REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2016] 9 S.C.R. 835 · Decided: 09-11-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVA KIRTI SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 9 S.C.R. 835 
V. LAVANYA & ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 10700of2016) 
B 
NOVEMBER 09, 2016 
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH A~D R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Selection - Selection Criteria - National Cou,ncil for Teacher 
Education (J!CTE) Guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility 
Test (TET) - Appoint111ent of Secondary Grade Teachers and B. T. 
Assistants in the State of Ta111il Nadu - State Govern111ent granted 
relaxation of 5% marks in TET to candidates belonging to SC, ST. 
Backward Classes, De-notified Communities and Person with 
Disability etc. - Challenged - Contradiction in decisions of the 
Madras Bench and Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court -
The Madras Bench_dismissed the writ appeals and writ petitions 
· challenging the policy decision of the Government whereas, the 
Madurai Bench quashed the relaxation given to the reserved 
category candidates - On appeal, held: The framers of the NCTE 
guidelines took note of the huge socio-economic disparity existing 
in the nation and accordingly, by virtue of clause 9 of NCTE 
guidelines enabled the respective State Government/authorities to • 
provide relaxation to the candidates belonging to socially backward 
classes - Therefore, State Governi11e.nt cannot be faulted for 
discharging its constitutional obligation for upliftment of socially 
and economically backward communities by providing 5% rela~ation 
to candidates belonging to reserve category - It was an affirmative 
action taken by State Government granting relaxation for TET and 
hence the view taken by the Madurai Bench is not sustainable -
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 -
s.23 - Constitution of India - Arts. J 4, 15,, 16, 335. 
Estoppel - Selection of Teachers - Relaxation of qualifying 
marks for Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) - In the earlier round of 
litigation, Govern111ent of Tamil Nadutook-a stand that it would_. nor 
grant relaxation of 111arks in TET - Plea of appellants that 
835 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
836 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
Government cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time by 
changing its stand - Held: It is well settled that there can be no 
question of estoppel against the Government in the exercise of its 
legislative, sovereign or executive powers - It is a matter of State 
policy to frame and prescribe selection norins with regard to services 
and posts connected with the affairs of the State - Courts cannot 
interfere with the policy decisions of the State especially when the 
policy decision is taken in public interest to further the advancement 
of reserved categories - Constitution of India - Art. 162 and proviso 
to Art.309. 
Selection - Of teachers - State Government provided 
relaxation of 5% marks in TET for candidates belonging to socially 
backward classes and the under privileged, after the selection 
process of teachers had commenced - Plea of appellants that it 
resulted in altering the criteria of selection after the commencement 
of selection process - Held: State Government had not changed the 
rules of selection insofar as appellants were concerned - State 
Government merely widened the ambit of TET so as to reach out to 
those candidates belonging to the deprived section of the society 
who were not able to compete - It is ji-ee to take such actions suitable 
to the socio-economic conditions prevalent in the State - It was in 
the interest of reserved category candidates so that more candidates 
can take part in the selection process - Therefore, this did not amount 
to change in the selection after the selection process commenced. 
Allowing the appeal by the State Government and 
dismissing tl!e appeal by unsuccessful candidates, the Court 
F 
HELD: 
Point No. 1: Whether the State Government has the 
competence to give relaxation of 5% marks in Teacher Eligibility 
Test (TET) and whether such relaxation provided by the State 
Government by G.0.(Ms.) No.25 dated 06.02.2014 is legally 
G 
justified? 
H 
1.1 Clause No.9 of NCTE Guideline vests a discretion in 
the School Managements (State Government, Local Bodies, 
Government aided and un-aided) to grant relaxation/concessions 
to persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently-abled persons 
etc. in accordance with their extant reservation policy. Clause 
V. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY 
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 
No. 9(a) clearly empowers the State Governme
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.