Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for Candidates Pursuing Teacher Training Courses: Omkar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 16 July 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 710

Judges: Arun Mishra, S. Abdul Nazeer, M.R. Shah

Can a candidate who is currently enrolled in a teacher training program appear for the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), or is it necessary to have completed the course? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, clarifying the eligibility criteria for the TET. This case revolves around the interpretation of the term “pursuing” in the context of teacher training courses and the TET. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, S. Abdul Nazeer, and M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case involves several appeals against a judgment by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The core issue is whether candidates enrolled in a Teachers Training Course (TTC), recognized by the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) or the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI), could appear for the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) conducted by the NCTE.

The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972, defines basic education as education up to Class VIII. The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, framed under this Act, specify the qualifications for Assistant Teachers, including a Bachelor’s degree, a training qualification (like B.T.C., C.T., B.Ed., or B.Ed. Special Education), and passing the TET.

The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, authorized the NCTE to set minimum qualifications for teachers. The NCTE, through a notification dated 23.08.2010, mandated that candidates must have a relevant degree and pass the TET to be eligible for teaching positions in Classes I to VIII.

The NCTE guidelines for conducting TET specify that those who have acquired the necessary academic and professional qualifications or are ‘pursuing’ any teacher education courses are eligible to appear for the TET.

In 2011, the State of Uttar Pradesh initially allowed candidates with a B.A., B.Sc., or B.Com. and a TTC to appear for TET. This was later amended to include “Graduates” and those appearing in the final year of TTC. Subsequently, the state allowed candidates who were pursuing TTC to appear for the TET provisionally, with the condition that their TET certificate would only be valid after passing the TTC examination. The appellants in this case had appeared for the TET while they were pursuing their TTC and were later appointed as Assistant Teachers.

In 2017, the appointments were challenged, stating that some appointees did not have the required qualifications, and some had appeared for TET without completing their TTC. The High Court ruled that only those in the final year of their training course were eligible to appear for TET. This led to the appeals before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The judgment considers the following legal provisions:

• Section 2(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972: Defines basic education as education up to class VIII, excluding high schools and intermediate colleges.
• Section 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972: Grants the State Government the power to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act.
• Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981: Specifies the essential qualifications for Assistant Masters and Mistresses, including a Bachelor’s degree in Science and Mathematics, a training qualification, and passing the TET.
• Section 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009: Authorizes the Central Government to appoint an academic authority (NCTE) to lay down minimum qualifications for teachers.
• Article 21A of the Constitution of India: Mandates the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children aged 6 to 14 years.
• NCTE Notification dated 23.08.2010: Lays down the minimum qualifications for teachers in Classes I to VIII, including passing the TET. The notification states:

  “1. Minimum Qualifications:­
  (I) Classes I­V
  (a) Senior Secondary (or it’s equivalent) with at least 50 % marks and a 2­year diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
  or
  Senior Secondary (or it’s equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2­year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002.
  or
  Senior Secondary (or it’s equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)
  or
  Senior Secondary (or it’s equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2­year 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 guideline framed by the NCTE for the purpose.
  (ii) Classes VI­VIII
  (a) B.A./B.Sc and 2­year 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 it’s 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./B.Sc.Ed. Or B.A.Ed./B.Sc.Ed.
  Or
  B.A./B.Sc. With at least 50% marks and 1­year B.Ed.(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.”

• Second Proviso to Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009: Requires teachers appointed before 31st March 2015, who do not possess the minimum qualifications, to acquire them within four years from the commencement of the 2017 Amendment Act.
• Para 5 of the Guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test (TET): Specifies the eligibility for appearing in the TET.

  “5 The following persons shall be eligible for appearing in the TET:
  i) A person who has acquired the academic and professional qualifications specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August 2010;
  ii) A person who is pursuing any of the teacher education courses (recognized by the NCTE or the RCI, as the case may be) specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23 rd August 2010;
  iii. The eligibility condition for appearing in TET may be relaxed in respect of a State/UT which has been granted relaxation under sub­section (2) of section 23 of the RTE Act. The relaxation will be specified in the notification issued by the Central Government under that sub­section.”

Arguments

The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation of the word “pursuing” in the NCTE guidelines. The arguments presented by the parties can be summarized as follows:

• Appellants’ Argument:
  • The appellants argued that the term “pursuing” should be interpreted literally to mean that any candidate who is admitted to and undergoing a teacher training course (TTC) is eligible to appear for the TET.
  • They contended that the High Court erred in adding riders to the eligibility criteria, such as requiring candidates to be in the final year of their TTC or to have appeared for the TTC exam before the last date for TET applications.
  • They emphasized that the NCTE guidelines do not specify any such additional conditions.
  • They argued that since they were pursuing TTC at the time of appearing for TET and have since passed both TET and TTC, they met all eligibility criteria for appointment as Assistant Teachers.
• Respondents’ Argument:
  • The respondents, who challenged the appointments, contended that the term “pursuing” should be interpreted to mean that only those candidates who are in the final year of their TTC or whose TTC results were awaited by the last date of TET application were eligible.
  • They argued that the appointments were illegal as some candidates did not have the required academic qualifications (graduation with Science or Mathematics) and some had appeared for TET without completing their TTC.
  • They relied on the High Court’s interpretation, which had added riders to the eligibility criteria.

The innovativeness of the argument lies in the appellants’ literal interpretation of “pursuing,” which directly challenged the High Court’s restrictive interpretation.

The following table demonstrates the submissions of both sides:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue for consideration:

1. What is the correct meaning and interpretation of the word “pursuing” as it appears in Clause 5(ii) of the NCTE guidelines, in the context of eligibility to appear for the TET examination?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Crawford v. Spooner [1846 SCC Online PC 7], Attorney General v. Milne [1914 AC 765 (HL)] and Grey v. Pearson [(1857) 6 HL Cas 61] to emphasize the rule of literal interpretation, stating that words in a statute should be given their natural and ordinary meaning unless it leads to absurdity.
• The Court considered the NCTE guidelines and held that the word “pursuing” should be given its literal meaning.
• The Court considered the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 and Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 to understand the educational framework and qualifications for teachers in Uttar Pradesh.
• The Court considered the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and Article 21A of the Constitution of India to understand the legislative intent behind ensuring quality education.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of literal interpretation of statutes and guidelines. The Court emphasized that the word “pursuing” should be given its natural and ordinary meaning, without adding any riders or conditions not explicitly stated in the NCTE guidelines. The Court’s reasoning focused on the following points:

• Literal Interpretation: The Court stressed that the word “pursuing” should be interpreted in its natural, ordinary, and popular sense. It rejected the High Court’s interpretation, which had added conditions not found in the NCTE guidelines.
• Clarity of Guidelines: The Court found the language in Clause 5(ii) of the NCTE guidelines to be clear and unambiguous. It held that the High Court had erred by adding riders to the eligibility criteria.
• Eligibility of Candidates: The Court noted that the appellants were admitted to a TTC, were undergoing the course, and had later passed both the TET and the TTC. It held that they had fulfilled the eligibility criteria for appointment as Assistant Teachers.
• Rejection of Additional Riders: The Court specifically rejected the High Court’s view that only those in the final year of their TTC or awaiting results were eligible. It held that such interpretations were not supported by the guidelines.

The following table shows the sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with all three judges concurring on the interpretation of “pursuing” and the eligibility criteria for TET. There were no dissenting opinions.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following principles:

• Literal Interpretation: The Court adhered to the principle of literal interpretation, stating that words should be given their natural and ordinary meaning.
• Rejection of Added Conditions: The Court rejected any conditions that were not explicitly mentioned in the NCTE guidelines, emphasizing that the guidelines should be read as they are.
• Ensuring Fairness: The Court’s decision ensured that candidates who were undergoing TTC and had later passed both TET and TTC were not unfairly excluded from the teaching profession.

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for future cases, as it clarifies the eligibility criteria for TET and reinforces the importance of literal interpretation of statutes and guidelines.

The Supreme Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reaffirmed the existing principles of statutory interpretation.

“Therefore, a candidate who is undergoing i.e., “pursuing” the requisite teacher training course (TTC) shall be eligible to appear in the TET examination.”

“The language used in clause 5 (ii) of the NCTE guidelines is simple, clear and unambiguous.”

“As per the dictionary meaning, the word “pursuing” means undergoing and/or proceeding further.”

Key Takeaways

• Candidates who are admitted to and undergoing a teacher training course (TTC) are eligible to appear for the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET).
• The term “pursuing” should be interpreted literally to mean undergoing a course, without any additional conditions or riders.
• The judgment clarifies the eligibility criteria for TET, ensuring that candidates are not unfairly excluded from appearing for the test.
• The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle of literal interpretation of statutes and guidelines.
• The decision impacts the appointments of teachers and the interpretation of eligibility criteria in similar cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the concerned District Education Officers to identify candidates who were appointed as Assistant Teachers without having Science or Mathematics as one of their subjects in their graduation degree. This exercise is to be completed within three months, considering the second proviso to Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2017.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the term “pursuing” in the NCTE guidelines should be interpreted literally, meaning that any candidate who is undergoing a teacher training course is eligible to appear for the TET. This judgment clarifies the eligibility criteria for the TET and reinforces the principle of literal interpretation of statutes and guidelines. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this judgment clarifies the interpretation of the term “pursuing” in the context of teacher eligibility.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Omkar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh clarifies that candidates “pursuing” a teacher training course are eligible to appear for the TET. The Court emphasized the literal interpretation of the word “pursuing” and rejected the additional conditions imposed by the High Court. This decision ensures fairness and clarity in the eligibility criteria for TET, reinforcing the importance of adhering to the plain language of statutes and guidelines.