Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(v) For Secondary Grade Teachers, out of 100 weightage marks, 15 shall be for Higher Secondary Exam, 25 for D.T.Ed., or D.E.Ed., Exam and 60 for TET.

(vi) For Graduate Assistants, out of 100 weightage marks, 10 shall be for Higher Secondary Exam, 15 for Degree Exam, 15 for B.Ed., Exam, and 60 for TET.

(vii) The weightage marks shall be awarded following the Grading Systemas detailed in para 7 of G.O.Ms.No.252 dated 05.10.2012 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 14.02.2014.

41. The petitioners are not aggrieved by selection based on weightage marks as detailed in sub paras (i) to (vi) above. They are aggrieved by the Grading System adopted [vide sub para (vii) above] in the Government Orders.

44. As I have already stated, the petitioners are aggrieved by the above modality viz., awarding of weightage marks by grading system. According to them, the grading system [slab system] adopted in G.O.Ms.No.252, dated 05.10.2012 as amended in G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 14.02.2014 is unconstitutional.

45. The common grounds raised in all these writ petitions can be summarised as follows:

(i) The impugned Government Order treats more meritorious candidates on par with less meritorious candidates, in as much as, all the candidates in one slab are placed together and awarded equal marks and thus, less meritorious candidates get priority over the more meritorious candidates like the petitioners.

Sl.No. Marks secured in TET (out of 150) Marks in Per Centage (%) Weightage marks as per Slab System 70.00 % 69.33 % 60.00 %

49. The learned senior counsel would point out, as illustrated above, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.5590 of 2014 who has secured 104 marks in the TET is equated to the candidate who has secured hardly 90 marks. Thus, according to him, the two unequals are treated as though they are equals which offends Article 14 as well as Article 16 of The Constitution of India. Similarly, he would point out that the said writ petitioner who had secured 104 marks gets only 42 weightage marks as per the grading system; whereas the candidate who has secured 105 marks gets 48 weightage marks as per the grading system, thus, giving a vast disproportionate variation. Here, the writ petitioner's percentage of mark is 69.33%; whereas the other candidate who has secured 105 marks would get 70.00%. The difference is hardly 0.67%. But, the difference between the petitioner and the other candidate as per the grading is 6-weightage marks. Thus, according to the learned senior counsel, the petitioner with 104 marks and the other candidate with 105 marks, who are more or less equal, are treated unequally and thus, it again goes to demonstrate that the system adopted under the impugned Government Order violates Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel would further submit that there is no scientific rationale behind the grading system adopted. Instead, according to him, the raw marks of the candidates should have been taken as the basis for selection.

74. But, the learned Advocate General would submit that in P.Arunkumar's case cited supra, the Division Bench has held that there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by the system of grading. But a careful reading of the judgement would show that the Division Bench found that there was necessity for converting the raw marks into graded marks and also grading system was founded on a well accepted formula known as Stanine Formula. It was in those circumstances, the Division Bench held that there was no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. But, in the instant cases, since we have found that there is no object sought to be achieved by this particular system of grading and since it is not made on the basis of any accepted formula by making a thorough scientific study and since the system adopted under the impugned Government Order is demonstrably irrational and unreasonable as it creates a lot of anomalies as the same and treats equals as unequals, and vice versa, I have to necessarily hold that the grading system adopted by the Government in the impugned Government Order violates Article 14 and 16 of The Constitution.