Supreme Court of India
MANILALversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 675
- Decided
- 10 September 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
A candidate admitted to a teacher‑training course before the NCTE’s 29 July 2011 clarification cannot be denied appointment on the basis of graduation percentage, and differential treatment of homogeneous candidates violates Article 14.
Summary
The appellant, a reserved‑category candidate, applied for the post of Teacher Grade‑III (Level II) in a Scheduled Area of Rajasthan but was rejected because his graduation percentage (44.58%) fell short of the 45% threshold. He had secured admission to a B.Ed. programme on 23 October 2009, after the NCTE notification dated 31 August 2009 that required a 50% graduation mark for later admissions, but before the later clarification that exempted such candidates from the percentage requirement. The appellant filed writ petitions and later a special appeal; an interim order appointed him, but the High Court later cancelled the appointment, distinguishing his case from a similarly situated candidate. The Supreme Court held that treating candidates admitted in the same academic session differently violated the principle of equality and set aside the High Court’s decision, directing that his interim appointment be regularised with pay fitment but no back wages. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was reinstated with consequential benefits.
Issues considered
- Whether a candidate who secured admission to a B.Ed. course after the NCTE notification of 31 August 2009 but before the 29 July 2011 clarification is disqualified for the Teacher Grade‑III post on the ground of not meeting the 45%/50% graduation mark requirement.
- Whether the High Court erred in distinguishing the appellant from similarly situated candidates, thereby violating the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Whether the interim appointment granted to the appellant should be treated as a regular appointment with appropriate benefits.
Legislation cited
Subjects
AppointmentPost of Teacher Grade‑III for TSP AreaGraduation with minimum 45% marksOne year Bachelor of Education (B.Ed)Reserved categoryDiscriminate inter se among homogeneous group of studentsBack wagesFitment of pay
Judgment
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 218 : 2024 INSC 675
Manilal
v.
The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 10440 of 2024)
10 September 2024
[B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the appointment of the appellant to the post of
Teacher Grade-III for TSP Area.
Headnotes†
Service law – Appointment – Post of Teacher Grade III Level II
in the Scheduled Area (TSP) – Eligibiity was graduation with
minimum 45% marks and one year Bachelor of Education
(B.Ed) – However, candidates who had taken admission in
B.Ed course after issuance of notification dated 31.8.09
of National Council for Teacher Education, had to secure
minimum 50 % at graduation level or equivalent examination –
Appellant applied for the post, he had 44.58% marks in his
graduation and had taken admission in the B.Ed course on
23.10.2009-after the cut-off date – Appellant, being from the
reserved category, qualifying percentage for admission to the
B.Ed Course was 40% marks in graduation (45% for general
category) – Rejection of appellant’s candidature since he had
secured less than 45% marks in his graduation – Appellant
and similarly situated candidate filed writ petitions, which
were dismissed – Appellant then filed an appeal – Meanwhile,
notification by NCTE that minimum percentage of marks in
graduation shall not be applicable to those incumbents who
had already taken admission to B.Ed or equivalent course
prior to 29.07.2011 – Interim order passed directing the
respondents to accord appointment to the appellant and
pursuant thereto, the appellant was appointed – However,
the Division Bench relying on a matter, dismissed the appeal,
and thereafter his appointment was cancelled, though the
appeal filed by the similarly situated candidate had already
been allowed:
* Author
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 219
Manilal v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Held: It would be improper to discriminate inter se among a
homogenous group of students admitted for the academic session
2009-10 – It could not be that those students admitted in the first
round of counselling would be eligible, even with less than 50%
marks in graduation, while the others admitted in the subsequent
rounds of counselling would not be – It was on this reasoning that
an identically situated student who had taken B.Ed admission after
the appellant, was given relief – One person or situation should
be treated the same as another – Judgment of the High Court is
set aside – Authorities directed to treat the appointment given to
the appellant, pursuant to the interim order of the Division Bench,
as a regular appointment and after reinstating the appellant,
grant him consequential benefits – Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act,
1994 – Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. [Paras 15, 16]
Case Law Cited
Neeraj Kumar Rai and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Others [2017] 6
SCR 444 – referred to.
List of Acts
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994; Rajasthan Panchayati Raj
Rules, 1996.
List of Keywords
Appointment; Post of Teacher Gade-III for TSP Area; Graduation with
minimum 45% marks and One year Bachelor of Education (B.Ed);
Reserved category; Discriminate inter se among homogenous
group of students; Back wages; Fitment of pay.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10440 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2022 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in DBSAW No. 997 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
Nishant Bishnoi, Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Ms. Srishti Prabhakar, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Divyank Panwar, Milind Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
220 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment
of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
at Jodhpur dated 27.04.2022 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 997
of 2019. By the said judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the
appeal of the appellant and confirmed the order dated 27.11.2018 of
the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant.
3. We have heard Mr. Nishant Bishnoi, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Milind Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-State
and perused the records of the case. We have also considered the
written submissions filed by the parties.
4. The facts lie in a very narrow compass. The respondent-authorities
under the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994
and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, on 11.09.2017,
issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Teacher
Grade III Level II in the Scheduled Area (TSP). A total of 1455
posts were advertised. The relevant clauses of the advertisement
were as under:-
“6. MINIMUM EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS:-
Under sub-section (1) of section (23) of the Free and
Compulsory Education Act 2009, the notification of the
National Council of Teacher Education vide notification
dated 23 August 2010 and 29 July 2011 and given by
the Hon’ble High Court in the order of instructions and
according to the notification dated 29.08.2017 of the State
Government, the minimum qualifications and minimum
percentage for various categories to be included in
Rajasthan Teacher Recruitment 2016 (Revised) will be
as follows:
6.1 For Class 6 to 8 (Level-II):
General Education (Class 6 to 8):
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 221
Manilal v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
A. Graduation and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education
(by whatever name known) Graduation and 2-year Diploma
in Elementary Education (by whatever name known).
OR
Graduation with minimum 50% marks and one year
Bachelor in Education (B.Ed) Graduation with at least 50%
marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed).
OR
Graduation with minimum 45% marks and One year
Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) obtained in accordance with
the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition
Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to
time in this regard.
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50%
marks and 4 year Bachelor in Elementary Education
(B.El.Ed).
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50%
marks and 4-year B.A/B.Sc.Ed. or B.A.Ed./B.Sc.Ed.
OR
Graduation with minimum 50% marks and one year B.Ed.
(Special Education)
xxx xxx
“6.3 In seriatim of the judgment dated 20.5.2011 passed
in various petitions by the Division Bench of Hon’ble High
Court, Jodhpur, according to School Education Department,
Rajasthan letter number F 7(1)/Plan/2011 dated 17th June
2011, the following candidates would also be eligible to
participate in Rajasthan High Primary School Teachers
Direct Recruitment 2016 (amended):-
(l) All such candidates who have taken admission in
teacher training courses before issuance of notification
dated 27.09.07 by the National Teachers Education
222 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Council; for them there is no binding to secure minimum
percentage in graduation level or equivalent examination.
(2) All such candidates who have after issuance of
notification dated 27.09.07 by the National Teachers
Education Council; but before issuance of notification
dated 31.8.09, for them it is binding to secure minimum
45 percent at graduation level or equivalent examination.
(3) All such candidates who had taken admission
in various teachers training courses after issuance of
notification dated 31.8.09 of National Council for Teacher
Education, for them it is binding to secure minimum 50
percent at graduation level or equivalent examination.”
(Emphasis supplied)
5. The appellant applied for the post of Teacher under the said
advertisement. It is undisputed that the appellant had 44.58% marks
in his graduation. It is also undisputed that the appellant secured
admission in the Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) course on 23.10.2009
i.e. the date on which he deposited the fee. This fact is admitted
in the counter affidavit of the State filed before this Court in Para
7 and in the written submissions filed by the State in Para 1. The
appellant, being admittedly from the reserved category, the qualifying
percentage required for admission to the B.Ed Course was 40%
marks in graduation (45% for general category) as is clear from the
12.04.2019 Press Release. The appellant fulfilled this criteria and
obtained admission.
6. When the matter stood thus, the appellant’s name did not appear in
the provisional list of selected candidates despite securing 44.58%
marks, which was way above the cut-off marks. The appellant
contends that he was informed that his candidature was rejected
for the reason that he had secured less than 45% marks in his
graduation.
7. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed S.B. Civil Writ No. 16005 of
2018 and one Rakesh Gaur, who was similarly situated, also filed
S.B. Civil Writ No. 14129 of 2018 [Rakesh Gaur vs. The State of
Rajasthan]. Both the writ petitions were dismissed on 27.11.2018.
Undeterred, the appellant filed D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 997 of 2019.
Rakesh Gaur filed D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 224 of 2019.
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 223
Manilal v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
8. At this stage, on 13.11.2019, the National Council for Teacher
Education [NCTE] issued a clarification by way of a supplementary
notification which stated that minimum percentage of marks in
graduation shall not be applicable to those incumbents who had
already taken admission to the Bachelor of Education or Bachelor of
Elementary Education or equivalent course prior to 29th July, 2011.
It further stated that the notification of 13.11.2019 was to be made
applicable from 29.07.2011. The relevant extracts of the notification
is as follows:-
“(B). After clause (b), at the end, the following proviso
shall be inserted namely:
“Provided that minimum percentage of marks in graduation
shall not be applicable to those incumbents who had
already taken admission to the Bachelor of Education or
Bachelor of Elementary Education or equivalent course
prior to the 29th July, 2011.
2. This notification shall be deemed to have come into
force on the 29th July, 2011.
Sanjay Awasthi,
Member Secy
(Advt III/4/ Exty/304/19)
Note: The principal notification was published in the
Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part III, Section 4, Vide
number F.No. 61-3/20/2010 NCTE (N & S) dated the 23rd
August, 2010 and was subsequently amended vide number
F.No. 61- 1/2011 NCTE (N & S) dated the 29th July, 2011.
Explanatory Memorandum
The amendment notification number F.No. 61-1/2011
NCTE (N & S) dated the 29th July, 2011 issued by the
National Council for Teacher Education was challenged
before the Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Kumar
Rai and others Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. in Civil Appeal
No. 9732 of 2017 and the Hon’ble Court vide its order
dated the 25th July, 2017 had directed the National Council
for Teacher Education to issue a clarification by way of
a supplementary notification regarding the percentage of
224 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
marks specified therein. Necessary amendment is required
to be made retrospectively from the date of notification of
the said rules. It is certified that none will be adversely
affected by the retrospective effect being given to the
amendment rules.
(Emphasis supplied)
9. The supplementary notification of 13.11.2019 was a sequel to the
judgment of this Court in Neeraj Kumar Rai and Ors. Vs. State
of U.P. and Others [Civil Appeal No. 9732 of 2017 decided on
25.07.2017].
10. It was noticed by this Court in Neeraj Kumar Rai (supra) that
the 2009 Norms and Standards for Secondary Teacher Education
Programme through Open and Distance Learning System leading
to B.Ed. did not provide for any minimum percentage of marks
in Bachelor’s degree. Thereafter, this Court noticed that in the
NCTE notification dated 23.08.2010, the requirement of prescribed
percentage of marks in graduation was laid down and on that basis
the said requirement was incorporated in the 29.07.2011 notification.
The appellants in Neeraj Kumar Rai (supra) relying on the judgments
delivered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 3964 of 2011 etc. [Sushil Sompura and Ors.
Vs. State (Education) and Ors.] and the learned Single Judge of
the Uttarakhand High Court in Writ Petition No. 772(SS) of 2011
etc. [Baldev Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors.]
respectively contended that in case the admission to the B.Ed.
course had been obtained prior to the prescription of the minimum
qualifying marks by NCTE in Bachelor’s Degree, the minimum
qualifying marks in graduation ought not to be insisted. Recording
the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General to the
effect that the appellants therein are to be treated on par, this Court
granted relief to the appellants therein on par with the relief granted
by the Rajasthan and Uttarakhand High Courts.
11. Independently, in the matter of State of Rajasthan vs. Ankul
Singhal - D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 545 of 2020, by an order
dated 08.09.2020, the Division Bench, while dismissing the appeal
of the State, had the following to say insofar as the facts in Ankul
Singhal were concerned:
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 225
Manilal v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
“Admission to the said post was initiated in terms of
advertisement issued in the month of April, 2009. Eligibility
for admission was 45% marks at graduation level.
Respondent had secured 49.61% marks in his graduation
examination. Respondent cleared the Pre-Shiksha Shastri
test. Counseling for allotment of colleges on merit cum-
preference was notified on 04.07.2009. The respondent
deposited the necessary fee on 07.07.2009. First round of
counseling was held between 31.07.2009 and 03.08.2009.
Second round of counseling was held between 26.08.2009
and 28.08.2009. As per notification dated 21.08.2009,
respondent was allotted college for pursuing Shiksha
Shastri course 2009-10 and was admitted on 04.09.2009.
Clauses 9.3(ii) and 9.3(iii) of the advertisement dated
31.07.2018 read as under:
9.3 The Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur
Division Bench, in order of judgment dated 20.05.2011
passed in various petitions, according to School Education
Department, Rajasthan letter number F 7(1) E.E/ Plan/2011
dated 17 June, 2011 and clarification dated 16.09.2013,
the following candidates would be eligible to participate in
Rajasthan Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers
Direct Recruitment, 2018:-
(i) All such candidates who have taken admission
in teacher training courses before issuance of
notification dated 27.09.2007 of the National Teachers
Education Council, they are not obliged to obtain
minimum percentage marks at bachelors level or
equivalent examination.
(ii) All such candidates who have taken admission in
teacher training courses after issuance of notification
dated 27.09.2007 of National Teachers Education
Council but before issuance of notification dated
31.08.2009 in teaching training courses, for them it
is compulsory to obtain minimum 45 percent marks
at graduation level or equivalent examination.
226 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(iii) All such candidates who had taken admission
in teachers training courses after issuance of
notification of National Teachers Education Council
dated 31.08.2009, for them it is compulsory to obtain
minimum 50 percent marks at graduation level or
equivalent examination.
Learned Single Judge rightly observed that the admission
of the respondent in the course would relate back to the
date of admission after the first round of counselling which
took place before 31.08.2009. If that is not so, then an
absurd classification of homogeneous group of students
admitted in Shiksha Shastri course in the academic session
2009-10 would arise and the same would have no nexus
to be achieved. Thus, some students in respondent’s
class admitted after first round of counseling would be
eligible, even with less than 50% marks in graduation,
to be appointed as Teacher Grade-III, Level-Il while
the respondent who was also from the same class and
admitted through the same process would not be eligible
for appointment for the reason of less than 50% marks
in graduation.
Learned Single Judge rightly held that the said uneven
and discriminatory situation between equals (students of
Shiksha Shastri class of 2009-10) would be unsustainable
and was liable to be declared ultra vires Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
Learned Single Judge then rightly drew the conclusion that
Clause 9.3(iii) read with clause 9.3(ii) of the advertisement
dated 31.07.2018 entitling eligibility for those with 45%
marks at graduation who had substantially undergone the
admission process to Shiksha Shastri course and were
allotted college for the purpose before 31.08.2009 though
admitted later and the case of the respondent would fall in
the said category as he had taken admission to Shiksha
Shastri course pursuant to advertisement in April, 2009
when notification dated 27.09.2007 was operative and as
per the said notification eligibility criteria was 45% marks
in graduation course.
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 227
Manilal v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Hence, the learned Single Judge rightly held that the case of
the respondent was liable to be considered for appointment
as Teacher Grade-III, Level-Il as per his competitive merit
in the category subject to his fulfilling other requirements
eligibility on his application in pursuance of advertisement
dated 31.07.2018.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15793/2020 filed by the State
against the judgment in Ankul Singhal (supra) was dismissed by
this Court on 01.02.2021.
12. By an order of 23.10.2021, in the appellant’s D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.
997 of 2019, relying on the NCTE notification of 13.11.2019, an interim
order was passed directing the respondents to accord appointment
to the appellant on the post of Teacher Gade-III pursuant to the
Advertisement No. 02 of 2017 in question for TSP Area (English
subject), if otherwise eligible. It is not disputed that the appellant
has, pursuant to the interim order was appointed. Thereafter, it is
contended that after the impugned order, the appellant’s appointment
was cancelled on 07.06.2022.
13. On 10.03.2022, the D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 224 of 2019 of Rakesh
Gaur (supra), who was identically situated, was allowed by relying
on the Division Bench judgment in Ankul Singhal (supra). In fact,
the said Rakesh Gaur has taken admission on 05.11.2009, after the
appellant herein.
14. However, when the appeal of the appellant came up on 27.04.2022, by
relying on D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1205 of 2019 (Dinesh
Chandra Damor vs. State of Rajasthan), the appeal was dismissed.
The appellant herein had joined the course on 23.10.2009 whereas
as is clear from the facts of Dinesh Chandra Damor (supra) that
candidate has joined on 20.10.2010 i.e. one year and two months
(approx.) after the cut-off date of 31.08.2009.
15. The appellant’s case was more akin to the case of Rakesh Gaur
(supra), who had taken admission on 05.11.2009. We are clearly of
the opinion on the special facts of this case that the Division Bench
erred in applying the case of Dinesh Chandra Damor (supra) instead
of applying the reasoning in the judgment in Ankul Singhal (supra)
and Rakesh Gaur (supra) to the facts of this case. As was held in
228 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Ankul Singhal (supra), it will be improper to discriminate inter se
among a homogenous group of students admitted for the academic
session 2009-10. As was pointed out therein, it could not be that
those students admitted in the first round of counselling would be
eligible, even with less than 50% marks in graduation, while the
others admitted in the subsequent rounds of counselling would not
be. It was on this reasoning that Rakesh Gaur (supra) was given
relief. Rakesh Gaur (supra) was a case identically situated with the
case of the appellant. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce
for the gander too.
16. In view of the same, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court dated 27.04.2022 in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ
No. 997 of 2019. We direct the respondent-authorities to treat the
appointment given to the appellant, pursuant to the interim order
of the Division Bench dated 23.10.2021, as a regular appointment
and after reinstating the appellant grant consequential benefits. We
direct that except for the period the appellant actually worked, he
shall not be entitled to any back wages. However, fitment of pay
shall be granted. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period
of four weeks from today. No order as to costs.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Appointment"Sign in to search