OMKAR SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 894 · Decided: 16-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA, S. ABDUL NAZEER, M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
894
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
OMKAR SINGH
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.5564 of 2019)
JULY 16, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions: Eligibility criteria for
appearing in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) – NCTE by Notification
dated 23.08.2010 laid down minimum qualification for a person to
be eligible for appointment as a teacher in class I to VII – One of
the eligibility criteria stated therein is “passed in the TET to be
conducted by appropriate government in accordance with the
guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose”  – The eligibility
for the TET examination is provided in Para 5 of the NCTE Guidelines
– Para 5 of the guidelines states that the incumbents who have
acquired the qualification academic as well as professional can
apply for TET examination – The second category of candidates
who can apply for TET examination is those who are “pursuing”
any TTC – Issue involved in these appeals is the meaning and
interpretation of the word “pursuing” as appearing in Para 5(ii) of
the NCTE Guidelines –  Held: The meaning of “pursuing” is a person
who is undergoing any of TTC – He/she must have been admitted
and pursuing TTC which is prescribed as a qualification –
Declaration of the result, appearing in the examination or date of
filling up of the forms, etc. cannot be the criteria to appear in the
TET examination – Therefore, a candidate who is undergoing i.e.,
“pursuing” the requisite TTC shall be eligible to appear in the TET
examination – By impugned order, Division Bench of the High Court
in respect of eligibility held that as on the last date specified for
filling up the online form for TET examination, the candidates must
have appeared in the examination (of TTC) and the result has not
been declared – These riders are not proper in view of clear language
used in clause 5(ii) of the NCTE guidelines – Division Bench of
High Court read into and/or added something more than what is
provided in clause 5(ii) of the NCTE guidelines – The language
[2019] 10 S.C.R. 894
   894
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
895
used in clause 5 (ii) of the NCTE guidelines is simple, clear and
unambiguous – In the instant case, admittedly, on the cut-off date,
all the candidates were pursuing the concerned TTC – Thereafter,
all of them cleared the TET examination as well as cleared the
concerned TTC – At the time when they were appointed as Assistant
Teachers, all of them fulfilled the eligibility criteria for appointment
as Assistant Teachers – All of them passed the TET examination and
also passed the TTC as per the requisite eligibility criteria – Thus,
ousting certain incumbents by the High Court cannot be sustained
since they were pursuing TTC and they were clearly eligible to
appear in the TET examination and passed it while pursuing the
requisite professional qualification for being eligible to be appointed
as Assistant Teachers – The respective appellants whose
appointments were challenged were eligible to appear in the TET
examination at the time they were “pursuing” the concerned TTC –
Thus, the decision of the High Court, to the aforesaid extent, is not
sustainable – The impugned orders of the High Court are accordingly
modified to the aforesaid extent – As regards the submission with
regard to persons who have passed Graduation without Science or
Mathematics as one of the subjects is concerned, the concerned
District Education Officers are directed to carry out the exercise to
find out such candidates who are Graduate and have been appointed
as Assistant Teachers without having Science or Mathematics as
one of the subjects, within a period of three months – Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2017 – s.23 –
Interpretation of statutes – Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972
– s.2(1)(b) – Teacher Training – Uttar Pradesh Basic Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 – r.8 – NCTE Guidelines.
Interpretation of  Statutes: As per the cardinal principle of
the rule of interpretation, while construing a particular provision,
the particular provision is required to be read as it is and nothing is
to be added or taken away – Education/Educational Institutions.
Interpretation of Statutes: The expression ‘rule of literal
construction’ lays down that words of a statute are first understood
in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and phrases, and
sentences are construed according to their grammatical meaning –
Education/Educational 

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