Supreme Court clarifies eligibility for Special Education Teachers in Delhi: Govt. of NCT Delhi vs. Pradeep Kumar (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 24 October 2019

Citation: [2019] INSC 1021

Judges: R. Banumathi, J., A.S. Bopanna, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. (Author)

Can candidates who qualify for the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) under relaxed norms for Other Backward Classes (OBC) in states outside Delhi, be eligible for unreserved category positions in Delhi? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the recruitment of Special Education Teachers in Delhi. The core issue was whether candidates who availed of the 5% relaxation in CTET qualifying marks as OBC candidates from other states, could be considered for general category vacancies in Delhi, despite not meeting the general category qualifying marks in CTET. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna, and Hrishikesh Roy, with Justice Hrishikesh Roy authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) issued Advertisement No. 01/2013 for the recruitment of Special Education Teachers. The essential qualifications included a graduation degree with B.Ed (Special Education) or equivalent, and the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) qualification. The respondents, who were OBC candidates from states outside Delhi, qualified for CTET by availing a 5% relaxation in the qualifying marks. They applied for the vacancies in Delhi and appeared for the recruitment test. However, their candidatures were rejected because they were “CTET qualified as OBC but OBC outsider.” The respondents, despite scoring higher than some candidates selected under the general category, were deemed ineligible.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondents, aggrieved by the rejection of their candidatures, filed OA No. 1047 of 2014 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). They argued that they had scored more marks than the last selected candidates in the general category and should be considered for appointment. The CAT, relying on the judgment in Vikas Sankhla & Ors. v. Vikas Agarwal & Ors., directed the authorities to appoint the respondents based on their merit. The Government of NCT of Delhi challenged this order in the High Court of Delhi, arguing that the respondents could not avail OBC concessions as they were not residents of Delhi and could not be considered under the unreserved category as they did not meet the 60% CTET mark requirement for the general category. The High Court, however, upheld the CAT’s decision, stating that the advertisement did not specify that candidates with relaxed pass marks would be ineligible for the general category if they scored less than 60% in CTET. The High Court held that once a candidate had obtained the CTET qualification, the marks secured were immaterial for the unreserved category vacancies. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants.

Legal Framework

The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) issued a Notification on 23.08.2010, which stipulated the minimum qualifications for appointment as a teacher, including passing the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). Subsequently, on 11.02.2011, the NCTE issued Guidelines for conducting the TET, stating that a score of 60% in the TET examination would be considered as TET pass. It also provided for concessions to persons belonging to disadvantaged categories, in accordance with their extant reservation policy.

The Directorate of Education, Delhi, through its Notification dated 07.10.2011, stated that it would recognize the CTET conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). By another Notification dated 30.11.2012, it was added that candidates belonging to reserved categories such as SC/ST/OBC/PH would be allowed relaxation up to 5% in the qualifying marks in CTET conducted by the CBSE.

Clause 6(iii) of Advertisement No.1/13 stated that “The OBC candidates must be in possession of filled prescribed Annexure I, along with his/her caste certificate issued by the Govt. of Delhi only.“

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The respondents, having obtained the CTET qualification with lower pass marks under relaxed norms for the OBC category, were ineligible for employment in the General Category vacancies in Delhi.
• The judgment in Vikas Sankhla was erroneously applied by the Tribunal because, in the present case, mere qualification in the CTET has a bearing, unlike in Vikas Sankhla where CTET marks influenced the final merit.
• The respondents did not qualify with the normal pass marks (60%) and were thus ineligible for general category vacancies in Delhi.
• The Office Memorandums (OMs) dated 01.07.1998 and 04.04.2018 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training specify that when a relaxed standard is applied for a reserved category candidate, such candidates will be counted against reserved vacancies and not against unreserved vacancies.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The advertisement did not stipulate any minimum marks for eligibility; therefore, the respondents, having obtained the CTET qualification, cannot be deemed ineligible.
• The respondents secured higher marks in the recruitment test than some candidates selected for the General category vacancies. Rejecting their candidature would mean ignoring merit.
• The ratio in Vikas Sankhla was rightly applied to give relief to the Original Applicants who claim appointment on the basis of their merit position in the recruitment test.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the respondents who have secured the CTET qualification from outside Delhi as OBC candidates by availing 5% relaxation in the qualifying marks can be considered for employment against the post of Special Education Teacher in the Government of NCT, Delhi?
2. Whether the Respondents, after availing concession under the OBC category can compete for seats under the unreserved category?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon:

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Notification dated 23.08.2010 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), which provided for the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher.
• Guidelines issued by the NCTE on 11.02.2011 for conducting the TET, which provided that a person who scores 60% in the TET examination will be considered as TET pass.
• Notification dated 07.10.2011 of the Directorate of Education, Delhi, which stated that for appointment to the schools of Delhi, the GNCT, Delhi will recognize the CTET conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).
• Notification dated 30.11.2012 of the Directorate of Education, Delhi, which added that 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 CTET conducted by the CBSE.
• Office Memorandum (OM) dated 01.07.1998 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, which clarified that only SC/ST/OBC candidates who are selected on the same standard as applied to general candidates shall not be adjusted against reserved vacancies.
• Office Memorandum (OM) dated 04.04.2018 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Government of India, which reiterated that when a relaxed standard is applied in selecting a reserved candidate, such candidates will be counted against reserved vacancies.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Vikas Sankhla & Ors. v. Vikas Agarwal & Ors. [2017] 1 SCC 350: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it was decided on the peculiar facts of that case, where the marks in the TET examination had a bearing on the final merit list. In the present case, the Court noted that the benefit of relaxation was not neutralized by any other factor in the selection process.
• Deepa E.V. v. Union of India [2017] 12 SCC 680: The Court followed this case for the view taken vis-à-vis the OM dated 01.07.1998.
• The Court relied on the Office Memorandums (OMs) dated 01.07.1998 and 04.04.2018 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, which specified that when a relaxed standard is applied for a reserved category candidate, such candidates will be counted against reserved vacancies.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain the integrity of the reservation system and the standards of merit in the recruitment process. The Court emphasized that the relaxation in qualifying marks for reserved categories is meant to benefit those within the reserved category and not to allow them to compete in the unreserved category without meeting the general eligibility criteria. The Court also considered the Office Memorandums (OMs) that clearly stated that candidates who avail of relaxed standards in qualification must be counted against reserved vacancies and not against unreserved vacancies.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the respondents had secured higher marks than some candidates selected in the general category. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the respondents’ performance in the selection examination was irrelevant since they did not meet the basic eligibility criteria for the general category. The Court also considered the decision in Vikas Sankhla but distinguished it based on the specific facts of that case and the existence of the OMs, which barred migration to the unreserved category for those who availed of relaxation in standards. The Court concluded that allowing the respondents to compete for the general category vacancies would dilute merit in the unreserved category.

The Court quoted from the judgment: “…once this differentiation is understood, it would lead to the conclusion that no concession becomes available to the reserved category candidate by giving relaxation in the pass marks in TET insofar as recruitment process is concerned.”

The Court also stated: “The principles of reservation under the Constitution of India are intended to be confined to a specifically earmarked category and the unreserved category must be protected, to avoid dilution of competence and merit.”

Further, the Court observed: “To allow them to migrate and compete for the open category vacancies would not be permissible simply because, they have secured the CTET qualification with relaxation of pass marks meant for those belonging to the OBC category.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The three-judge bench unanimously agreed on the decision.

Key Takeaways

• Candidates who qualify for CTET under relaxed norms for reserved categories in states outside Delhi cannot be considered for general category vacancies in Delhi if they do not meet the general category qualifying marks.
• The benefit of relaxation in qualifying marks is specific to the reserved category and cannot be used to compete in the unreserved category without meeting the general eligibility criteria.
• Government orders and office memorandums regarding reservation policies must be strictly adhered to.
• The principle of merit should be protected in the unreserved category.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court of Delhi and allowed the appeal. The Court did not give any specific directions other than setting aside the judgment of the High Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that candidates who avail of relaxation in qualifying marks for reserved categories cannot be considered for unreserved vacancies if they do not meet the general eligibility criteria. This judgment clarifies the position of law regarding the migration of candidates from reserved categories to unreserved categories based on relaxed qualifying standards. It reinforces the principle that relaxation in qualifying marks is meant to benefit those within the reserved category and not to allow them to compete in the unreserved category without meeting the general eligibility criteria. This judgment also upholds the importance of adhering to the government’s office memorandums (OMs) regarding reservation policies.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Govt. of NCT Delhi vs. Pradeep Kumar clarifies that candidates who avail of relaxed qualifying standards for reserved categories cannot be considered for unreserved vacancies if they do not meet the general eligibility criteria. The Court emphasized the need to maintain the integrity of the reservation system and the standards of merit in the recruitment process. The judgment sets aside the High Court’s order and upholds the principle that candidates must meet the required standards for the category they are competing in.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Categories: Recruitment Rules, Reservation Policy, Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET), Other Backward Classes (OBC), Govt. of NCT Delhi

Parent Category: Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET)

Child Categories: Relaxation in Qualifying Marks, Eligibility Criteria, Govt. of NCT Delhi

FAQ

Q: Can a candidate who qualified for CTET with relaxed marks as an OBC candidate from another state be eligible for a general category position in Delhi?

A: No, according to the Supreme Court, such candidates are not eligible for general category positions in Delhi if they did not meet the general category qualifying marks in CTET. They are only eligible for OBC category positions if they have a valid OBC certificate from the Delhi government.

Q: What does the Supreme Court say about the importance of merit in recruitment?

A: The Supreme Court emphasized that the principles of reservation are meant for specific categories, and the unreserved category must be protected to avoid dilution of competence and merit. Candidates must meet the required standards for the category they are competing in.

Q: What was the main reason for the Supreme Court’s decision in this case?

A: The main reason was to uphold the integrity of the reservation system and to ensure that candidates who avail of relaxed standards for reserved categories do not compete in the unreserved category without meeting the general eligibility criteria. The Court also relied on government orders that specify that candidates who use relaxed standards must be counted against reserved vacancies.