ARUN TEWARI AND ORS. versus ZILA MANSAVI SHIKSHAK SANGH AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 604 · Decided: 01-12-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ARUN TEWARI AND ORS. 
v. 
ZILA MANSA VI SHJKSHAK SANGH AND ORS. ETC. 
DECEMBER I, 1997 
B 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.) 
Service Law-Madhya Pradesh Non Gazetted class Ill Education Service 
(Non Collegiate Service) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1973-Rule 
10(3)-Proviso--Recruitment of Assistant Teachers-Operation Black Board 
C Scheme-Appointment of an Additional Teacher in all primary middle Schools 
which had only one teacher-Amendments relating to criteria and procedure 
for selection made in the rules by two notifications dated 10-5-93 and 17-6-
93 and circulars of the School Education Department dated 5-8-93 and 9-
8-93-Validity of-Power to prescribe criteria and qualification-Qualification 
D prescribed as 'Basic Training Certificate or B: Ed Degree '-Reasonableness 
of-Held, A higher qualification which is prescribed for a particular scheme 
cannot be considered as violative of Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution 
of India-Judgment of the Tribunal striking down the two amendments and 
the circulars set aside-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 and 16. 
E 
Recruitment Procedure-Inviting applications from employment 
Exchanges instead of by advertisement-Special circumstances requiring a 
speedier process of selection and appointment-Procedure held 10 be not 
unfair. 
Practice and procedure-Necessary parties-Non-joinder of-Tribunal 
F passed the impugned order without making the selected! appointed candidates 
as parties who were directly affected-Decision of the Tribunal held to be 
vitiated. 
Administrative Law-Delegation of power by the State Govt. to itself in 
the matter of criteria and procedure for recruitment-Whether unguided and 
G exc;essive-Held, the question of excessive delegation does not arise because 
the rule making authority has given to itself the power to prescribe criteria 
and procedure for selection in specific circumstances. 
H 
During the eighth plan period, the Central Govt., in order to improve 
the standa~ds of education, sponsored a scheme known as Operation Black 
604 
.. 
ARUN TEWARI v. ZILA M.S.S. 
605 
Board Scheme. State of Madhya Pradesh proposed to appoint an Additional A 
Teacher in all primary/middle schools which had only one teacher. Under the 
rules, the recruitment of Assistant teachers was direct by way of competitive 
examination followed by an interview. In order to expedite the implementation 
of the Operation Black Board Scheme, amendments were made in the M.P. 
Non Gazetted Class III Education Service (Non Collegiate Service) B 
Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1973, by notifications published in M.P. 
Govt. Gazette (Extra Ordinary) dated 10-5-93 and 17-6-93 and circulars of 
the School Education Department dated 5-8-93 and 9-8-93. Rule 10 (3) of the 
Recruitment Rules was amended by adding a proviso which gave to the State 
Govt. the power to prescribe the criteria and procedure for the selection of 
candidates in :>ny specific circumstance. Pursuant to this, the School C 
Education Department proposed a scheme for selection of Assistant Teachers 
which was duly approved by the Governor. The qualification for recruitment 
of Assistant Teachers was prescribed as "Basic Training Certificate or B.Ed 
degree." The selection was to . be made district wise and the District 
Employment Exchanges sponsored eligible candidates from their list. They 
were interviewed by a selection committee and select lists were thereafter 
prepared in the order of merit. 
D 
The respondents who did not possess the requisite qualifications for 
being selected under the said scheme as Assistant Teachers challenged 
these amendments made in the provisions for recruitment of Assistant E 
Teachers before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which allowed 
their application. Aggrieved, the Appellants preferred the present appeals. 
CA 77 /95 and CA Nos. 8443-8446/97 were against order dt. 18/3/1994 of 
the M.P. Administrative Tribunal which struck down the amendments dated 
10-5-93 and 17-6-93 made in the Recruitment Rules and the circulars of the 
School Education Department dt. 5/8/93 and 9/8/93. C.A. 813/95 challenged F 
the order dated 31/10/94 of the M.P. Administrative Tribunal by which the 
appointment letters issued by the Deputy Director of Education to 86 selected 
persons were set aside. CA 4168/95 was against the order dt. 26/11/1994 
of the M.P. Administrative Tribunal by which the applications of the 48 
selected candidates whose appointm

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.