RAM SHARAN MAURYA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

Citation: [2020] 12 S.C.R. 466 · Decided: 18-11-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 13 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
466
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 12 S.C.R.
RAM SHARAN MAURYA AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 etc.)
NOVEMBER 18, 2020
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Service Law:
Recruitment – To the post of Assistant Teacher of Junior Basic
School – By judgment in *Anand Kumar Yadav case ‘Shiksha Mitras’
were given opportunity to be considered for next two recruitments
to the post of Assistant Teacher – State amended U.P. Basic Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 making ‘Shiksha Mitras’ eligible
for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers of Junior Basic
Schools – Qualification for the same  included passing of Teachers
Eligibility Test (TET) and Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination
(ATRE) – For ATRE-2018, minimum qualifying marks for General
& OBC candidates was 45% and for SC/ST was 40% – Candidates
were selected for appointment – National Council for Teachers
Education by Notification dated 28.6.2018 laid down that
candidates holding B.Ed. degree could be entitled to be appointed
as teacher for classes I to V provided they undergo six months bridge
course – Rules 1981 were subsequently amended in terms of the
NCTE Notification dated 28.6.2018 with retrospective effect –
Thereafter ATRE-2019 was notified for filling up 69000 vacancies
for Assistant Teachers – The same was conducted without notifying
minimum qualifying marks – After conducting the exam, State
prescribed minimum qualifying marks i.e. 65% for General category
and 60% for all other reserved categories – Writ petitions filed by
‘Shiksha Mitras’ assailing fixation of minimum qualifying marks –
Single Judge of High Court allowed the wirt petition filed by ‘Shiksha
Mitras’ – In appeal, Division Bench of High Court reversed the
order of Single Judge – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: NCTE is
entitled to lay down the norms for appointment of teachers for classes
I to V – Such prescription is binding on the State – Amendment of
   [2020] 12 S.C.R. 466
466
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
467
1981 Rules has to be read in confirmity with the NCTE Notification
dated 28.6.2018 – The eligibility norms having already been
conferred by Notification dated 28.6.2018, amendments to 1981
Rules with retrospective effect cannot be said to have conferred
eligibility norms for the first time – Therefore, B.Ed. candidates were
rightly allowed to participate in the selection process – Cut-off marks
for ATRE-2019 at 65-60% cannot be termed as exclusionary or
illegal as the same was designed to garner the best talent which is
in consistence with the objectives of RTE Act – Government is
empowered to lay down minimum marks from time to time – Such
power can be exercised even after the examination is over, provided
such exercise is not actuated by any malice or ill-will – National
Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 – Right to Education
Act, 2005 – Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service
Rules, 1981 – Rules 2(1)(x), 8 and 14.
Dismissing the appeals preferred by Shiksha Mitras, ex-
servicemen and persons with disability and disposing of those
filed by B.Ed./B.T.C. candidates, the Court
HELD : 1.1 In Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET) examination
held in March, 2018, out of 3,86,000 qualified candidates, Shiksha
Mitras were 40,000 only; meaning thereby that a large number
of candidates other than Shiksha Mitras had been declared
qualified.  Paragraph 4(2) of G.O. dated 01.12.2018, referred to
certain directives of National Council for Teachers Education
(NCTE) which in turn, had dealt with eligibility of B.Ed.
candidates.  It was, therefore, quite apparent that in the ensuing
selection process, considerable number of B.Ed. candidates would
participate.  In this background, the absence of any challenge to
the entitlement of B.Ed. candidates to participate in the process
and to appear at Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-
2019 (ATRE-2019) is crucial. [Para 37][530-B-D]
1.2 Going by the Parliamentary intent in empowering NCTE
under the provisions of the National Council for Teachers
Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act) and specific authorization in
favour of NCTE under the Notification dated 31.03.2010, the
authority of NCTE is beyond any doubt.  Though there is no
RAM SHARAN MAURYA v. STATE OF U.P.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
468
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 12 S.C.R.
specific regulation as contemplated under Section 32 read with
Sections 12 and 12A of the NCTE Act, for the present purposes
by virtue of the specific authorizat

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