduation should not be applicable to those who had already taken admission to the B.Ed. course before 29 July 2011.
• The appellant relied on the judgment in Neeraj Kumar Rai and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, where the Supreme Court had directed the NCTE to issue a clarification regarding the percentage of marks.
• He also cited the Division Bench judgment in State of Rajasthan vs. Ankul Singhal, which held that it would be discriminatory to differentiate between students of the same academic session based on their admission dates.
• The appellant argued that his case was similar to that of Rakesh Gaur, whose appeal was allowed by the Division Bench, and hence, he should also be granted relief.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent-State argued that the appellant had secured less than 45% marks in his graduation, which was a mandatory requirement as per the advertisement.
• The State relied on the judgment in Dinesh Chandra Damor vs. State of Rajasthan, where the High Court had dismissed the appeal of a similarly situated candidate.
• The State contended that the cut-off date of 31 August 2009, should be strictly applied, and those who had taken admission after that date should have secured 50% marks in graduation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue was:

1. Whether the appellant, who secured admission to the B.Ed. course on 23 October 2009, but had less than 45% marks in graduation, was eligible for appointment as a teacher, given the NCTE notification of 13 November 2019 and the judgments in Neeraj Kumar Rai and Ankul Singhal.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Neeraj Kumar Rai and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Others [Civil Appeal No. 9732 of 2017 decided on 25.07.2017] – Supreme Court of India. The Court relied on this case to show the background of the NCTE notification of 13 November 2019 and the direction to issue a clarification regarding the percentage of marks.
• Sushil Sompura and Ors. Vs. State (Education) and Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3964 of 2011] – Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. The Court noted that the appellants in Neeraj Kumar Rai relied on this judgment, which held that minimum qualifying marks in graduation ought not to be insisted if admission to B.Ed. was obtained prior to the prescription of minimum qualifying marks by NCTE.
• Baldev Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. [Writ Petition No. 772(SS) of 2011] – Uttarakhand High Court. The Court noted that the appellants in Neeraj Kumar Rai relied on this judgment, which held that minimum qualifying marks in graduation ought not to be insisted if admission to B.Ed. was obtained prior to the prescription of minimum qualifying marks by NCTE.
• State of Rajasthan vs. Ankul Singhal [D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 545 of 2020] – Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. The Court relied on this case, which held that it would be discriminatory to differentiate between students of the same academic session based on their admission dates.
• Dinesh Chandra Damor vs. State of Rajasthan [D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1205 of 2019] – Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. The Court distinguished this case from the appellant’s case, noting that the candidate in this case had joined the course much later than the cut-off date.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994
• Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996
• Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Neeraj Kumar Rai and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Others [Civil Appeal No. 9732 of 2017] – The Supreme Court used this case to understand the background of the NCTE notification and the direction to issue clarification regarding the percentage of marks.
• Sushil Sompura and Ors. Vs. State (Education) and Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3964 of 2011] – The Court noted that this case was relied upon in Neeraj Kumar Rai, and it supported the argument that minimum qualifying marks in graduation should not be insisted if admission to B.Ed. was obtained prior to the prescription of minimum qualifying marks by NCTE.
• Baldev Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. [Writ Petition No. 772(SS) of 2011] – The Court noted that this case was relied upon in Neeraj Kumar Rai, and it supported the argument that minimum qualifying marks in graduation should not be insisted if admission to B.Ed. was obtained prior to the prescription of minimum qualifying marks by NCTE.
• State of Rajasthan vs. Ankul Singhal [D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 545 of 2020] – The Court relied on this case to support the argument that it is discriminatory to differentiate among students of the same academic session based on admission dates.
• Dinesh Chandra Damor vs. State of Rajasthan [D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1205 of 2019] – The Court distinguished this case from the appellant’s case, noting that the candidate in this case had joined the course much later than the cut-off date.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to avoid discrimination among similarly situated candidates and to give effect to the NCTE’s clarification. The Court emphasized that:

• The appellant secured admission to the B.Ed. course before the cut-off date of 31 August 2009.
• The NCTE notification of 13 November 2019, clarified that the minimum percentage of marks in graduation would not apply to those who had already taken admission to the B.Ed. course before 29 July 2011.
• The judgment in Ankul Singhal established that it would be discriminatory to differentiate between students of the same academic session based on their admission dates.
• The appellant’s case was similar to that of Rakesh Gaur, whose appeal was allowed by the Division Bench.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and precedents, with factual aspects playing a supporting role.

The court considered alternative interpretations, particularly the strict application of the cut-off date of 31 August 2009, as argued by the State. However, it rejected this interpretation, emphasizing that it would lead to an “absurd classification of a homogenous group of students” and would be discriminatory. The court also distinguished the case of Dinesh Chandra Damor, noting that the candidate in that case had joined the course much later than the cut-off date. The final decision was reached by prioritizing the need to avoid discrimination and to give effect to the NCTE’s clarification.

The court stated, “As was held in Ankul Singhal (supra), it will be improper to discriminate inter se among a homogenous group of students admitted for the academic session 2009-10.” The court also noted, “What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander too.” and further held that, “We are clearly of the opinion on the special facts of this case that the Division Bench erred in applying the case of Dinesh Chandra Damor (supra) instead of applying the reasoning in the judgment in Ankul Singhal (supra) and Rakesh Gaur (supra) to the facts of this case.”

Key Takeaways

• Candidates who secured admission to B.Ed. or equivalent courses before 29 July 2011, are not required to have a minimum percentage of marks in graduation for teacher recruitment.
• It is discriminatory to differentiate between students of the same academic session based on their admission dates, particularly when they are part of a homogenous group.
• Courts will look into the intent of the notifications and clarifications issued by regulatory bodies like NCTE and try to give effect to it.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent-authorities to treat the appointment given to the appellant, pursuant to the interim order of the Division Bench dated 23 October 2021, as a regular appointment and grant consequential benefits. The court also directed that the appellant shall not be entitled to any back wages except for the period he actually worked. However, fitment of pay shall be granted. Necessary orders were to be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that candidates who secured admission to B.Ed. or equivalent courses before 29 July 2011, are not required to have a minimum percentage of marks in graduation for teacher recruitment. This clarifies the position of law and ensures that similarly situated candidates are not discriminated against. This judgment reinforces the principle that regulatory notifications should be interpreted in a manner that promotes fairness and avoids arbitrary distinctions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Manilal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that Manilal was eligible for appointment as a teacher, as he had secured admission to the B.Ed. course before the cut-off date and was covered by the NCTE’s clarification. The judgment emphasizes the importance of avoiding discrimination among similarly situated candidates and giving effect to the intent of regulatory notifications.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Categories: Teacher Recruitment, Eligibility Criteria, National Council for Teacher Education, Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996

Parent Category: Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994

Child Categories: Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Manilal vs. State of Rajasthan case?
A: The main issue was whether candidates who secured admission to a B.Ed. course before a specified date, but with less than 50% marks in graduation, are eligible for teacher recruitment.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court decided that candidates who had secured admission to a B.Ed. course before 29 July 2011, are not required to have a minimum percentage of marks in graduation for teacher recruitment.

Q: What is the significance of the NCTE notification in this case?
A: The NCTE notification of 13 November 2019, clarified that the minimum percentage of marks in graduation would not apply to those who had already taken admission to the B.Ed. course before 29 July 2011. This clarification was crucial in the Supreme Court’s decision.

Q: What does this judgment mean for future teacher recruitments?
A: This judgment clarifies that candidates who secured admission to B.Ed. or equivalent courses before 29 July 2011, are not required to have a minimum percentage of marks in graduation. This ensures that similarly situated candidates are not discriminated against.

Q: What was the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision?
A: The Supreme Court reasoned that it would be discriminatory to differentiate between students of the same academic session based on their admission dates. The court also emphasized the importance of giving effect to the NCTE’s clarification.