Chattisgarh High Court
Umashankar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 July, 2021
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION (S) No. 3815 of 2021
1. Umashankar, S/o Sagar Ram, aged about 28 years, R/o Durga
Chowk, Bhatapara, Raipur, District Raipur (CG)
2. Lalit Kumar, S/o Namdev, aged about 27 years, R/o Ward No.5,
Bholapur, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG)
... Petitioners
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, School Education
Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur,
District Raipur (CG)
2. Director, Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, District Raipur (CG)
3. District Education Officer, Raipur, District Raipur (CG)
4. Director, National Council for Teacher Education, Wing No.2, Hans
Bhawan, Bahadurshah Jafar Marg, New Delhi.
5. Keshav Vishwakarma, behind Mission Compound, Ward No.10,
Imlibhatha, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG)
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Amrito Das, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 27/07/2021
1. The short question involved in the present Writ Petition is, "whether the candidate who has passed the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) would be eligible for participation in the recruitment process for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in the State of Chhattisgarh without qualifying the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) conducted by the State Government".
2. The relevant facts, which are necessary for the adjudication of the present Writ Petition, are that an Advertisement was issued by Respondents for filling up of the posts of Teachers and Assistant Teachers for various subjects in the various schools of the State of Chhattisgarh. Petitioners also had applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science). 2 For ready reference, the minimum eligibility criteria for participation in the said recruitment process for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science) is as under:
^^¼,d½ lgk;d f'k{kd ¼d½ U;wure 50% vadksa ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed ¼vFkok blds led{k½ rFkk izkjafHkd f'k{kk'kkL= ¼pkgs mls fdlh Hkh uke ls tkuk tkrk gks½ esa f}o"khZ; fMIyksekA vFkok U;wure 45% vadksa ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed ¼vFkok blds led{k½ ,oa izkjafHkd f'k{kk'kkL= ¼pkgs mls fdlh Hkh uke ls tkuk tkrk gks½ esa f}o"khZ; fMIyksek tks jk"Vªh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn~ ¼ekU;rk] ekun.M vkSj fdz;kfof/k½ fofu;e] 2002 ds vuqlkj izkIr fd;k x;k gksA vFkok U;wure 50% vadksa ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed ¼vFkok blds led{k½ ,oa izkjafHkd f'k{kk'kkL= ¼ch-,y-,M-½ esa pkj o"khZ; LukrdA vFkok U;wure 50% vadksa ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed ¼vFkok blds led{k½ rFkk izkjafHkd f'k{kk'kkL= ¼fo'ks"k f'k{kk'kkL=½ esa f}o"khZ; fMIyksekA vFkok Lukrd rFkk izkjafHkd f'k{kk'kkL= ¼pkgs mls fdlh Hkh uke ls tkuk tkrk gks½ esa f}o"khZ; fMIyksekA vFkok U;wure 50% vadksa ds lkFk Lukrd rFkk ch-,M- vgZrk ¼jk"Vªh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn ls ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku ls Lukrd½ Hkh d{kk 1 ls 5 rd i<+kus ds fy;s v/;kid ds :i esa ik= gksaxs ijUrq ;g fd mls fu;qfDr ds i'pkr~ jk"Vªh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn }kjk ekU;rk izkIr izkFkfed f'k{kk'kkL= esa 6 eghus ds ,d fo'ks"k dk;Zdze iwjk djuk gksxkA rFkk ¼[k½ jk"Vªh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn~ }kjk bl iz;kstu ds fy, tkjh fd, x, ekxZn'khZ fl)karksa ds vuqlkj leqfpr ljdkj }kjk vk;ksftr v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk ¼Vh-bZ-Vh-½ esa mRrh.kZA^^
3. The private Respondent i.e. Respondent No.5 - Keshav Vishwakarma also had applied for the said post of Assistant Teacher (Science). Apart from the educational qualification required for the said post, the Petitioners had cleared the TET conducted by the State of Chhattisgarh, whereas Respondent No.5 had cleared the CTET. Both the Petitioners having participated, the Respondent No.5 has been found meritorious and after due process of selection, the offer of appointment has also been issued to him. Petitioners also were found meritorious, however, their name stood lower in the order of merit and therefore they have been placed in the waiting-list.
3
4. Contention of learned Counsel for Petitioners is that the recruitment rules governing the field is the "Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019" (for short, "the Rules of 2019"). Under the said Rules, it is specifically held that the candidates must have passed the TET conducted by the appropriate Government and, according to Petitioners, the appropriate Government in the instant case would be the State of Chhattisgarh and therefore it is only the candidate who has cleared the TET conducted by the State of Chhattisgarh would be eligible for participation in the selection process from the aforementioned Advertisement. That, since Respondent No.5 has cleared the CTET conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, he as such does not meet the requisite eligibility criteria under the Rules of 2019 as also under the Advertisement and therefore the proposal for giving appointment to Respondent No.5 is bad in law and also contrary to the Rules. Hence, the candidature of Respondent No.5 should be rejected and the Petitioners in turn should be considered.
5. According to learned Counsel for Petitioners, the very reference in the Rules of 2019 prescribing the requirement of TET conducted by the appropriate Government itself means only the examination conducted by the State of Chhattisgarh and it cannot be that of any other agency or Government. Learned Counsel also drew the attention of this Court to the "Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009" for the purpose of determining the meaning of appropriate Government under the respective Rules.
4
6. Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, opposing the petition submits that the term 'appropriate Government' in the Rules of 2019 does not exclude the candidates who have cleared CTET. According to learned Additional Advocate General, the requirement is that of a candidate having cleared the TET, which is conducted by an 'appropriate government' in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE. According to him, neither the Rules of 2019 nor the Advertisement anywhere restricts the candidates with CTET from participating in the recruitment process, rather, it is inclusive in the term 'appropriate government'. As per learned Additional Advcoate General, the 'appropriate government' in the instant case refers to the authority conducting the examination, which would be either the State Government or the Central Government, as the case may be. The only aspect which needs consideration is, "whether the examination has been conducted in terms of the guidelines framed by the NCTE". Learned Additional Advcoate General submits that it is not the case of Petitioners that CTET cleared by them is not in terms of the guidelines framed by the NCTE, thus, there is no dispute that Petitioners are the qualified CTET candidates.
7. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, what requires at this juncture to be appreciated is the Rules of 2019 which prescribes the minimum eligibility criteria for the post of Assistant Teacher and the said criteria prescribed is the same which has been reproduced in the preceding paragraph, which is part of the Advertisement. For ready reference, the English version of the Rules of 2019 in respect of the minimum eligibility criteria for Assistant Teacher is reproduced herein under:-
5
"(ii) Assistant Teacher:
(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-
year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2- year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations, 2002) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4- year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.EL.Ed.) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2- year Diploma in Education (Special Education) OR Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR Graduation with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. Qualification (Graduate from the institution recognized from NCTE), shall also be eligible for appointment as teacher for classes 1 to 5, provided he/she undergoes, after appointment, a NCTE recognized 6 month special programme in Elementary Education.
And
(b) Passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose."
8. The Rules of 2019 specifically defines "Teacher Eligibility Test". For ready reference, the definition of TET under Rule 2(t) reads as under:-
"2(t) 'Teachers Eligibility Test' means the teacher eligibility test conducted for the post filled up by direct recruitment of educational cadre."
9. The aforementioned definition of TET does not excludes the TET conducted by the Central Government. It only refers to the term 'appropriate Government' which, in other words, means a TET conducted by an 'appropriate Government' would be acceptable as a valid qualification for the purpose of recruitment in the State of Chhattisgarh.
10. This Court finds sufficient force in the argument of learned Additional Advocate General when he says that if the intention of the Government was to be given a restrictive interpretation then the term 'appropriate Government' would not have been used by the Government at the time of framing of the rules, it would have simply mentioned TET conducted by the State of Chhattisgarh.
6
11. Even otherwise, the contention of learned Counsel for Petitioners cannot be accepted for the simple reason that if such an analogy is to be accepted, it would be too harsh a decision for all those candidates who have cleared the CTET, even though they may be permanent residents of the State of Chhattisgarh, getting disqualified or denied participation only on the ground of not clearing the TET of the State of Chhattisgarh and as such the same would be per se violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
12. Clearing CTET, a candidate has the advantage of applying for the post published by the State of Chhattisgarh and also for applying for all those posts advertised by the Central Government in respect of the schools run exclusively by the Central Government in terms of the guidelines issued by the NCTE itself. Needless to mention at this juncture that this Court in the past in a similar set of facts arising out of the same recruitment had dismissed a Writ Petition i.e. WPS No. 5423/2020 (Azhar Ali & others v. State of Chhattisgarh & others), decided on 17.12.2020, wherein in Paragraph 4 it has been held as under:
"4. From the plain reading of aforementioned clause (iii), it clearly reflects that the Central Board of Secondary Education has laid a prerogative of the State Government to accept the candidates of CTET if it decides not to conduct the State TET, which by itself would mean that the candidates of CTET are otherwise eligible for being considered for the post of Assistant Teacher, Teacher and Lecturer."
13. For all the afore given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the firm view that the very reference in the recruitment rules dealing with the minimum qualification clearly envisaging that the candidate must be passed in TET conducted by the 'appropriate government' in terms of the guidelines of the NCTE, means a TET conducted either by the State of Chhattisgarh or, for that matter, by the Central Government. The said provision of the rules cannot be given a 7 restrictive interpretation. Thus, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the Petitioners for issuance of any writ restraining the Respondents from issuing an order of appointment in favour of Respondent No.5.
14. Accordingly, the question of law which was put for adjudication in the present Writ Petition is answered in the "affirmative", holding that for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher and Teacher in the State of Chhattisgarh where the Rules of 2019 are applicable, the candidate who has passed CTET also is eligible for participation.
15. Writ Petition thus sans merit and therefore deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge /sharad/