Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board is directed to take note of this Government order for finalizing selection list of the Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test 2013 held on 17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013 and for all future Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test with respect to candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Backward Classes (Muslims), Most Backward Classes, De-notified Communities and Persons with Disability (PWD).”

9. Resultantly, a number of writ petitions were filed before the High Court challenging the Government Orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.252 School Education(Q) Department, dated 05.10.2012, G.O.Ms.No.25 School Education (TRB) Department dated 06.02.2014 and G.O.Ms.No.29, School Education (TRB) Department dated 14.02.2014 on different grounds. The Writ Court disposed of these petitions by upholding the validity of G.O.Ms.No.25, School Education (TRB) Department dated 06.02.2014. However, the learned Single Judge set aside the grading system adopted by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 252 dated 05.10.2012 observing that it lacks rationality as it places a candidate with the difference of 1 to 9 marks in the same basket.

Point No.4: Challenge to G.O. Ms. No.71 dated 30.05.2014?

38. The appellants have also challenged G.O.Ms. 71, which was issued by the respondents pursuant to the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court. As already noted before, the Single Judge while declining the challenge to G.O.Ms. No. 252 and G.O.Ms. No. 25 had set aside the grading system adopted by the Government vide G.O.Ms. No. 252. The Single Judge observed that the grading system adopted in G.O.Ms. No. 252 lacks rationality as it places candidates with the difference of 1 to 9 percentage in the same basket. Accordingly, vide G.O.Ms.No. 71 the Government came up with the grading methodology as indicated supra in para No 10. The appellants have not only challenged the new grading system introduced by G.O. No. 71; but they have also challenged the weightage of marks of 40% earmarked for academic performance. It is their contention that the Government has blindly accepted the recommendation of Single Judge without application of mind.

40. The second aspect of challenge relates to the grading system adopted by the respondents. The respondents have acted as per the directions of the Single Judge of the High Court. The Single Judge in his judgment dated 29.04.2014 while declaring the slab system irrational, suggested a scientific rational method for award of weightage marks with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate in H.Sc./D.T.Ed./D.E.Ed/B.Ed/TET for Secondary Grade Teachers/ Graduate Assistants as the case may be and accordingly make selections. This was accepted by the government in G.O.(Ms.) No.71 dated 30.05.2014 and the respondents have thus come up with the present awarding of weightage marks with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate which is more scientific and appropriate and as compared to the previous grading system contained in G.O. No. 252 which had put candidates obtaining 1-9% marks on the same footing.

41. The appellants have maintained that while prescribing the marks for performance in Higher Secondary Examination, the respondents have failed to take into account different Education Boards (CBSE, ICSE, State Boards etc.) conducting Higher Secondary Examination and difference in their marks awarding patterns. As also, the appellants have alleged that respondents failed to consider different streams of education while formulating the grading pattern. It is submitted that unless and until the respondents take note of difference in marking scheme of Education boards, as also the marking scheme of different streams such as Arts, Science etc. a valid grading system cannot be formulated. Equivalence of academic qualifications is a matter for experts and courts normally do not interfere with the decisions of the Government based on the recommendations of the experts (vide University of Mysore v. CD Govinda Rao (1964) 4 SCR 575 and Mohd. Sujat Ali v. Union of India (1975) 3 SCC 76). We hold that it is the prerogative of State-Authorities to formulate a system whereby weightage marks is decided with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate. In the present case, as no arbitrariness is proved on the part of the respondents, in formulating the grading system we cannot interfere with the same. We cannot be expected to go into every minute technicalities of decision taken by the experts and perform the job of the respondent-State. Moreover, the High Court has also noted that submission of learned Advocate General that almost all the appellants have completed their High Secondary examination from the State Boards.