Supreme Court Upholds 65-60% Cut-off for Assistant Teacher Recruitment Exam: Ram Sharan Maurya vs. State of UP (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 18 November 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 859
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.
Can a state government increase the minimum qualifying marks for a recruitment exam after the exam has already been conducted? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the recruitment of assistant teachers in Uttar Pradesh. This judgment clarifies the extent of the state’s power to set qualifying criteria and the rights of candidates participating in the recruitment process. The bench, comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, delivered a unanimous verdict upholding the state’s decision.

Case Background

The case revolves around the appointment of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools in Uttar Pradesh. Initially, the state government had appointed “Shiksha Mitras” (para-teachers) on a contractual basis. Subsequently, the government decided to absorb these Shiksha Mitras as regular Assistant Teachers. However, this decision was challenged, and the Supreme Court, in a previous judgment (State of U.P. and another vs. Anand Kumar Yadav and others), ruled that the absorption of unqualified Shiksha Mitras was illegal. The court, however, allowed the Shiksha Mitras to participate in the next two consecutive recruitment drives, with age relaxation and weightage for their experience.

Following this, the state government conducted two Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examinations (ATRE) in 2018 and 2019. The 2018 exam had a qualifying cut-off of 45% for general category and 40% for reserved categories. However, for the 2019 exam, the government initially did not specify any cut-off. After the exam was conducted, the government issued an order fixing the cut-off at 65% for general and 60% for reserved categories. This increase in the cut-off was challenged by the Shiksha Mitras.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Shiksha Mitras challenged the government’s decision to increase the cut-off marks in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. A Single Judge of the High Court ruled in favor of the Shiksha Mitras, stating that the increase in cut-off marks after the exam was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Single Judge also noted that the State Government had not explained the inclusion of B.Ed. candidates in the selection process and how their quality points would be determined. The State Government then appealed this decision. The Division Bench of the High Court overturned the Single Judge’s decision, stating that the government had the power to fix the cut-off marks and that the B.Ed. candidates were eligible to participate in the selection process. The Division Bench also clarified that the Shiksha Mitras did not constitute a homogenous class, and the government was within its rights to set different cut-off marks for the two exams.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• ✓ The National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act): This act established the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to regulate and maintain standards in teacher education. Section 12A empowers the council to determine minimum standards of education for school teachers.
• ✓ The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act): This act ensures free and compulsory education for children aged 6-14 years. Section 23 specifies that the minimum qualifications for teachers are to be laid down by an academic authority authorized by the Central Government. The NCTE was designated as this authority.
• ✓ The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972: This act regulates basic education in Uttar Pradesh.
• ✓ The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981: These rules lay down the sources of recruitment and qualifications for teachers in Uttar Pradesh. Rule 2(1)(x) defines “Qualifying Marks of Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination” as such minimum marks as may be determined from time to time by the Government.

The Court emphasized that the NCTE is the designated authority to set the qualifications for teachers, and the state government must adhere to these qualifications. The Court also noted that the state government has the power to determine the minimum qualifying marks for the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination (ATRE) from time to time.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Shiksha Mitras:

• ✓ The 1,37,500 Shiksha Mitras, whose absorption was set aside by the court, form a homogeneous class.
• ✓ The increase in cut-off from 45-40% in 2018 to 65-60% in 2019 created an arbitrary distinction between two sets of Shiksha Mitras.
• ✓ The cut-off was fixed after the exam, which is equivalent to changing the rules of the game after it has started.
• ✓ Shiksha Mitras, with 15 years of experience, cannot be compared to fresh graduates with B.Ed/BTC qualifications.
• ✓ The high cut-off denies Shiksha Mitras the weightage for experience they were entitled to.
• ✓ The ATRE-2019 became the principal selection criteria, instead of being one of the indicia.
• ✓ The high cut-off would affect other reserved categories like ex-servicemen and persons with disabilities.
• ✓ B.Ed. candidates could not be directly appointed as Assistant Teachers but as Trainee Teachers, as per the rules, and the government did not decide the number of Trainee Teachers.
• ✓ Amendments to the rules to include B.Ed. candidates were made after the exam and were retrospective, which is beyond the power of the state.

Arguments on behalf of the State Government and B.Ed./BTC candidates:

• ✓ The State has the power to fix the cut-off marks, as per Rule 2(1)(x) of the 1981 Rules.
• ✓ The decision to fix the cut-off was initiated before the exam.
• ✓ The reasons for fixing the cut-off were to narrow down the scope of selection and achieve higher academic standards.
• ✓ The pattern of the 2019 exam was different from the 2018 exam, with multiple choice questions instead of descriptive answers.
• ✓ There was no change in the rules of the game as the cut-off marks were prescribed for the first time.
• ✓ The ATRE is valid only for a particular year of recruitment, and candidates must abide by the conditions of that exam.
• ✓ Shiksha Mitras from the 2018 and 2019 exams do not form a homogeneous class.
• ✓ The cut-off was to ensure that the best candidates are selected, and since 60% of the ATRE marks were to be considered in the final merit, the candidates would have given their best.
• ✓ The eligibility of B.Ed. candidates was never challenged before the Single Judge.
• ✓ The guidelines for the 2019 exam mentioned that the eligibility would be as per NCTE notifications, including the one dated 28.06.2018, which made B.Ed. candidates eligible.
• ✓ The 1981 Rules were amended prior to the commencement of the recruitment to allow for direct recruitment of B.Ed. candidates.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues:

1. Whether the fixation of 65-60% as minimum qualifying marks for ATRE-2019 was arbitrary and irrational.
2. Whether the fixation of minimum qualifying marks after the ATRE-2019 was conducted was valid.
3. Whether the B.Ed. candidates were eligible to participate in the selection process.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that:

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• ✓ The Supreme Court [State of U.P. and another vs. Anand Kumar Yadav and others (2018) 13 SCC 560]* explained the background of the case and the directions given to the State regarding Shiksha Mitras.
• ✓ The Supreme Court [State of Maharashtra vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others (2006) 9 SCC 1]* discussed the legislative competence of the Parliament and the State Legislature regarding education.
• ✓ The Supreme Court [Basic Education Board, U.P. vs. Upendra Rai and others (2008) 3 SCC 432]* clarified the scope of the NCTE Act and its applicability to ordinary educational institutions.
• ✓ The Supreme Court [State of Haryana vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and others (1974) 3 SCC 220]* explained that the existence of vacancies does not give a right to a candidate to be selected.
• ✓ The Supreme Court [State of U.P. etc. v. Rafiquddin and others etc. 1987 (Supp) SCC 401]* distinguished between a normal test and a competitive examination.
• ✓ The Supreme Court [K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2008) 3 SCC 512]* cited the principle that rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has started, but the Court distinguished it from the present case.
• ✓ The Supreme Court [P. Mahendran and others etc. v. State of Karnataka and others (1990) 1 SCC 411]* stated that rules which are prospective in nature cannot take away the rights of candidates, but distinguished it from the present case.
• ✓ The Supreme Court [Madan Mohan Sharma and another v. State of Rajasthan and others (2008) 3 SCC 724]* held that the selection process should continue on the basis of the criteria laid down in the advertisement, but distinguished it from the present case.
• ✓ The Supreme Court [Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another etc. vs. State of M.P. and others etc. (1999) 7 SCC 120]* discussed the power of the State to lay down additional norms for admission, but distinguished it from the present case.
• ✓ The Supreme Court [Yogesh Yadav vs. Union of India and others (2013) 14 SCC 623]* held that fixing a benchmark for selection is permissible in law.
• ✓ The Supreme Court [Jharkhand Public Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar Gupta (2020) 1 SCALE 504]* held that the moderation committee can decide the cut-off marks even at a later stage.
• ✓ The Supreme Court [Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Surender Singh and others (2019) 8 SCC 67]* held that the selection board has the discretion to fix minimum qualifying marks.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors:

• The need to maintain the quality of education by selecting the best candidates.
• The power of the state government to fix minimum qualifying marks from time to time.
• The fact that the nature and difficulty level of the 2019 exam were different from the 2018 exam.
• The necessity of a common platform for all candidates to be tested on their merit.
• The fact that even with the 65-60% cut-off, a considerable number of candidates qualified, indicating that the cut-off was not unduly high.
• The need to align the state rules with the NCTE notifications regarding the eligibility of B.Ed. candidates.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court rejected the argument that the cut-off was exclusionary and stated that Shiksha Mitras were given a fair chance to compete. The Court also held that the state government had the power to fix the cut-off even after the exam, as long as it was not arbitrary and was done to select the best candidates.

“…the State is not competent to relax the qualifications.”

“…the Shiksha Mitras were never appointed as teachers as per applicable qualifications…”

“…the State Government was bound to permit them to participate in the ARTE – 2019 passing which is the minimum qualification to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher.”

The Court also clarified that the B.Ed. candidates were eligible for the posts of Assistant Teachers, as per the NCTE notification and the subsequent amendments to the state rules. The Court emphasized that the NCTE is the designated authority to set the qualifications for teachers, and the state government must adhere to these qualifications.

The Court did not find any merit in the argument that the state government should have provided a separate yardstick for Shiksha Mitras. The Court noted that all candidates, including Shiksha Mitras, were given a fair chance to compete, and the cut-off was designed to select the best candidates.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The state government has the power to fix minimum qualifying marks forrecruitment exams, and this power can be exercised even after the exam has been conducted, provided it is not arbitrary and is done to select the best candidates.
• ✓ The state must adhere to the qualifications laid down by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) when recruiting teachers.
• ✓ The objective of recruitment exams is to select the best candidates, and the state is justified in setting a cut-off to achieve this objective.
• ✓ The existence of vacancies does not give a right to a candidate to be selected.
• ✓ The same cut-off need not be applied for different exams, especially if the nature and difficulty level of the exams are different.
• ✓ The principle that rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has started does not apply to the fixation of cut-off marks, as long as the government has the power to do so.
• ✓ Shiksha Mitras, although having experience, are not a homogenous class and cannot claim preferential treatment over other candidates.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Ram Sharan Maurya vs. State of UP (2020) is a significant ruling that clarifies the extent of the state’s power to set qualifying criteria for recruitment exams. The court upheld the state’s decision to increase the cut-off marks for the 2019 Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, emphasizing the need to select the best candidates and maintain the quality of education. This judgment also underscores the importance of adhering to the qualifications laid down by the NCTE and the state’s power to fix cut-off marks from time to time. The Court’s analysis of the various arguments and the authorities cited provides valuable insights into the legal framework governing teacher recruitment in India.