Supreme Court Relaxes Graduation Marks for B.Ed. Teachers: Neeraj Kumar Rai vs. State of U.P. (25 July 2017)

Date of the Judgment: 25 July 2017
Citation: Civil Appeal No.9732 of 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14386 of 2015)
Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J., Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

Can a teacher be denied a job for not having 50% marks in graduation, even if they have a B.Ed. degree and 50% marks in post-graduation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of teachers in Uttar Pradesh. The core issue was whether a notification by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) could retroactively disqualify candidates who were previously eligible for teacher positions. The Supreme Court, in a two-judge bench comprising Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, ruled in favor of the teachers, offering relief to those who were caught in this qualification conundrum.

Case Background

The appellants in this case were candidates who possessed B.Ed. degrees, had more than 50% marks in their post-graduation, and had also qualified the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). They were seeking employment as teachers in Uttar Pradesh. The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), a statutory body, had issued a notification on 23rd August 2010, laying down qualifications for teachers. Subsequently, on 29th July 2011, the NCTE issued another notification which mandated that candidates must have 50% marks in graduation, in addition to other qualifications, for appointment as teachers. This new requirement created a problem for candidates who had been admitted to B.Ed. programs based on their post-graduation marks, as they did not necessarily have 50% in graduation. The State of Uttar Pradesh then declared these candidates ineligible, leading to the present dispute.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Act and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE). Specifically, Section 23(1) of the RTE Act empowers the NCTE to lay down qualifications for teachers. The NCTE’s regulations of 2001, as amended in 2003, prescribed qualifications for teacher recruitment. These regulations were further modified in 2007 and 2009, which specified that candidates needed 45% or 50% marks in either their Bachelor’s degree or Master’s degree for admission to B.Ed. programs. The NCTE notification dated 23rd August 2010, and the subsequent notification of 29th July 2011, are central to this case. The 2011 notification mandated 50% marks in graduation, which was not a requirement earlier for those with 50% in post-graduation, and this is the core of the dispute.

Arguments

The appellants argued that they possessed the necessary qualifications, including a B.Ed. degree, post-graduation with more than 50% marks, and the TET qualification. They contended that the NCTE’s regulations, prior to the 2011 notification, allowed candidates with 50% marks in post-graduation to be eligible for B.Ed. admission, and thus, they should not be disqualified for not having 50% in graduation. The appellants also pointed out that the NCTE had supported similarly placed candidates in other cases, and that High Courts of Rajasthan and Uttarakhand had ruled in favor of such candidates.

The NCTE, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, Mr. AS Nadkarni, fairly stated that the appellants should be treated at par with those covered by the Rajasthan and Uttarakhand High Court judgments, which the NCTE had accepted.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

• Whether candidates who had already passed B.Ed., had the requisite percentage in post-graduation, and were otherwise covered by the notification dated 23rd August 2010, could be excluded solely on the ground that their marks in graduation were less than the percentage prescribed in the notification dated 29th July 2011.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered several authorities in its decision-making process:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions made by the parties and the authorities presented before it. Here’s a breakdown:

The Court’s view of the authorities:

• Sushil Sompura and Ors. vs. State (Education) and Ors. [Rajasthan High Court]: The Court followed the ratio of this case, which favored candidates with post-graduation qualifications.
• Baldev Singh and ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors. [Uttarakhand High Court]: The Court followed the ratio of this case, which held that the restriction of having minimum percentage of marks in graduation is unreasonable, unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of fairness and the need to avoid arbitrary disqualification of candidates who were previously eligible. The Court emphasized that the NCTE’s stand in other cases and the judgments of the Rajasthan and Uttarakhand High Courts should be consistently applied. The Court also noted that the NCTE ought to have issued a clarification regarding the applicability of the 2011 notification.

The Court’s reasoning process for the issue can be summarized as follows:

The court did not consider any alternative interpretations. The final decision was reached by considering the factual matrix of the case, the stand of the NCTE, and the judgments of the Rajasthan and Uttarakhand High Courts.

The court decided that the candidates who had already passed B.Ed., had the requisite percentage in post-graduation and were otherwise covered by notification dated 23rd August, 2010, will not be excluded only on the ground that their marks in graduation were less than the percentage prescribed in the notification dated 29th July, 2011.

The reasons for the decision were:

• The candidates were eligible for B.Ed. admission based on their post-graduation marks.
• The NCTE had accepted similar judgments from the Rajasthan and Uttarakhand High Courts.
• Denying relief would be arbitrary and unfair.
• The NCTE should have issued a clarification by way of a supplementary notification.

The court stated:

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• Candidates with a B.Ed. degree and 50% marks in post-graduation cannot be disqualified from teaching positions solely for not having 50% marks in graduation, if they were eligible for B.Ed. admission based on their post-graduation marks.
• The NCTE is expected to issue a clarification regarding the applicability of the 2011 notification.
• Similarly placed candidates are entitled to put forward their claims for relief.
• The judgment emphasizes fairness and consistency in applying qualification criteria.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The NCTE should issue a clarification by way of a supplementary notification within one month.
• 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 may put forward their claim before the concerned authorities who may take a decision thereon in accordance with law within one month.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that candidates who were eligible for B.Ed. admission based on their post-graduation marks should not be disqualified for not having 50% marks in graduation, if they had the B.Ed. degree and 50% marks in post-graduation. This judgment clarifies that the 2011 notification should not be applied retroactively to disqualify candidates who were eligible under previous regulations. This decision ensures fairness and consistency in the application of teacher qualification criteria and provides relief to many candidates who were affected by the imposition of the new criteria.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Neeraj Kumar Rai vs. State of U.P. provides significant relief to B.Ed. candidates who were facing disqualification due to the 2011 NCTE notification. The Court emphasized fairness and consistency, ensuring that candidates who were eligible for B.Ed. admission based on their post-graduation marks are not penalized for not having 50% in graduation. The decision reinforces the principle that regulatory changes should not be applied retroactively to the detriment of individuals who were previously eligible.