OMKAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

894                      [2019]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    10 S.C.R. 894             [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A                              OMKAR SINGH
                                       v.
                            STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
                         (Civil Appeal No.5564 of 2019)
B                                JULY 16, 2019
      [ARUN MISHRA, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
             Education/Educational Institutions: Eligibility criteria for
      appearing in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) – NCTE by Notification
      dated 23.08.2010 laid down minimum qualification for a person to
C
      be eligible for appointment as a teacher in class I to VII – One of
      the eligibility criteria stated therein is “passed in the TET to be
      conducted by appropriate government in accordance with the
      guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose” – The eligibility
      for the TET examination is provided in Para 5 of the NCTE Guidelines
D     – Para 5 of the guidelines states that the incumbents who have
      acquired the qualification academic as well as professional can
      apply for TET examination – The second category of candidates
      who can apply for TET examination is those who are “pursuing”
      any TTC – Issue involved in these appeals is the meaning and
      interpretation of the word “pursuing” as appearing in Para 5(ii) of
E
      the NCTE Guidelines – Held: The meaning of “pursuing” is a person
      who is undergoing any of TTC – He/she must have been admitted
      and pursuing TTC which is prescribed as a qualification –
      Declaration of the result, appearing in the examination or date of
      filling up of the forms, etc. cannot be the criteria to appear in the
F     TET examination – Therefore, a candidate who is undergoing i.e.,
      “pursuing” the requisite TTC shall be eligible to appear in the TET
      examination – By impugned order, Division Bench of the High Court
      in respect of eligibility held that as on the last date specified for
      filling up the online form for TET examination, the candidates must
      have appeared in the examination (of TTC) and the result has not
G
      been declared – These riders are not proper in view of clear language
      used in clause 5(ii) of the NCTE guidelines – Division Bench of
      High Court read into and/or added something more than what is
      provided in clause 5(ii) of the NCTE guidelines – The language

H
                                     894
           OMKAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                             895


used in clause 5 (ii) of the NCTE guidelines is simple, clear and          A
unambiguous – In the instant case, admittedly, on the cut-off date,
all the candidates were pursuing the concerned TTC – Thereafter,
all of them cleared the TET examination as well as cleared the
concerned TTC – At the time when they were appointed as Assistant
Teachers, all of them fulfilled the eligibility criteria for appointment
                                                                           B
as Assistant Teachers – All of them passed the TET examination and
also passed the TTC as per the requisite eligibility criteria – Thus,
ousting certain incumbents by the High Court cannot be sustained
since they were pursuing TTC and they were clearly eligible to
appear in the TET examination and passed it while pursuing the
requisite professional qualification for being eligible to be appointed    C
as Assistant Teachers – The respective appellants whose
appointments were challenged were eligible to appear in the TET
examination at the time they were “pursuing” the concerned TTC –
Thus, the decision of the High Court, to the aforesaid extent, is not
sustainable – The impugned orders of the High Court are accordingly
                                                                           D
modified to the aforesaid extent – As regards the submission with
regard to persons who have passed Graduation without Science or
Mathematics as one of the subjects is concerned, the concerned
District Education Officers are directed to carry out the exercise to
find out such candidates who are Graduate and have been appointed
as Assistant Teachers without having Science or Mathematics as             E
one of the subjects, within a period of three months – Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2017 – s.23 –
Interpretation of statutes – Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972
– s.2(1)(b) – Teacher Training – Uttar Pradesh Basic Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 – r.8 – NCTE Guidelines.
                                                                           F
      Interpretation of Statutes: As per the cardinal principle of
the rule of interpretation, while construing a particular provision,
the particular provision is required to be read as it is and nothing is
to be added or taken away – Education/Educational Institutions.
      Interpretation of Statutes: The expression ‘rule of literal          G
construction’ lays down that words of a statute are first understood
in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and phrases, and
sentences are construed according to their grammatical meaning –
Education/Educational Institutions.

                                                                           H
896            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A          Words and Phrases: Word “pursuing” – Meaning of –
      Education/Educational Institutions.
             G.P. Singh in ‘Principles of Statutory Interpretation’
             (14th end.) at p. 91 – referred to.
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.5564 of
B     2019
            From the Judgment and Order dated 30.05.2018 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 506 of 2018
                                       With
C           Civil Appeal Nos. 5569, 5566, 5570, 5568, 5565, 5571, 5572, 5567,
      5573, 5574, 5575, 5576, 5577, 5583, 5582, 5586, 5579, 5578, 5584, 5585,
      5580, 5588, 5587, 5581, 5590, 5589, 5591, 5592 of 2019.
             R. Venkataramani, Dinesh Dwivedi, V. Shekhar, Nidhesh Gupta,
      Rupender Singh Suri, Rakesh K. Khanna, Shyam Divan, Mrs. V. Mohana,
D     Mrs. Kiran Suri, P. V. Surendranath, Pallav Shishodia, Ajay K. Mishra,
      Sr. Advs., R. K. Singh, Kumar Gaurav, Robin Khokhar, Yash Raj Bundela,
      Praveen Vignesh, Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Ms. Japneet Kaur,
      Ms. Vriti Gujral, Ms. Pallavi Singh, Anzu. K. Varkey, Mrs. Neeraj Singh,
      Ms. Harshita Raghuvanshi, K. Ramesh, Aditya Giri, Vikas Singh,
      Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Ms. Roopali Chaturvedi, Prashant Shukla,
E
      Suyash Srivastava, Ms. Nikita Capoor, Ms. Shreya Mishra, Ravindra
      Sadanand Chingale, Mrs. Neeraj Singh, Ms. Ritu Reniwal, Rohit Singh,
      Ms. Resmitha R. Chandran, Ms. Lekha Sudhakaran, Ved Prakash, Sanjay
      Rastogi, Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Dr. Vinod Kr. Tewari, Rajesh K.
      Singh, Krishnanand Pandeya, Ms. Pooja, Ravi S. Jha, Kedar Nath
F     Tripathy, Mukesh Verma, Sanjeet Paliwal, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Niranjan
      Sahu, Raj Singh Rana, Ms. Parul Shukla, Gaurav Yadava, Virendra
      Kasana, Vijay Pratap Yadav, Karunakar Mahalik, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi,
      Prithvi Raj Singh, Ms. Sheetal Rajput, Sushil Kumar, Rajeev Kumar
      Gupta, Mrs. Prachi Bhatnagar, Balraj Dewan, Mrigank Prabhakar,
      Devvrat, Ms. Priyanka Das, Tom Joseph, U. C. Mohanty, Binay Kumar
G
      Das, P. Dayal, Rajesh Sharma, Ms. Shalu Sharma, Anand Nandan, Rajesh
      Srivastava, Abbula Kalam, Abdul Qadir, Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Vaibhav
      Manu Srivastava, Manoj K. Mishra, Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay,
      Shafiq Khan, Ms. Nidhi Singh Dubey, Sanjay Rastogi, Dhruv Gautam,
      Devashish Chauhan, Ms. Pallavi Mishra, Ms. Neha Agarwal, Ms. Charu
H     Ambwani, Nishesh Sharma, Durga Dutt, Rohit Priyadarshi, Rahul Kumar
           OMKAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                             897


Tripathi, Parminder Singh Bhullar, Vivek Singh, Swastik Dalai, A.          A
Lakshminarayanan, Ms. Manju Jetley, Amit Pawan, Ms. Garima
Prashad, Satyajeet Kumar, Rakesh Mishra, Bimlesh Kumar Singh, Rajeev
K. Gupta, Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Rajesh Srivastava, Puskar Sharma,
Susheel Tomar, Sanjeev Malhotra, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Ms. Kamakshi
S. Mehlwal, Nishit Agrawal, Harsh Mishra, Udayaditya Banerjee,
                                                                           B
Ms. Khushboo Vinodray Malkan, Alok Singh, Narayan R. Panicker,
Dr. Amarendra P. Yadav, Abhishek Singh, Ms. Manju Sharma Jaitley,
Advs. for the appearing parties.
      The following Order of the Court was passed:
                                 ORDER                                     C
       1. Leave granted. Applications for impleadment are allowed to
the extent of intervention.
      2. All these appeals have been preferred against the impugned
common judgment and final order of the Division Bench of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 30.05.2018 in Special Appeal           D
NO.506/2018 deciding the bunch of the matters.
       3. The singular question involved is whether the incumbents who
were pursuing any of the Teachers Training Course (for short ‘TTC’)
(recognized by the National Council for Teachers Education (for short
‘NCTE’) or the Rehabilitation Council of India (for short ‘RCI’) as the    E
case may be) could have appeared in the Teachers Eligibility Test (for
short ‘TET’) prescribed by the NCTE?
       4. The basic education is defined under Section 2(1)(b) of the
Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 (for short “Act of 1972”) to
mean education up to class VIII imparted in schools other than high        F
schools or intermediate colleges. Section 19 of the Act of 1972 provides
for rulemaking power of the State Government and envisages that the
State Government by notification may make rules for carrying out
purposes of the Act. The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers)
Service Rules, 1981 have been framed in exercise of the powers under
                                                                           G
Section 19 of the Act of 1972. Rule 8 of the 1981 Rules provides for
essential qualification of the candidates for appointment to the post of
Assistant Master of Senior Basic School and Assistant Mistress of Senior
Basic School for teaching Science and Mathematics and require a
candidate to have Bachelor Degree with Science and Mathematics and
                                                                           H
898            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A     training qualification of B.T.C., C.T., B.Ed. and B.Ed. Special Education
      or a course recognized by RCI and passed Teacher Eligibility Test
      conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Government or the Government of India.
             4.1. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education
      Act, 2009 (in short ‘Act of 2009’) was enacted w.e.f. 16.02.2010. The
B     Central Government in exercise of power under sub-Section (1) of Section
      23 of the Act of 2009 vide notification dated 31.3.2010 authorized the
      NCTE as an academic authority to lay down the minimum qualification
      for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. The Constitution
      (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 inserting Article 21A relating to
      the Right to Education was given effect from 01.04.2010. Article 21A
C     postulates that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to
      all the children of age from 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State
      may determine. The NCTE, the academic authority, laid down minimum
      qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in
      class I to class VIII. The dispute in this matter is confined to the
D     appointment of Assistant Teacher in Class VI to VIII.
             4.2 The NCTE vide notification dated 23.08.2010 laid down the
      qualifications for minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for
      appointment as a teacher in class I to VII as under:
            “1. Minimum Qualifications:-
E
            (I) Classes I-V
            (a) Senior Secondary (or it’s equivalent) with at least 50 % marks
            and a 2-year diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name
            known)
F                                       or
            Senior Secondary (or it’s 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.
G                                       or
            Senior Secondary (or it’s equivalent) with at least 50% marks and
            4 year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)


H
     OMKAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                             899


                          or                                         A
Senior Secondary (or it’s equivalent) with at least 50% marks and
2-year Diploma in Education (Special Education)
 AND
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by   B
the appropriate Government in accordance with the guideline
framed by the NCTE for the purpose.
(ii) Classes VI-VIII
(a) B.A./B.Sc and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by
whatever name known)                                                 C
                          or
B.A./B.Sc. With at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor in
Education (B.Ed.)
                          or                                         D
B.A/B.Sc. With at least 45% marks and 1 year Bachelor in
Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition
Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in
this regard.
                          Or                                         E

Senior Secondary (or it’s 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     F
4 year BA/B.Sc./B.Sc.Ed. Or B.A.Ed./B.Sc.Ed.
                          Or
B.A./B.Sc. With at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed.(Special
Education)
                                                                     G
                          AND
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to be conducted by
the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines
framed by the NCTE for the purpose.”
                                                                     H
900            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A           5. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
      2009 has been further amended by inserting a second proviso under
      Section 23 on 01.04.2015 as under:
            “Provided further that every teacher appointed or in position as
            on the 31 st March 2015, who does not possess minimum
B           qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire
            such minimum qualifications within a period of four years from
            the date of commencement of the Right of Children to Free and
            Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017.”
             5.1 As one of the eligibility criteria for appointment as a teacher
C     as per the notification issued by the NCTE dated 23.8.2010 is passed in
      the TET to be conducted by the appropriate government in accordance
      with the guidelines framed by the NCTE for conducting the TET, it has
      been mentioned that it is necessary to ensure that persons recruited as
      teachers possess the essential aptitude and ability to meet the challenges
      of teaching at the primary and upper primary level.
D
            5.2 As per the guidelines framed by NCTE for conducting the
      TET, the rationale for including the TET as a minimum qualification for
      a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher is given in the
      Guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) are extracted
      hereunder:
E
            “3 The rationale for including the TET as a minimum qualification
            for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher is as under:
            “i. It would bring national standards and benchmark of teacher
            quality in the recruitment process;
F           ii. It would induce teacher education institutions and students from
            these institutions to further improve their performance standards;
            iii. It would send a positive signal to all stakeholders that the
            Government lays special emphasis on teacher quality.”
             5.3 The eligibility for the TET examination has been provided in
G     para 5 of the Guideline as under:
            “Eligibility
            5 The following persons shall be eligible for appearing in the TET:

H
           OMKAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                                901


      i) A person who has acquired the academic and professional quali-       A
      fications specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August
      2010;
      ii A person who is pursuing any of the teacher education
      courses (recognized by the NCTE or the RCI, as the case may
      be) specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August 2010;          B
      iii. The eligibility condition for appearing in TET may be relaxed in
      respect of a State/UT which has been granted relaxation under
      sub-section (2) of section 23 of the RTE Act. The relaxation will
      be specified in the notification issued by the Central Government
      under that sub-section.”                                                C
                                                     (emphasis supplied)
        5.4 It is apparent that the condition No.(i) of para 5 is that a
person who has acquired academic and professional qualifications as
per notification dated 23.8.2010 can appear in the TET examination. As
per para 5 (ii), a person who is “pursuing” any of the teacher education      D
courses recognized by NCTE or the RCI, as specified in Notification
dated 23.08.2010 shall be eligible for appearing in the TET. As per para
5(iii), the eligibility condition for appearing in TET may be relaxed in
respect of State/UT which has been granted relaxation under Section
23 (2) of the RTE Act of 2009. The relaxation will be specified in the        E
notification issued by the Central Government.
       6. In the State of U.P., a Government Order dated 7.9.2011 had
been issued for conducting TET which provided that a candidate having
B.A, B.Sc, B.Com. and TTC passed are eligible to appear in the TET
and subsequently, the State of U.P. issued another Government Order           F
dated 17.9.2011 in the modification of the earlier Government Order
dated 7.9.2011, whereby the eligibility guidelines came to be amended in
pursuance of the NCTE notification dated 29.7.2011 and in place of
B.A., B.Sc., B.Com. the words “Graduate” came to be substituted.
Thereafter, the aforesaid Government Orders dated 7.9.2011 and
17.9.2011 came to be amended vide G.O. dated 4.10.2011 and for that           G
examination, such candidates were authorized to appear who have passed
TTC recognized by the NCTE or who were appearing in the last year
examination of TTC. The last date of submission of the applications for

                                                                              H
902             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A     UPTET was 18.10.2011. The UPTET examination was held on
      13.11.2011. On 25.11.2011 UPTET examination result was declared.
      At this stage, it is required to be noted that similarly CTET examination
      was conducted by the Central Government authorizing such candidates
      to appear who were pursuing the TTC but have not passed the TTC
      examination. Thereafter on 17.4.2013, the government order was issued
B
      for conducting UPTET examination 2013 and the consequential office
      orders were issued.
             7. The learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3100 of 2013
      (Vinod Kumar Singh and others vs. State of UP and others) passed an
      order dated 13.3.2013 allowing, as an interim measure, the candidates
C     pursuing the TTC to appear in the TET examination making the result
      subject to further orders of the Court. Thereafter, the Government Order
      dated 17.4.2013 came to be issued for conducting UPTET examination
      2013 and consequential office orders were issued. Then a bunch of writ
      petitions came to be filed before the High Court by such candidates who
D     were pursuing TTC or appearing in the last year examination of TTC
      with a prayer that they are being deprived to appear in the TET on the
      ground that they have not passed TTC.
             7.1 The High Court disposed of the aforesaid bunch of writ petitions
      directing the State Government to take notice of the guidelines of NCTE
E     for eligibility and issue appropriate instructions or government order in
      the event it is found that the writ petitioners are also entitled to appear in
      the examination. In compliance of the aforesaid order passed by the
      High Court dated 13.5.2013, a Government Order dated 15.05.2013 came
      to be issued by the State Government modifying the Government Order
      dated 17.4.2013 and the office orders providing therein that such
F     candidates may also be entitled to appear in the TET examination who
      are appearing in TTC examination. It also provided that such candidates
      will be allowed provisionally to appear in the TET examination with a
      condition that TET examination passed certificate will be valid only after
      passing the TTC examination. The UPTET examination was held on
G     27/28.6.2013 and the result of the UPTET 2013 was declared on
      13.11.2013. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the respective
      appellants – original respondents before the High Court are the candidates
      who have passed UPTET examination, however, at the relevant time
      when they appeared in the TET examination, all of them were pursuing

H
            OMKAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                               903


their TTC course. It appears that thereafter a Government Order dated         A
11.7.2013 was issued for filling up 14667 posts of Assistant Teachers of
Science and 14667 posts of Assistant Teachers of Maths, total 29334
posts of Assistant Teacher of Senior Basic Schools (Class VI to VIII).
The Government Order further provided eligibility educational qualification
as B.Sc. and TTC recognized by the NCTE and TET passed. The
                                                                              B
academic qualification was modified in place of B.Sc. and it was made
graduation with a subject of Science or Maths, as the case may be. As
against the aforesaid vacancies, the candidates who have passed UPTET
examination 2011, CTET examination 2012, UPTET examination 2013
and CTET examination 2013 were eligible to apply. The last date for
submission of the applications was 30.09.2013, which was further              C
extended to 10.10.2013. All the appellants applied pursuant to the
aforesaid advertisement. All of them were appointed and all of them
are working as Assistant Teachers in the respective subjects since 2015.
       7.2 After a period of two years – in the year 2017, a bunch of
petitions came to be filed before the High Court challenging the              D
appointments/appointment process initiated by the State Government by
G.O. dated 11.7.2013. Twofold submissions/grievances were made, firstly,
that the appointments have been offered to persons who are ineligible in
terms of the qualifications specified, inasmuch as they do not have
Science or Mathematics as one of the subjects in the Graduation Degree,
and secondly, the persons who had not passed an examination or were           E
not in the final year of their TTC had also appeared in the TET
examination, which was impermissible, and that, such persons have also
been appointed. The learned Single Bench of the High Court disposed
of the aforesaid petitions vide judgment and order dated 8.5.2018. The
learned Single Judge observed and held as under:                              F
                                                                      th
      “In view of the notification issued by the NCTE dated 11 of
      February, 2011, as well as the Government Order issued on 15th
      of May, 2013, the inescapable conclusion culled out from the
      provision is that only those persons are eligible to appear in the
      TET examination who have acquired academic and professional             G
      qualification and have either obtained training qualification or are
      pursuing any of the teacher education courses.
      In view of the interpretation given to the word “pursuing” by this
      Court, which stands implemented vide Government Order dated
                                                                              H
904            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A           15th of May, 2013, it is clear that only those persons, who are in
            the final year of their teacher training courses, alone, would be
            entitled to appear in the TET examination.
            The appointing authority, therefore, is directed to ensure that before
            appointment letters are issued to the candidate, he/she must have
B           passed TET after completing a training course or such persons
            were in the final year of their training examination. A person,
            who does not come in either of the two categories, would not be
            issued any appointment order. The State Government shall
            implement its Government Order of 15th of May, 2013 and circulars
            would be issued for its strict compliance by the appointing
C           authorities. The appointing authorities shall also clearly state
            such fact in the appointment letter issued to the candidates
            appointed as Assistant Teachers.
            This takes the Court to the last limb of petitioners’ grievance,
            regarding those who have been appointed as Assistant Teachers,
D           even while they had not even completed the first year of their
            teacher training course. By way of illustration, some of the
            petitioners have annexed materials to show that appointment
            orders have been issued to persons who have passed TET even
            before completing the first year of their training course. Such
E           appointment orders would be inconsistent with the Government
            Orders, already issued by the State Government, dated 15th of
            May, 2013 as well as NCTE circular dated 11th of February, 2011.
            Liberty, therefore, is reserved to the petitioners to challenge such
            specific appointments before the appointing authorities, i.e., the
F           District Basic Education Officer concerned, at the first instance,
            who shall examine such individual grievances on facts after
            affording the opportunity of hearing to the selected candidates.
            The process, in that regard, would be concluded within a period
            of six months from the date of raising such grievance, along with
G           a certified copy of this order, before the appointing authority.”
             7.3 The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Bench
      dated 8.5.2018 was the subject matter of appeals before the Division
      Bench of the High Court. By the impugned common judgment and
      order, the Division Bench has opined differently as under:
H
      OMKAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                                905


“A perusal of Clause 5(ii) of the notification dated 11th February       A
2011 issued by the NCTE indicates that a person who is pursuing
any of the teachers’ training courses specified in the NCTE
Noti23.8.2010 dated 23rd August 2010 would also be eligible. It
appears to us that this benefit was considered to be given to such
candidates whose teacher training course result had not been
                                                                         B
declared by the last date specified for filling the online form for
TET examination. That is why such persons who were pursuing
the teacher training course could appear at the TET examination.
In our opinion “pursuing any of the teacher training course” should
not be restricted only to such persons who were appearing in the
examination of the teacher training course. It should also include       C
such persons who have studying in the course but examination
had not been held. But what is important is that such persons
should have been declared successful in the teachers training
course before the date on which the examination result of TET is
declared. If such interpretation is not given then even if a candidate   D
does not pass the teachers’ training course, the TET Certificate
would be issued to him and this would enable him to seek
appointment as an Assistant Teacher even though he has not
passed the qualifying examination. This clause merely facilitates
such person to appear at the TET examination even if the result
of the teacher training course has not been declared. This               E
interpretation would subserve the purpose for which such persons
were considered eligible. To give any other interpretation would
defeat the purpose of the facility that has been provided to such
persons.
In support of this interpretation, it would be appropriate to refer to   F
the schedule that was placed before the Court for the 2011
examination. The last date for applying was 18 October 2011.
The examination was held on 13 November 2011 and the result
was declared on 25 November 2011. The case of the appellants
is that persons whose result of the teacher training course has not      G
been declared by 25 November 2011 were issued certificates and
based on the certificates they were appointed. According to them
the result of the teacher training course was declared in March
2012.”

                                                                         H
906             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A           7.4 The impugned common judgment and order passed by the
      Division Bench of the High Court is the subject matter of the present
      appeals.
             8. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the respective
      parties at length.
B            8.1 The issue involved in the present appeals is the meaning and
      interpretation of the word “pursuing” as appearing in Clause 5(ii) of the
      NCTE guidelines. The question for consideration is the eligibility criteria
      to appear in the TET examination. It is apparent from the reading of the
      guidelines framed by the NCTE – para 5 that the incumbents who have
C     acquired the qualification academic as well as professional can apply
      for TET examination. The second category of candidates who can
      apply for TET examination is those who are “pursuing” any teacher
      training course (TTC). The meaning of “pursuing” is a person who is
      undergoing any of the teacher training course (TTC). He/she must
      have been admitted and pursuing the teacher training course which is
D     prescribed as a qualification. Declaration of the result, appearing in the
      examination or date of filling up of the forms, etc. cannot be the criteria
      to appear in the TET examination. Therefore, a candidate who is
      undergoing i.e., “pursuing” the requisite teacher training course (TTC)
      shall be eligible to appear in the TET examination.
E            8.2. The learned Single Judge of the High Court held and concluded
      that “only those persons who are in the final year of the teacher training
      course (TTC) alone would be entitled to appear in the TET examination”.
      The Division Bench of the High Court has gone further and has observed
      that “only such candidates, whose teacher training course result has not
F     been declared by the last date specified for filling up the online form for
      TET examination can be said to be “pursuing” the teacher training course
      as mentioned in clause 5(ii) of the NCTE guidelines and could appear in
      the TET examination. Therefore, according to the Division Bench of the
      High Court, as on the last date specified for filling up the online form for
      TET examination, the candidates must have appeared in the examination
G     (of TTC) and the result has not been declared. These riders are not
      proper given the clear language used in clause 5(ii) of the NCTE
      guidelines. The Division Bench of the High Court has read into and/or
      added something more than what is provided in clause 5(ii) of the NCTE
      guidelines. The language used in clause 5 (ii) of the NCTE guidelines is
H
            OMKAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                                 907


simple, clear and unambiguous. As per the cardinal principle of the rule        A
of interpretation, while construing a particular provision, the particular
provision is required to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or
taken away.
       8.3 Looking to the clear wordings in clause 5(ii) of the NCTE
guidelines and the phrase used is “pursuing”, the High Court is not justified   B
in adding the additional riders, such as, that to become eligible for
appearing in the TET examination, a candidate must have appeared in
the TTC examination and the result have not been declared by the last
date specified for filling up the online form for TET examination. As per
the dictionary meaning, the word “pursuing” means undergoing and/or
proceeding further. Therefore, a candidate who has been admitted in             C
any of the TTC and undergoing the teacher training course (TTC) can
be said to be “pursuing” such teacher training course and shall be eligible
to appear in the TET examination, irrespective of the fact that whether,
by the last date specified for filling up the online form for TET
examination, he has, in fact, appeared in the examination of the concerned      D
teacher training course and the result is awaited. “Pursuing” the requisite
teacher training course is sufficient to make such a candidate eligible to
appear in the TET examination. Therefore, on a fair reading of clause
5(ii) of the NCTE guidelines, a person who has been admitted in TTC
and is pursuing, he/she can appear in the TET examination. In the present
case, admittedly, on the cut-off date, all the candidates were pursuing         E
the concerned teacher training course. Thereafter, all of them have
cleared the TET examination as well as have cleared the concerned
teacher training course. At the time when they were appointed as
Assistant Teachers, all of them fulfilled the eligibility criteria for
appointment as Assistant Teachers. All of them have passed the TET              F
examination and have also passed the TTC as per the requisite eligibility
criteria. Thus, in our view, ousting certain incumbents by the High Court
cannot be sustained since they were pursuing TTC and they were clearly
eligible to appear in the TET examination and have passed it while pursuing
the requisite professional qualification for being eligible to be appointed
as Assistant Teachers.                                                          G

       8.4 It is not permissible to add riders as done by the High Court.
The phrase “pursuing” is to be given literal meaning. The expression
‘rule of literal construction’ lays down that words of a statute are first

                                                                                H
908            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A     understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and phrases, and
      sentences are construed according to their grammatical meaning. The
      learned author G.P. Singh in ‘Principles of Statutory Interpretation’
      (14th end.) at p. 91, has observed:
              “… Natural and grammatical meaning.—The words of a statute
B           are first understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and
            phrases and sentences are construed according to their
            grammatical meaning, unless that leads to some absurdity or unless
            there is something in the context, or in the object of the statute to
            suggest the contrary. “The true way”, according to Lord
            Brougham [Crawford v. Spooner, 1846 SCC Online PC 7] is,
C
                       ‘to take the words as the legislature have given them,
            and to take the meaning which the words given naturally imply,
            unless where the construction of those words is, either by the
            Preamble or by the context of the words in question, controlled or
            altered;: [Crawford case (supra)]
D
            and in the words of Viscount Haldane [Attorney General v. Milne,
            1914 AC 765 (HL)],L.C. if the language used “has a natural
            meaning we cannot depart from that meaning unless reading the
            statute as a whole, the context directs us to do so. In an oft-
            quoted passage, Lord Wensleydale stated [Grey v. Pearson,
E           (1857) 6 HL Cas 61] the rule thus:
              ‘… in construing wills and indeed statutes, and all written
            instruments, the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is
            to be adhered to, unless that would lead to some absurdity, or
            some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument,
F           in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words
            may be modified, so as to avoid that absurdity, and inconsistency,
            but no further.’”
             Therefore, it is clear that the respective appellants herein whose
      appointments were challenged were eligible to appear in the TET
G     examination at the time they were “pursuing” the concerned TTC. Thus,
      we hold that the decision of the High Court, to the aforesaid extent, is
      not sustainable. The impugned orders of the High Court are accordingly
      modified to the aforesaid extent.

H
                OMKAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                            909


       9. Now so far as the submission on behalf of some of the appellants     A
herein – original writ petitioners with regard to persons who have passed
Graduation without Science or Mathematics as one of the subjects is
concerned, the concerned District Education Officers are directed to
carry out the exercise to find out such candidates who are Graduate and
have been appointed as Assistant Teachers without having Science or
                                                                               B
Mathematics as one of the subjects, within a period of three months
from today. Let the exercise be completed duly considering the second
proviso to Section 23 added by the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2017.
       10. The present appeals are allowed accordingly. No costs.
                                                                               C

Devika Gujral                                               Appeals allowed.




                                                                               D




                                                                               E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H