RAJENDRA TUDU AND ORS Vs. HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed for quashing the Notification No. 1682 dated 05.09.2012, whereby and whereundere Respondent no.2 notified Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012. It is further prayed that Condition No.2 (Jha) of the Advertisement No. 95/12 be also quashed, whereby qualifying marks in the Jharkhand Eligibility Test for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidtes have been increased from 50% to 52%.

(2.) It is stated that petitioners are members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community. It is further stated that petitioners participated in the eligibility test examination for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher, in response to the advertisement No. 95/12, issued by Jharkhand Academic Council. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 secured 75 marks, petitioner no.2 secured 77 marks, whereas petitioner no.3 secured 74 marks out of 150 marks,but they have not been declared successful, because their marks are below 52%. It is stated that in the previous Rule, issued in the year 2011, the qualifying marks for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates was 50%, whereas qualifying marks for O.B.C. Candicates was 60%. But in the impugned, the qualifying marks of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates have been increased from 50% to 52%, whereas the qualifying marks of O.B.C.candidates have been reduced from 60% to 52%. It is submitted that the aforesaid action of the respondents in increasing the qualifying marks of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates is violative of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constititution of India, therefore, part of the impugned Rule is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that since the advertisement has been iseud on the basis of aforesaid unconstitutional Rule, therefore, the advertisement as well as examination held on that basis are liable to be quashed.

(3.) A counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent no.2 -State, wherein it is stated that Government of India had enacted an Act namely, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which provides that any person who are possessing minimum qualification, laid down by an Academic Authority, authorised by the Government of India shall be eligible for appointment on the post of teacher. It is stated that the Government of India authorised the National Council for Teacher Education ( N.C.T.E.) for laying down minimum qualification for appointment on the post of teacher. Accordingly, N.C.T.E has laid down the minimum qualification vide notification dated 03.08.2010 for a person to be eligible for appointment on the post of teacher of Class I to Class VIII. It is provided in the above notification that besides requisite educational qualification, a person must pass Teacher Eligibility Test ( herein after referred as the TET ) conducted by the appropriate government in accordance with the guidelines framed by the N.C.T.E. It appears that N.C.T.E. issued a guideline vide letter dated 11.02.2011 ( Annexure -A to the said counter affidavit). As per the said guidelines, a person who secured 60% or more markis in the TET examination will be considered as TET pass. However, in the said guidelines, it is also stated that the State Government may consider for giving concession to the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, O.B.C and differently abled persons in accordance with their reservation policy. It is stated that in pursucnace of the above guidelines, a Rule framed in the State of Jharkhand vide Notification No. 1632 dated 05.09.2012, wherein it is made mandatory for General candidate to obtain 60% marks for qualifying in TET examination, whereas 52% qualifying marks fixed for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribe, O.B.C and differently abled persons. It is further stated that the aforesaid fixation of qualifying marks have been done as per the guidelines of N.C.T.E. Thus, there is no illegality in the same. It is submitted that all the candidates belonging to reserved category have been treated equally, thus, there is no discrimination.