Date of the Judgment: 13 December 2019
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and M. R. Shah, J.
The Supreme Court of India addressed contempt petitions concerning the appointment of assistant teachers in Uttar Pradesh. The core issue was whether the State had violated previous court orders regarding the selection and appointment of teachers. The Court examined the timeline of events, the various interim orders passed, and the final judgment, ultimately dismissing the contempt petitions.
Case Background
The case originated from the State of Uttar Pradesh’s recruitment of assistant teachers, following the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) set minimum qualifications for teachers, including the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET). The State initially amended its rules to align with NCTE guidelines, but later changed the criteria, leading to legal challenges.
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad directed the State to proceed with the selection as per the original advertisement. The Supreme Court intervened with interim orders to fill the large number of vacant posts while the appeals were pending. These orders specified criteria such as minimum marks in TET for appointment.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 31st March, 2010 | Central Government authorizes NCTE to lay down minimum qualifications for teachers. |
| 23rd August, 2010 | NCTE issues notification laying down qualifications for appointment of teachers for elementary education. |
| 11th February, 2011 | NCTE issues guidelines for conduct of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET). |
| 9th November, 2011 | The 1981 Rules of the State were amended to bring the same in consonance with the Notifications dated 23rd August, 2010 and 11th February, 2011. |
| 13th November, 2011 | TET was held. |
| 25th November, 2011 | Result of TET was declared. |
| 30th November, 2011 | An advertisement was issued for appointment of ‘trainee teachers’ in primary schools. |
| 31st December, 2011 | Amount of several lacs was seized with lists of candidates, FIR No. 675 of 2011 was lodged. |
| 10th April, 2012 | State constituted a high powered committee headed by the Chief Secretary. |
| 1st May, 2012 | The committee gave its report. |
| 26th July, 2012 | The State Government took a decision to change the criteria of selection. |
| 31st August, 2012 | 15th Amendment to the 1981 rules was made. |
| 7th December, 2012 | A fresh advertisement was issued which came to be challenged. |
| 16th January, 2013 | Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions. |
| 31st May, 2013 | Full Bench judgment in Shiv Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. State of U.P. and ors. |
| 25th March, 2014 | Supreme Court directs Uttar Pradesh to fill vacancies as per High Court order. |
| 17th December, 2014 | Supreme Court modifies order, directing appointment of candidates with 70% (General) or 65% (Reserved) marks in TET. |
| 25th February, 2015 | Supreme Court directs State to fill 29,174 vacancies. |
| 2nd November, 2015 | Supreme Court notes 43,077 candidates appointed and 15,058 undergoing training, with 14,640 posts vacant. |
| 7th December, 2015 | Supreme Court directs appointment of 12,091 eligible candidates subject to verification. |
| 6th February, 2016 | State publishes advertisement for left out candidates. |
| 8th February, 2016 | State publishes another advertisement for left out candidates. |
| 1st October, 2016 | State files affidavit stating 64,257 vacancies filled and 1,536 appointments under process. |
| 25th July, 2017 | Supreme Court delivers final judgment upholding NCTE qualifications but not mandating weightage to TET marks. |
| May, 2018 | Contempt petitions filed alleging violation of court orders. |
| 20th August, 2018 | Notice issued in the Contempt Petition. |
| 4th October, 2018 | Supreme Court directs State to produce records of 12,091 candidates. |
| 29th January, 2019 | State presents category-wise chart. |
| 27th February, 2019 | Supreme Court notes irregularities in the chart. |
| 22nd July, 2019 | Supreme Court directs State to file an affidavit with specific details. |
| 13th December, 2019 | Supreme Court dismisses the contempt petitions. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the writ petitions challenging the State’s decision to change the selection criteria. However, a Division Bench of the same High Court allowed the appeals, holding that the NCTE guidelines were binding. The State of Uttar Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of these appeals, the Supreme Court issued several interim orders to address the urgent need for teachers. These orders directed the State to appoint candidates who met certain criteria, such as securing at least 70% marks in the TET for the general category and 65% for reserved categories.
Legal Framework
The judgment references the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), particularly Section 23, which empowers the Central Government to authorize an academic authority to set minimum qualifications for teachers. The Central Government authorized the NCTE to act as the academic authority. The NCTE issued notifications on 23rd August, 2010, and 11th February, 2011, laying down qualifications and guidelines for the TET. The State of Uttar Pradesh initially amended its rules in 1981 to align with these guidelines. The court also considered the 15th Amendment to the 1981 rules.
The Supreme Court noted that the NCTE was competent to issue the notifications under Section 23 of the RTE Act and Sections 12 and 12A of the NCTE Act. The Court also noted that the State Government was obligated to act as per the said notifications.
Arguments
The petitioners argued that the State had violated the Supreme Court’s interim orders by not appointing all candidates who had secured the required marks in the TET. They contended that the State had incorrectly calculated the number of appointments made and had sidelined candidates who were part of the list of 12,091 eligible candidates. The petitioners also highlighted that the State had not provided a satisfactory explanation for why only 391 candidates were selected out of the 12,091.
The State countered that it had followed the court’s orders and that the appointments were made based on the availability of vacancies in each district and the candidates’ preferences. The State explained that the 12,091 candidates were found eligible subject to verification of antecedents. The State further submitted that not all 12,091 candidates could be appointed because they either did not participate in the counseling process, did not opt for certain districts, or did not meet the cut-off marks for the districts they had chosen. The State also clarified that 64,257 vacancies were filled, 1,536 appointment letters were being issued, and 862 ad-hoc appointments were made, totaling 66,655 appointments.
The State also submitted that the reasons for not appointing all the persons who were part of list of 12 ,091 candidates were available on record from October 2016 onwards. The State also submitted that no grievance was made till the matter was disposed of in July 2017.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Petitioners | Sub-Submissions by State |
|---|---|---|
| Violation of Court Orders |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was whether the State of Uttar Pradesh had violated the interim orders of the Court, which had merged into the final judgment dated 25.07.2017, regarding the appointment of assistant teachers. The sub-issues were:
- Whether the State had correctly calculated the number of appointments made.
- Whether the State had sidelined eligible candidates who were part of the list of 12,091.
- Whether the State had provided a satisfactory explanation for not appointing all 12,091 candidates.
- Whether the State had given appointments to those who did not fulfill the criteria laid down by the court.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court:
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Whether the State violated interim orders by not appointing all candidates with required TET marks. | The Court found that the State had not violated the orders. The interim orders were meant to ensure that the posts were filled and did not guarantee appointment to all eligible candidates. |
| Whether the State had incorrectly calculated the number of appointments. | The Court accepted the State’s explanation that 64,257 vacancies were filled, 1,536 appointment letters were being issued, and 862 ad-hoc appointments were made, totaling 66,655 appointments. |
| Whether the State had sidelined eligible candidates from the list of 12,091. | The Court acknowledged that only 391 candidates from the list of 12,091 were appointed because others did not participate in the counseling, did not opt for certain districts or did not meet the cut-off marks for the districts they had chosen. |
| Whether the State had given appointments to those who did not fulfill the criteria laid down by the court. | The Court found that no fresh appointments were made after October 2016 and no person was given appointment who did not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Court. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. The court primarily relied on its own previous orders and the affidavits filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The relevant legal provisions considered by the court were:
- Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act): This section empowers the Central Government to authorize an academic authority to set minimum qualifications for teachers.
- Notifications issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) on 23rd August, 2010, and 11th February, 2011: These notifications laid down qualifications and guidelines for the TET.
- Sections 12 and 12A of the NCTE Act: These sections pertain to the functions and powers of the NCTE.
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) | Parliament | The Court used it to establish the legal basis for the NCTE’s authority to set teacher qualifications. |
| Notifications issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) on 23rd August, 2010, and 11th February, 2011 | NCTE | The Court used these notifications to determine the validity of the State’s actions regarding the TET and teacher appointments. |
| Sections 12 and 12A of the NCTE Act | Parliament | The Court used these sections to establish the legal basis for the NCTE’s authority to set teacher qualifications. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Petitioners’ submission that the State violated court orders by not appointing all eligible candidates. | The Court rejected this submission, stating that the interim orders were to fill vacancies, not guarantee appointment to all eligible candidates. |
| Petitioners’ submission that the State incorrectly calculated the number of appointments. | The Court accepted the State’s calculation of 66,655 appointments based on 64,257 vacancies filled, 1,536 appointment letters issued, and 862 ad-hoc appointments. |
| Petitioners’ submission that the State sidelined candidates from the list of 12,091. | The Court acknowledged that only 391 candidates from the list were appointed due to non-participation, district preferences, or not meeting cut-offs. |
| State’s submission that no fresh appointments were made after October 2016. | The Court accepted the submission and found that no person was given appointment who did not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Court. |
The Court found no merit in the contempt petitions. It noted that the reasons for not appointing all 12,091 candidates were on record since October 2016. The Court also observed that the challenge was raised more than a year after the final judgment. The Court held that there was no violation of any of its orders.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The fact that the State had made substantial appointments in compliance with the Court’s orders.
- The State’s explanation that not all 12,091 candidates could be appointed due to various reasons such as non-participation in counseling, district preferences, and not meeting cut-off marks.
- The delay in raising the grievance, which was more than a year after the final judgment.
- The State’s detailed affidavit showing that no fresh appointments were made after October 2016 and no person was given appointment who did not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Court.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Compliance with Court Orders | 30% |
| State’s Explanation | 35% |
| Delay in Raising Grievance | 20% |
| Absence of Fresh Appointments | 15% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court emphasized that the interim orders were passed to ensure that the posts were filled in the interest of the student community and not to guarantee appointment to every eligible candidate. The Court also highlighted that the State had provided sufficient explanation for not appointing all 12,091 candidates.
The Court quoted its earlier order dated 17.12.2014, which stated:
“It shall be mentioned in the appointment letter that their appointment shall be subject to the result of these appeals and they shall not claim any equity because of the appointment, for it is issued on the basis of the direction passed by this Court.”
The Court also noted the submissions of the State:
“The State Government has also placed on record the District wise break -up of all candidates appointed in various categories in all 75 Districts of the State.”
The Court concluded:
“In the totality of the circumstances, in our view, there has not been any violation of any of the order s passed by this Court as alleged in the contempt petitions or otherwise.”
Key Takeaways
- Interim orders by the Supreme Court are meant to address immediate needs and do not guarantee permanent appointments.
- The State is required to provide clear reasons for its actions, particularly when not following the literal interpretation of court orders.
- Delay in raising grievances can weaken the case.
- The court will consider the overall context and circumstances before deciding on contempt petitions.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case. The court simply closed the contempt petitions.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that interim orders passed by the Supreme Court are to be interpreted in the context of the circumstances under which they were passed. These orders are not meant to create a right to appointment for all eligible candidates but are meant to ensure that the posts are filled to address the immediate need. The judgment does not alter any previous positions of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petitions, finding no violation of its previous orders by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court accepted the State’s explanation for not appointing all candidates from the list of 12,091 and emphasized that the interim orders were meant to fill vacancies, not guarantee appointments to all eligible candidates. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to court orders while also recognizing the practical challenges faced by the State in implementing them.