Gujarat High Court
Jignesh Gordhanbhai Chudasma vs State Of Gujarat on 19 June, 2020
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: Vikram Nath, J.B.Pardiwala
C/SCA/7554/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7554 of 2020
==========================================================
JIGNESH GORDHANBHAI CHUDASMA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.JAY S SHAH(7244) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DM DEVNANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 19/06/2020
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1 By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"[A] This Hon'ble Court be pleased to Admit and Allow this petition;
[B] This Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare Appendix-II of the Gujarat Secondary Teacher, Class III, (Procedure for Selection) Rules", 2019 being Ultra Vires to the Constitution of India, 1950 and to The Gujarat Secondary Teacher, Class III, (Procedure for Selection) Page 1 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 22 00:33:08 IST 2021 C/SCA/7554/2020 ORDER Rules", 2019 and be further please to direct the respondents to consider only required education qualification for calculation of 30% weightage in preparing merit list;
[C] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the respondent be directed not to prepare and operate the final merit list and not to carry out any further selection process following the provisional merit list.
[D] Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer 8(C) above may kindly be granted.
[E] Filing of Affidavit may be dispensed with due to Pandemic;
[F] Any other and further relief as deemed fit and proper may be granted, in the interest of justice;"
2 The case of the writ applicant in his own words as pleaded in his writ application is as under:
"4.1 The Petitioner has completed Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in the year 2011 and thereafter completed the Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) in 2013. The petitioner joined as Primary teacher on 24.08.2013 in the Jilla Siksan Samiti at Dahod and is in service till today.Page 2 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 22 00:33:08 IST 2021 C/SCA/7554/2020 ORDER
4.2 The petitioner has cleared "Teachers Aptitude Test (TAT) - Secondary" examination twice once in the year 2014 and recently in January 2019. The petitioner has scored 172 marks out of 200 in TAT Examination 2019.
Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure - B Collectively are the copies of Petitioners education qualification and TAT result.
4.3 That in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Selection Committee established under the Rules, for the appointment of the Secondary Teachers for various subjects in Gujarati and English Medium. The Petitioner had applied for the Secondary Teacher in Social Science subject in Gujarati Medium based on his TAT score and educational qualification as required under the Rules. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-C is the cop of the Advertisement.
4.4 The petitioner stands at 792 in Social Science in Provisional Merit list and stands at 953 in General list. The Final Merit list is yet to be declared till the time of drafting of this petition. The petitioner will produce the provisional merit list as and when required by the Hon'ble Court.
4.5 The Petitioner came to know that the selection list is prepared according to Rule 10 of The Gujarat Page 3 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 22 00:33:08 IST 2021 C/SCA/7554/2020 ORDER Secondary Teacher, Class III, (Procedure for Selection) Rules, 2019 and the Rule 10(1) provides for 30% weightage to "Required" education qualification. But to the surprise of the petitioner, the Appendix-II divides 30% weightage into two parts 15% for "Required education criteria and 15% for the optional education criteria and in doing so it goes beyond the selection process rules and violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner."
3 Thus, it appears from the materials on record that the applicant seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the Appendix-II read with Rule 10(3) of the Rules, 2019 on the ground that the same is violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
4 The grounds of challenge as raised by the writ applicant in the memo of the writ application are as under:
"[A] The impugned Appendix-II read with rule 10(3) is violative of Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
[B] The impugned Appendix-II is ultra vires to Rule 10(1) of the Rules. It is expected that the Appendix-II will give 30% weightage for "Required" Education Qualification as prescribed in Rule 10(1) but the Page 4 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 22 00:33:08 IST 2021 C/SCA/7554/2020 ORDER Appendix-II runs contrary to the Rule, which makes the Rule 10(1) redundant. The Appendix-II is dehors the provision of "The Gujarat Secondary Teacher, Class III, (Procedure for Selection) Rules", 2019 and is required to be struck down to that extent.
[C] In the present case, the impugned Appendix-II is contradictory to the selection process prescribed under Rule10(1) by only giving 15% marks to the "Required"
Education Qualification when the rules provide 30% weightage to the "Required" Education qualification and hence, the impugned Appendix-II fail to meet the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation.
[D] It is now a well-settled law that when something is done capriciously, irrationally, without adequate determining principle, excessively and disproportionately, it can be struck down by Doctrine of Manifest Arbitrariness. In the present case, the impugned Appendix-II is dehors the Rules it seeks to serve and hence is irrational, excessive, disproportionate and seems to have been incorporated without following substantive due process. Hence, it is required to be struck down to the extent it is manifestly Arbitrary.
[E] Even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed Page 5 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 22 00:33:08 IST 2021 C/SCA/7554/2020 ORDER that the impugned Appendix-II is not going beyond the Rule 10(1)& 7then also the impugned Appendix-II read with rule 10(3)is irrational to the extent that it gives equal weightage to the "Required" and "Optional" education qualification and that both "Required" and "Optional" educational qualification carry 15% weightage, which is irrational and hence fails the Wednesbury test of Reasonableness and hence, the Appendix-II is required to be struck down to that extent.
[F] The impugned Appendix providing for 15% weightage for optional educational qualification is disproportionate to the object sought to be achieved i.e. selection of teachers for Secondary Education, hence the impugned Appendix and Rule fails to meet the Doctrine of Proportionality. It is pertinent to note that even for the selection as a teacher in the "Higher Secondary Education" the weightage of the Optional education qualification is 5% only. Which goes on to show the impugned Appendix is disproportionate to the object of the selection of secondary teacher.
[G] That even otherwise the impugned Appendix and rule is violative of fundamental and constitutional rights of the petitioner."
ANALYSIS Page 6 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 22 00:33:08 IST 2021 C/SCA/7554/2020 ORDER 5 Having heard Mr. Jay Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State - respondents, we are of the view that the challenge to the Appendix-II read with Rule 10(3) of the Rules, 2019 should fail for the reasons we shall assign hereinafter.
5.1 Rule 7 of the Rules, 2019 prescribes the eligibility criteria for the Government Secondary Teacher. The same reads thus:
"7 Eligibility criteria for Government Secondary Teachers, Class III in the subject mentioned in Appendix-I, A candidate shall -
[a] not be more than 37 years of age:
Provided that the age limit shall be relaxed in favour of the candidate belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (including Nomadic tribes and De- notified Tribes), Economically Weaker Sections and Women in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967;Page 7 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 22 00:33:08 IST 2021 C/SCA/7554/2020 ORDER
[b] possess the minimum educational qualification of a bachelor's degree as specified in column 3 against each of the subject specified in Appendix-I, and a Bachelor's degree in Education or Shixa Visarad (GUJARAT VIDHYAPITH) or D.B.Ed. or G.B.T.C. as specified in column 6 or 7 against each of the subject specified in Appendix-I obtained from any of the Universities or Institutions established or incorporated by an Act of Parliament or a State Legislature in India or any other Educational institution recognised as such or declared to be deemed as a University under section 3 of the Universities Grants Commission Act, 1956;
[c] have passed "Teachers Aptitude Test - Secondary" examination of concerned subject specified in column 9 Appendix-I;
[d] possess basic knowledge of computer application as prescribed in the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967;
[e] possess adequate knowledge of Gujarati or Hindi or both."
5.2 Rule 10 prescribes how the select list should be prepared. Rule 10 reads thus:
"10. Preparation of Select list Page 8 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 22 00:33:08 IST 2021 C/SCA/7554/2020 ORDER [1] The selection committee shall prepare a list of successful candidates on the basis of weightage of 70% marks of the marks secured by the concerned candidate in Teachers Aptitude Test - Secondary and 30% marks of the required educational qualification, provided the candidate who has secured at least 50% marks in Teachers Aptitude Test - Secondary shall be eligible to apply for the post of Government Secondary teacher.
[2] The marks secured by the concerned candidate in Teachers Aptitude Test - Secondary shall be valid for five years from the date of the result of the Teachers Aptitude Test - Secondary.
[3] The maximum marks for the qualification for the purpose of weightage of 30% shall be as prescribed in Appendix-II.
[4] The Selection Committee shall prepare subject- wise and category-wise lists on the basis of marks secured by the candidates as provided in sub-rule-1.
[5] The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of the successful candidates in the order of merit on the basis of aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate to the extent of posts advertised by the Selection Committee.Page 9 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 22 00:33:08 IST 2021 C/SCA/7554/2020 ORDER
[6] The Selection Committee shall prepare a separate list of successful candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (including Nomadic tribes and De- notified Tribes), Economically Weaker Sections, the persons with disabilities and Woken to the extent of the number of vacancies reserved for such categories;
Provided that where the requisite number of candidates, belonging to Scheduled Casts, Scheduled Tribes, Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (including Nomadic tribes and De-notified Tribes), Economically Weaker Sections could not qualify on the basis of the qualifying aggregate marks fixed for general category, the Selection Committee may relax the qualifying aggregate marks to make up the deficiency in the reserved posts.
[7] The Committee shall prepare the waiting list of the qualified candidates which shall contain 20% of vacancies advertised for each category and each subject. The waiting list shall remain in force in accordance with the relevant rules issued by the Government in this behalf."
5.3 Rule 10(1) of the Rules, 2019 referred to above lays down that the list of successful candidates shall be Page 10 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 22 00:33:08 IST 2021 C/SCA/7554/2020 ORDER prepared on the basis of weightage of 70% marks of the marks secured by the concerned candidate in the Teachers Aptitude Test and 30% marks of the required educational qualification. Rule 10(3) provides that the maximum marks for the qualification for the purpose of weightage of 30% shall be as prescribed in Appendix-II. The Appendix-II [rule 10(3)] reads thus:
[1] For the post of Secondary Teachers:-
No. Qualification Maximum
Marks
01 Graduate degree in concerned 10
subject as specified in
Appendix-I
02 Post Graduate degree in 10
concerned subject as
specified in Appendix-I (if
Possesses)
03 Graduate degree in 05
professional subject as
specified in Appendix-I
04 Post Graduate degree in 05
professional subject as
specified in Appendix-I (if
Possesses)
Total 30
Page 11 of 21
Downloaded on : Mon Feb 22 00:33:08 IST 2021
C/SCA/7554/2020 ORDER
5.4 We are of the view that although Appendix-II referred to above divides 30% weightage into two parts i.e. 15% for required education criteria and 15% for the optional educational criteria, the same in no manner violates any of the fundamental rights or any other legal rights of the writ applicant. We are not impressed by the submission of learned counsel for the writ applicant that such qualification deserves to be struck down applying the doctrine of arbitrariness. In our opinion there is no arbitrariness in such policy as prescribed by the State Government. It appears that the State Government has by way of a policy decision thought fit to give credence to higher qualifications over and above the required education qualification.
6 Mr. Devnani, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State invited our attention to the judgment and order passed by co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Pinkeshkumar Jayantibhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., rendered in Special Civil Application No. 15286 of 2017 dated 19.09.2017, where in almost an identical contention was raised. In the said case, the grievance redressed by the petitioner was that in the Regulations of 2014 issued vide notification dated 12.11.2014 by the NCTE, the educational qualifications for the Post Graduation degree in the professional subjects i.e. M. Ed. / M.Ed., etc. are not provided, whereas in the Page 12 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 22 00:33:08 IST 2021 C/SCA/7554/2020 ORDER impugned notification issued by the State such qualification has been provided while giving weightage at the time of appointment on the post of Higher Secondary Teacher. In short, the argument before the co-ordinate Bench was that such prescription of educational qualification of providing 5 marks is repugnant to the Central Regulations.
7 The co-ordinate Bench while negating negating such contention referred to above held as under:
"12. For considering the aforesaid issue, relevant provisions prescribed in the notification dated 12.11.2014 issued by the NCTE are required to be considered. By way of the aforesaid notification, the regulations are framed by the NCTE while exercising powers conferred under Section 32(2) (dd) read with Section 12A of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. The said regulations are called the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualification for Persons to be recruited as Education Teachers and Physical Education Teachers in Pre-primary, Primary, Upper Primary, Secondary, Senior Secondary or Schools or Colleges) Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations of 2014'). The First Schedule of the said Regulations provides for minimum academic and professional qualification for different levels. Level 4 provides for minimum academic and professional qualification for Secondary/High School, which provides as under:
4. Secondary/ High School (For Class IXX)
(a) Graduate/Post Graduate from recognized University with at least 50% marks in either Graduation or Post Graduation (or its equivalent) Page 13 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 22 00:33:08 IST 2021 C/SCA/7554/2020 ORDER and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) from National Council for Teacher Education recognized institution.
Or
(b) Graduate/Post Graduate from recognized University with at least 45% marks in either Graduation or Post Graduation (or its equivalent) and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) from National Council for Teacher Education recognized institution (in accordance with the National Council for Teacher Education (Form of application for recognition, the time limit of submission of application, determination of norms and standard for recognition of teacher education programmes and permission to start new course or training) Regulations 2002 notified on 13.11.2002 and National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007 notified on 10.12.2017).
Or
(c) 4-years degree of B.A.Ed./ B.Sc.Ed. from any National Council for Teacher Education recognized institution.
13. Whereas, the respondent State has issued Notification dated 11.02.2011 while exercising powers under Section 35 of the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act, 1972, whereby the Rules are framed viz. Teachers and Head Masters of Registered Private Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools (Procedure for Selection) Rules, 2011. Appendix II of the said notification provides that:
(2) Calculation of 30% Weightage (1) xxx xxx xxx Page 14 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 22 00:33:08 IST 2021 C/SCA/7554/2020 ORDER (2) For the post of Higher Secondary Teacher:-
No Qualification Maximum For example . Marks 1 Percentage Marks secured by eligible on the the basis of candidate percentage secured by the candidate (col.3xco 1.4/100) 1 2 3 4 5 2 Xx xx xx xx 3 Graduate 5 80 4 degree in professional subject i.e. B.Ed. / B.P.Ed.
etc. 4 Post Graduate 5 60 3 degree in professional subject i.e. M/ Ex./ M.P.Ed.
etc. 30 20
14. The only grievance of the petitioners is that in the Regulations of 2014 issued by Notification dated 12.11.2014 by NCTE, the educational qualification for Post-graduate Degree in Professional subject i.e. M.Ed/ M.P.Ed. etc. are not provided, whereas in the impugned notification issued by the State such qualification is provided while giving weightage at the time of appointment on the post of higher secondary teacher. Thus, the said prescription of educational qualification of providing 5 marks is repugnant to the central regulations.
15. At this stage, we would like to refer the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Akhil Gujarat Rajy Shala Sanchalak Mandal (supra), wherein the notification dated 11.02.2011 issued by the respondent State was challenged. The Division Bench of Page 15 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 22 00:33:08 IST 2021 C/SCA/7554/2020 ORDER this Court upheld the validity of the said notification by observing as under:
"21. After insertion of right to education vide Article 21A of the Constitution of India, the `Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009' was enacted. Under Sec.3 of the said Act, every child of the age of six to fourteen years shall have a right to free and compulsory education till the completion of eighth class. The said Act provides for detailed scheme for free and compulsory education.
22. In the State of Gujarat, there exists two State Acts, namely, the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947 and the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act, 1972, which deal with the subject being imparted in primary education upto to standard VII and secondary education from standard VIII. On being enacted by the Parliament, the said Central Act, the aforesaid two State Acts are now required to bring in conformity with the provisions of the Central Act, and to facilitate to impart free and compulsory education to the children between the age of six to fourteen years. For the said purpose, standard VIII was required to be covered under the Primary Education Act of the State. At the same time, secondary education would require to begin with standard IX. For giving effect to the said object, the State Government considered it necessary to amend the respective State Acts. Therefore, it was considered necessary to constitute the State Level Staff Selection Committee for primary education for recruitment of primary teachers through State level agency so as to avoid delay in recruitment harassment to candidates in applying to various districts and smoothen the process of recruitment, and with the aforesaid `Statement of Objects and Reasons', the Gujarat Education Laws (Amendment) Act was enacted, making the amendment in the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947 and Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act, 1972. In the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act, 1972, Page 16 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 22 00:33:08 IST 2021 C/SCA/7554/2020 ORDER for Sec.35, the following Section has been substituted:-
"35. Selection of teachers and headmasters, etc. - The procedure for selection of teachers and headmasters of registered private secondary and higher secondary schools shall be such as may be notified by the State Government by rules from time to time"
51. In view of the discussions above, while we uphold Sec.35 as substituted by the as amended by Gujarat Education Laws (Amendment Act) 2010 (Amending Act No.3 of 2010), the Rules framed thereunder, namely, the Teachers and Head Masters of Registered Private Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools (Procedure for Selection) Rules, 2011 as published by Notification dated 11th February 2011 are also upheld for the same reasons. We find no merit in the writ petitions. They are accordingly dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs."
16. In the case of Bhupendra Nath Tripathi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para 34 and 35 as under:
"34.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State however submitted that the State which runs a training course with the approval of NCTE is entitled to prescribe the qualifications for candidates seeking admission to the course so long as the qualifications prescribed are not lower than those prescribed by or under the NCTE Act. The submission was that after the NCTE Act has come into force the State is justified in insisting and prescribing Bed qualification from only such of those institutions recognised by NCTE. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions of this Court in State of A.P. v. Lavu Narendranath, Preeti Srivastava (Dr.) v. State of M.P. and State of T.N. v. S. V. Bratheep.Page 17 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 22 00:33:08 IST 2021 C/SCA/7554/2020 ORDER
35. There is no quarrel with the proposition that the State in its discretion is entitled to prescribe such qualifications as it may consider appropriate for candidates seeking admission into BTC course so long as the qualifications so prescribed are not lower than those prescribed by or under the NCTE Act. The State can always prescribe higher qualification, but the argument proceeds on the assumption that Bed qualification obtained from only such of those institutions established and recognised by NCTE after the Act coming into force is higher or superior than the Bed qualification obtained from the universities or affiliated colleges duly recognised by the University Grants Commission prior to the Act coming into force. What is the rational basis for such a presumption? None. This fact assumes significance particularly in the light of the fact that all the institutions from where the candidates obtained their Bed qualification have themselves received recognition from the Regional Council after the NCTE Act came into force."
17. In the case of S.V.Bratheep (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed and held in para 9 and 12 as under:
"9. Entry 25 of List III and Entry 66 of List I have to be read together and it cannot be read in such a manner as to from an exclusivity in the matter of admission but if certain prescription of standards have been made pursuant to Entry 66 of List I, then those standards will prevail over the standards fixed by the State in exercise of powers under Entry 25 of List III insofar as they adversely affect the standards-laid down by the Union of India or any other authority functioning under it. Therefore, what is to be seen in the present case is whether the prescription of the standards made by the State Government is in any way adverse to, or Page 18 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 22 00:33:08 IST 2021 C/SCA/7554/2020 ORDER lower than, the standards fixed by the AICTE. It is no doubt true that the AICTE prescribed two modes of admission - One is merely dependent on the qualifying examination and the other dependent upon the marks obtained at the Common Entrance Test. The appellant in the present case prescribed the qualification of having secured certain percentage of marks in the related subjects which is higher than the minimum in the qualifying examination in order to be eligible for admission. If higher minimum is prescribed by the State Government than what had been prescribed by the AICTE, can it be said that it is in any manner adverse to the standards fixed by the AICTE or reduces the standard fixed by it? In our opinion, it does not. On the other hand, if we proceed on the basis that the norms fixed by the AICTE would allow admission only on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination the additional test made applicable is the common entrance test by the State Government. If we proceed to take the standard fixed by the AICTE to be the common entrance test then the prescription made by the State Government of having obtained certain marks higher than the minimum in the qualifying examination in order to be eligible to participate in the common entrance test is in addition to the common entrance test. In either event, the streams proposed by the AICTE are not belittled in any manner. The manner in which the High Court has proceeded is that what has been prescribed by the AICTE is inexorable and that that minimum alone should be taken into consideration and no other standard could be fixed even the higher as stated by this Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case. It is no doubt true as noticed by this Court in Adhiyaman's case that there may be situations when a large number of seats may fall vacant on account of the higher standards fixed. The standards fixed should always be realistic which are attainable and are Page 19 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 22 00:33:08 IST 2021 C/SCA/7554/2020 ORDER within the reach of the candidates. It cannot be said that the prescriptions by the State Government in addition to those of AICTE in the present case are such which are not attainable or which are not within the reach of the candidates who seek admission for engineering colleges. It is not very high percentage of marks that has been prescribed as minimum of 60% downwards, but definitely higher than the mere pass marks. Excellence in higher education is always insisted upon by series of decisions of this Court including Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case. If higher minimum marks have been prescribed, it would certainly add to the excellence in the matter of admission of the students in higher education. xxx xxx xxx
12. One other argument is further advanced before us that the criteria fixed by the AICTE was to be adopted by the respective colleges and once such prescription had been made it was not open to the Government to prescribe further standards particularly when they had established the institutions in exercise of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. However, we do not think this argument can be sustained in any manner. Prescription of standards in education is always accepted to be an appropriate exercise of power by the bodies recognising the colleges or granting affiliation, like AICTE or the University. If in exercise of such power the prescription had been made, it cannot be said that the whole matter has been foreclosed."
18. From the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be said that the State can always prescribe higher qualifications than the minimum provided by the central legislation. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the Regulations Page 20 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 22 00:33:08 IST 2021 C/SCA/7554/2020 ORDER of 2014 issued by the NCTE by notification dated 12.11.2014 prescribe minimum qualification and therefore it is open for the respondent State to prescribe higher qualification by giving weightage of marks at the time of giving appointment to the post of higher secondary teacher. 19. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Pathak (supra) relied upon by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners would not render any assistance to him as in the said case it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the State Government was under obligation to act as per the notification issued by the NCTE and not to give any effect to any contrary rules. In the present case, the standards prescribed by Appendix II of the Notification dated 11.02.2011 issued by the State Government are not contrary to the standards prescribed by the Regulations 2014 issued by the NCTE. The Respondent State has prescribed qualification higher than the minimum prescribed by the NCTE".
8 In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that no case is made out by the writ applicant for interference. In the result, this writ application fails and is hereby rejected.
(VIKRAM NATH, CJ) (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 21 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 22 00:33:08 IST 2021