Holding

The Court held that the post‑test reduction of the qualifying mark from 50% to 35% was arbitrary and invalid, so only candidates scoring above 50% are deemed qualified, while those scoring between 35% and 50% are treated as unsuccessful but may appear in a fresh recruitment test.

Summary

The Tamil Nadu Government created 1,880 temporary posts of Computer Instructor in government higher secondary schools and announced a special recruitment test, initially fixing the minimum qualifying mark at 50%. After the test was conducted, the Government arbitrarily reduced the qualifying mark to 35% and declared candidates scoring between 35% and 50% as qualified, thereby expanding the pool of successful candidates. The appellants, representing contract computer instructors, challenged this mid‑process change as violative of the established recruitment policy and the earlier High Court order that such posts be filled through regular procedures. The Supreme Court examined whether the Government could alter the qualifying criteria after the examination and whether the contract instructors possessed any vested right to regularisation. Relying on the principle that recruitment rules cannot be changed during the selection process and citing Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, the Court held the reduction to 35% to be arbitrary and invalid. Consequently, only candidates who secured more than 50% marks were deemed qualified, while those scoring between 35% and 50% were treated as unsuccessful but permitted to appear in a fresh recruitment test. The appeal was partly allowed, and specific directions were issued to the State Government.

Issues considered

Whether the Government could lawfully reduce the minimum qualifying marks for the special recruitment test from 50% to 35% after the test had been held.
Whether contract computer instructors have a vested right to regularisation of service.
Whether the special recruitment test and its altered criteria complied with the earlier High Court order and applicable service law.

Subjects

service lawrecruitmentspecial recruitment testminimum qualifying marksarbitrary changeregularisationcontract employeescomputer instructorsreservationpolicy decision

Judgment

[2009) 10 S.C.R. 522

A TAMIL NADU COMPUTER SC. B.ED. G.T. WELFARE
SOCIETY
v.
HIGHER SEC. SCL. COMPUTER TECH. ASSN. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4187 of 2009)
B
JULY 9, 2009
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., P. SATHASIVAM AND
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]

c Service law - Recruitment - Post of computer instructors
- Policy decision of the Government regarding appointment
- Special recruitment test whereby B Ed qualification ....
dispensed with and minimum qualifying marks would be 50%
- Contract employees as computer instructors in Government
D Schools for a long time eligible for the test - Alteration of
minimum qualifying marks from 50% to 35% after holding
examination and when result was to be announced -
Challenge to - Held: Special Recruitment Test was ordered
to be held for selection and recruitment as also absorption of •.
E existing computer instructors by giving them one time ,
opportunity - Decision was taken on sympathetic
consideration - Such test was held by laying down the Rules
through policy decision which laid down the criteria - It was
sacrosanct and was required to be followed for all practical
F purposes - However, change in qualifying nonns from 50%
to 35% is arbitrary and unjustified - Candidates securing
more than 50% qualifying marks would be held to have
qualified the test - Candidates securing less than 50% and
more than 35% would be treated as unsuccessful but would
be allowed to appear in the next recruitment test.
G
In the instant appeal before this Court, the appellants
had challenge the decision of the Government in
conducting a special recruitment test against the Rules

H 522
T. NADU COMP. SC. B.ED. G.T. WELF. SOC. v. HIGHER SEC. 523
( SCL. COMP. TECH. ASSN.
and Guidelines for the recruitment of Computer A
Instructors and altering the minimum qualifying marks
from 50% to 35% after the holding the examination and
-at the time when the result of the examination was to be
announced.
B
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

~
HELD: 1.1. The contract employees who were
appointed by the contractor were dischargin~ their
duties as Computer Instructors in the Government
Schools for a number of years on a consolidated pay. c
Their plea for regularization of their service was, however,
rejected by the Court holding, inter alia, that they have no
such vested right to claim for such regularization.
However, in order to give them one opportunity to get·
themselves- properly selected and then absorbed against D
· regular posts, one time opportunity was given to them by
the Government for getting themselves selected and then
recruited and absorbed considering the fact that they
were engaged and paid from the fund released by the
Government. Qualifications and norms for such Special E
Recruitment Test for the post of Computer Instructors
.! were also laid down by issuing a policy decision and
instructions wherein it was provided. that the minimum
qualifying marks would be 50%. The Government on
04.10.2006 laid down the said instructions whereas the F
Special Recruitment Test was scheduled to be held on
12.10.2008, which was a Sunday. The test as scheduled
was also held in which some candidates had received
more than 50% marks whereas some of them secured
marks below 50% but above 35% and they have also
G
been shown as qualified in the test in terms of• the
~
amended decision taken by the Government of Tamil
Nadu pn the night of 10.10.2006 i.e. after the recruitment
process was started and even after the Special
H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.
'
A Recruitment Test was held. [Para 12) (531-E-H; 532-A-C]

1.2. It is clearly established from the records that in
order to give one time opportunity, a Special Recruitment
Test was ordered to be held for selection and recruitment
as also absorption of existing Computer Instructors. The
8
said decision was taken on sympathetic consideration
and with the intention of doing justice to those existing
Computer Instructors, who were working in Government
Schools for a very long time. Such a recruitment drive and
test was held by laying down Rules of Recruitment
C thereby providing a level playing field for all concerned.
Prior to holding of the said Test guidelines were
formulated tlirough a policy decision laying down the
criteria that the minimum qualifying marks in the said test
would be at least 50%. The said guidelines of
D Recruitment as laid down through a policy decision was
sacrosanct and was required to be followed for all
practical purposes even if it is accepted that the
Government could have filled up the said posts of
Computer Instructors by holding a Special Recruitment
E Test of the aforesaid nature as one time exception.
However, it cannot be held that the subsequent decision
of the Government ~hereby changing qualifying norms by
reducing the minimum qualifying marks from 50% to 35%
after the holding the examination and at the time when
F the result of the examination was to be announced and
thereby changing the said criteria at the verge of and
towards the end of the game, as justified, for the same is
found as arbitrary and unjustified. (Para 15) [533-E-H; 534-
A-B]
G
Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi 2008 (7) SCC
11, referred to.

1.3. It is declared that those candidates· who had
secured more than 50% qualifying marks in the Special
H Recruitment Test shall be treated as qualified and
T. NADU COMP. SC. B.ED. G.T. WELF. SOC. v. HIGHER SEC. 525
SCL. COMP. TECH. ASSN.

recruited as Computer Instructors and they shall be so A
absorbed and their service shall be so regularized in
accordance with law. The remaining candidates who had
secured less than 50% qualifying marks but above 35%
marks would be treated as unsuccessful/failed and
therefore became ineligible to be permanently recruited B
and absorbed in Government Schools. However, the
State Government is given liberty to hold a fresh
examination/recruitment test to fill up all the remaining
posts of Computer Instructors as against sanctioned and
vacant posts of Computer Instructors, which it is told c
would be more than 1000, by holding a recruitment test
in terms of assurance given to the High Court. However,
liberty is given to those unsuccessful/failed candidates,
who have secu·red less than 50% marks and more than
35% marks in the earlier Special Recruitment Test and D
desire to apply as against the advertisement, which shall
be issued in newspapers and also by calling names from
the Enip!oyment Exchange. The candidates, who had
applied and appeared in the Special Recruitment Test
_and obtained above 35% marks would accordingly be E
allowed to appear if they so apply against the
advertisement to be so issued in terms of this order
although they may not have B.Ed. Degree which shall,
however, be treated only as one time concession and
exception. The said directions are given to the State
Government. [Paras 16 and 17] [534-D-G; 534-H; 535-A] F

Case Law Reference:
2ooa (7) sec 11 Referred to. Para 15

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. G
~ 4187 of 2009.

From the Judgment & Order dated 22.8.2008 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 1152 of 2007.
H.
Nalini Chidambaram, Nupur Kanungo (for Vikas Mehta) N.
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 10 S.C.R.

A Shoba and J. Sriram for the Appellants.

M.N. Rao, G. Umapathy, Vibhu Tiwari, Rakesh K. Sharma
and Promila S. Thananjayan, for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals were filed and directed against the
common Judgment and Order passed by the Division Bench
C of the Madras High Court allowing the writ appeals filed by
Respondent No. 1 and thereby dismissing the writ petitions filed
by the appellant herein. The writ petitions were filed by the
appellant herein contending, inter alia, that prior to 1999,
graduates with Post Graduate Diploma in Computer
D Applications from a recognized University were appointed by
Parents and Teacher Association of various schools as
Computer Teachers in the said schools. In the year 1999, the
Government took a policy decision to bring out a S~heme to
offer computer education as a subject in about 1200
Government Higher Secondary Schools from the academic
E year 1999-2000. On 17.3.1999, the Chief Minister, while
presenting the Budget for the year 1999-2000 before the
Legislative Assembly informed on the floor of the State
Assembly that the Government had decided to utilize the
maximum of contemporary innovation in the information
F Technology for economic and social development of the State
and thus proposed to draw a scheme for offering Computer
Education based on curriculum designed by experts as an
elective subject in the 11th and 12th standards in all the 1200
higher secondary schools in the State from the academic year .
G 1999-2000. Pursuant to the aforesaid statement and assurance
of the Chief Minister and the policy decision of the Government,
the State Government on 19.03.1999 invited sealed tenders
from reputed organizations and computer training centers for
leasing out computer hardware and software and for providing
H computer training in 1200 Higher Secondary Schools in four
T. NAOU COMP. SC. B.ED. G.T. WELF. SOC. v. HIGHER SEC. 527
SCL. COMP. TECH. ASSN. [DR. MUKUNOAKAM SHARMA, J.]

regions, namely, Chennai, Trichy, Coimbator and Madurai for A
,,... five years by engaging qualified instructors of their choice.
Thereafter, the State Government entered into a contract with
the Electronic Corporation of Tamil Nadu (ELCOT) for a period
of five years giving them the responsibility to take all the steps
for conducting the computer classes in about 1200 Higher B
Secondary Schools.

3. Pursuant to the instructions issued by the State
"' Government, the ELCOT selected many agencies to fill up the
vacancies by selecting qualified Computer Instructors. Such
Computer Instructors were thereafter came to be appointed in
c

- ...
two phases. In Phase-I, 1332 instructors were appointed in the
year 1999 and in Phase::-11 1062 lnstr;;ctors were appointed in
the year 2000, on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1,500/-, which
was later on enhanced to Rs. 2,000/- per month .
D
4. In 1999, a writ pe•;tion came to be filed before the
Madras High Court. While dismissing the said writ petition on
23.04.1999, the Madras l:ligh Court observed that in future, if
the Government creates any permanent or sanctioned posts to
impart education on Computer Science in Government Higher E
School, such posts should be filled up by recruiting candidates
sponsored by the Employment Exchange and by following the
~ rule of Reservation.
•
5. The aforesaid contract entered into with the private
agencies came to an end by February, 2005. However, F
considering the welfare of the students, the contract employees
were allowed to continue to work in the Government Schools.
Thereafter, the Government had taken a policy decision in the
year 2006 to have one post of"Computer Instructor" in every
Government Higher Secondary School i.e. in all the 1880 G
,)
-~
GovernmenUCorporation/DiStrict Municipalities/Municipalities
Higher Secondary Schools. Consequentthereto a G.O. Ms No.
187, dated 04.10.2006 was issued, creating 1880 posts of
Computer Instructors for the aforesaid various schools. It was
also stated that th_e aforesaid posts of Computer Instructors H
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 10 S.C.R.

A would carry a pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000. It was also
mentioned in the said Memorandum that all the aforesaid posts
which are created would be permitted, on temporary basis
subject to the rules in force and would be valid for one year from
the date of its filling up. In continuation of the aforesaid policy
B decision another Memorandum was issued intimating the
decision of the Government that the Government itself can
appoint computer instructors, for the purpose of implementing
computer education scheme in all such schools. A broad criteria
as to how selection process would take place was also
c conveyed in the aforesaid letter. It was stated in the said
communication that Special test would be conducted by the
teachers' selection Board for computer teachers who are
serving in Government High Schools and that selection would
be made on the basis of the marks obtained. It was also made
clear by the State Government in the said communication dated
0
04.10.2006 that educational qualification like 8.Ed. for
selection of computer instructor would not be insisted upon. On
10.10.2006 the State Government took a decision that those
Computer Instructors appointed by the contractors and who
were in service on the dates when the Government took over
E the responsibility of payment of their salary in Government
schools immediately after the expiry of the contract period
would be eligible to appear in the Special Test to be conducted
by the Teachers Recruitment Board. It was also stated therein
that the minimum qualifying marks would be 50%.
F
6. The decision of the Government to dispense with the
B.Ed. qualification was challenged by the qualified B.Ed.
graduates in Computer Science before the High Court of
Madras. Such qualified B.Ed. graduates in Computer Science
G filed a batch of writ petitions before the High Court of Madras.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court while disposing of r
the writ petitions held that the said Government M.S. Letter No.
188, dated 04.10.2006 is unsustainable and consequently
quashed the same. Aggrieved by the same the Higher
H Secondary School Computer Teachers Association preferred •
T. NADU COMP. SC. B.ED. GT. WELF. SOC. v. HIGHER SEC. 529
SCL. COMP. TECH. ASSN. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.)

writ appeal whereas the Government of Tamil Nadu preferred A

- a separate Writ Appeal. All the aforesaid appeals were taken
up for consideration by the Division Bench of the High Court.
By the impugned order dated 22.08.2008, the Division Bench
of the High Court set aside the order of the learned Single
Judge holding that the learned Single Judge was not justified B
in setting aside the policy decision of the Government. It was
-held by the Division Bench of the High Court that it would accept
>' the statement of the State that the present recruitment is a
special recruitment for absorption of existing Computer
Instructors, who were lawfully engaged with due sanction of the c
Government and that for employment of future vacancies for the
posts of Computer Instructors, the recruitment would be made
from all eligible applicants (with B.Ed. qualification) without any
preference being shown to the already employed Computer
Instructors in Government Higher Secondary School and thf!t D
such recruitment would be made on employment·on seniority
- basis. The High Court accepted the aforesaid statement of the
. Government, which was taken as genuine and reasonable and
consequent thereto the High Court issued a direction to the
Governmental authorities that the entire process of selection on
the basis of special drive examination would be conducted E
strictly only as a one time measure. It was also directed that

- ~
the process of holding the examination shall be completed
within six months from the date of receipt a copy of the
judgment and that the left over vacancies and the other
vacancies, if any, arising in the meantime would be filled up F
within three months thereafter, as has been assu~ed before the
High Court, making open the recruitment to all eligible B.Ed.
and M.Ed. c.andidates and giving employment on seniority
basis, without any preference to the already employed
Computer Instructors in Government Higher Secondary Schools. G
)

7. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated
22.08.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court,

- the present appeals have been preferred by the appellants
herein. H
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 10 S.C.R.

A 8. While issuing notice on 13.10.2008, this Court passed
an interim order holding and observing that the appointment of
Computer Instructors pursuant to the orders passed by the High
Court allowing the State Government to proceed with the
-
process of appointment- of Computer Instructors would be
B subject to the result of the appeals. The effect of the aforesaid
order was that there was no bar on the part of the State
Government to proceed and continue with the appointment
process of such Computer Instructors but would be subject to
further orders of this Court. Consequently the State
c Government announced the date of the Special Recruitment
Test as 12.10.2008, which was incident(311y a Sunday.

9. The said test was held on the said notified date and the
result of the examination was also published. A list of the
candidates, who appeared and succeeded in the said test, was
D also published. It transpires from the records placed before us
that a total of 1714 candiL,ates appeared in the Special
Recruitment Test in terms of the criteria laid down by the
Selection Board. The minimum qualifying marks for the posts
of "Computer Instructors" was fixed as 50% i.e. 75 marks out
E of total 150 marks. The said qualifying criteria was laid down
in the meeting held on 10.10.2006 wherein representatives of
the Government was also present. On the night of 12.10.2008,
the respondent No. 3 published the list of provisionally selected
candidates for appointment to the post of Computer Instructors
F based on the Special Recruitment Test on the Internet. While
publishing the said marks of the candidates, it was made clear
•
-
that all candidates, who have secured 35% marks in the
Special Recruitment Test would be called for Certificate
Verification. It is thus established, that the State Government
G reduced the minimum qualifying marks for the post of Computer
Instructors to 35% which is contrary to an earlier decision taken "
in a meeting held on 10.10.2006 that the minimum qualifying
marks for filling up the posts of Computer Instructors would be

H
50% i.e. 75 marks out of total 150 marks.
-
T. NADU COMP. SC. B.ED. G.T. WELF. SOC. v. HIGHER SEC. 531
SCL. COMP. TECH. ASSN. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
(

10. It is thus established that the Government changed the A

-....
rules of recruitment and terms and conditibns of appointment
in the mid-way after the selection process was initiated. The
said decision was taken on a Sunday i.e. on 12.10.2008, after
the candidates had taken their exams. It also transpires from
the record that out of 1686 candidates only 857 candidates had B
in fact secured 50% marks i.e. 75 marks out of 150 marks
whereas 829 candidates secured marks between 35% and
>J
50% i.e. less than 75 marks out of 150 marks. It is also indicated
from the said result published that out of 1714 candidates, who
had taken the Special Recruitment Test it is 1686 candidates c
who were found to have secured more than 35% marks, and
they were provisionally selected for certificate verification.
11. The appellants have challenged before us the aforesaid
alleged arbitrary decision of the Government in conducting a
.. special recruitment test against the Rules and Guidelines D
issued for the recruitment of Computer Instructors and also by
altering the minimum qualifying marks from 50% to 35% so as
to absqrb a larger number of candidates of its choice and
thereby violating its own norms and guidelines.
E
12. We heard learned counsel appearing for the parties
on the aforesaid issues which were raised before us. The
contract employees who were appointed by the contractor were
1 discharging their duties as Computer Instructors in the
__,.
Government Schools for a number of years on a consolidated
pay. Their plea for regularization of their service was, however, F
rejected by the Court holding, inter alia, that they have no such
vested right to claim for such regularization. However, in order
to give them one opportunity to get themselves properly
selected and then absorbed against regular posts, one time
opportunity was given to them by the Government for getting G
themselves selected and then recruited and absorbed
considering the fact that they were engaged and paid from the
fund released by the Government. Qualifications and norms for
such Special Recruitment Test for the post of Computer
Instructors were also laid down by issuing a policy decision and H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 10 S.C.R.

'
A instructions wherein it was provided that the minimum qualifying
marks would be 50%. The Government on 04.10.2006 laid
down the said instructions whereas the Special Recruitment Test
was scheduled to be held on 12.10.2008, which was a Sunday.
...
The test as scheduled was also held in which undisputedly only
B 894/857 candidates had received more than 50% marks
whereas 906/829 candidates secured marks below 50% but
above 35% and they have also been shown as qualified in the
test in terms of the amended decision taken by the Government
....
of Tamil Nadu on the night of 12.10.2008 i.e. after the
c recruitment process was started and even after the Special
Recruitment Test was held.

13. The appellants herein have challenged the entire
process of selection contending, inter alia, that such a Special
Recruitment Test could not havebeen held for giving advantage
D to contract employees, who were not even qualified persons
to be appointed as such Computer Instructors in Government
schools. The rules provide that such posts of Computer
Instructors, which are to be filled up as against permanent and
sanctioned posts to impart education in computer science in
E Government Higher Secondary School would be filled up by
following the rules of reservation in accordance with the existing
Rules for such appointment. It was submitted by the counsel
appearing for the appellants that entire action of holding the
Special Recruitment Test for appointment of Computer
F Instructors was illegal since it was held in violation of the order
of the Madras High Court dated 23.04.1999 in W.P. No. 6565
~

-
of 1999, wherein the High Court has specifically observed as
follows:

"In future if the Government creates any permanent or
G
sanctioned posts to impart Computer Science in
Government Higher Secondary School, no doubt such
posts shall be filled up by recruiting candidates sponsored
by the Employment Exchange and by following the rules

H
of reservation".
-
~.....

T. NADU COMP. SC. B.ED. G.T. WELF. SOC. v. HIGHER SEC. 533 ·
SCL. COMP. TECH. ASSN. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.)

14. Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, A
submitted that since these contract employees have been
/-. working for a very long time in the Government Schools,
therefore, ~he Government had taken the decision to reduce the
minimum qualifying marks to see that at least some of them
who could qualify in the Special Recruitment Test could be B
recruited and absorbed so as not to deprive them from getting
absorbed in the Government employment through a regular
process. It was also submitted that out of 1714 candidates, who
have written the Special Recruitment Test only 894 candidates
~

'
could receive more than 50% marks whereas 906 candidates c
could obtain less than 50%, which was minimum qualifying
--\ marks prescribed by the Government in its earlier policy
.>-,
decision but obtained more than 35% marks. Consequently, it
was submitted that the Government thought it fit that the said
minimum qualifying marks should be reduced to 35% so as to
.. absorb more people, who are still working in the Government
D

Schools as Computer Instructors.

15. We have considered the aforesaid rival submissions
of the counsel appearing for the parties in the light of the
records placed before us. It is clearly established from the E
records that in order to give one time opportunity, a Special
Recruitment Test was ordered to be held for selection and

- ~
recruitment as also absorption of existing Computer Instructors.
The said decision was taken on sympathetic consideration and
with the intention of doing justice to those existing Computer
Instructors, who were working in Government Schools for a very
long time. Such a recruitment drive and test was held by laying
F

down Rules of Recruitment thereby providing a level playing field
for all concerned. Prior to holding of the said Test guidelines
were formulated through a policy decision laying down the G
criteria that the minimum qualifying marks in the said test would
,l be at least 50%. The said guidelines of Recruitment as laid
down through a policy decision was sacrosanct and was
required to be followed for all practical purposes even if we

- accept that the Government could have filled up the said posts
H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 10 S.C.R.

A of Computer Instructors by holding a Special Recruitment Test
of the aforesaid nature as one time exception. We, however,
cannot hold that the subsequent decision of the Government
thereby changing qualifying norms by reducing the minimum
qualifying marks from 50% to 35% after the holding the
B examination and at the time when t'.l, result of the examination
was to be announced and thereby chan~ing the said criteria
at the verge of and towards the end of the game, as justified
for we find the same as arbitrary and unjustified. This Court in
Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi [ 2008 (7) SCC 11
c ] has held that in recruitment process changing rules of the
game during selection process or when it is over are not
permissible.
16. Thus we hold and declare that those candidates who
had secured more than 50% qualifying marks would he held to
D have qualified in the said test and the remaining candidates
would be treated as unsuccessful/failed and therefore became
ineligible to be permanently recruited and absorbed in
Government Schools. However, we give a liberty to the State
Government to hold a fresh examination/recruitment test to fill
E up all the remaining posts of Computer Instructors as against
sanctioned and vacant posts of Computer Instructors, which we
are told would be more than 1000, by holding a recruitment test
in terms of assurance given to the High Court. We, however,

F
give liberty to those unsuccessful/failed candidates, who have
secured less than 50% marks and more than 35% marks in the
earlier Special Recruitment Test and desire to apply as against
-
the advertisement, which shall be issued in newspapers and
also by calling names from the Empioyment Exchange. The
candidates, who had applied and appeared in the Special
G Recruitment Test and obtained above 35% marks would
accordingly be allowed to appear if they so apply against the
advertisement to be so issued in terms of this order although
they may not have B.Ed. Degree which shall, however, be
treated only as one time concession and exception.
H 17. Consequently, we give the following directions to the
-
T. NAOU COMP. SC. B.ED. GT. WELF. SOC. v. HIGHER SEC. 535
SCL COMP. TECH. ASSN. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

State Government that: A
(a) Only those candidates who had secured more .than
50% qualifying marks in the SpeciaLRecru:itment
Test shall be treated as qualified and recruited as
Computer Instructors and they shall be so absorbed
8
and their service shall be so regularized in
accordance with law;

.. (b) The remaining candidates who had secured less
than 50% qualifying marks but above 35% marks
should be declared and held to be unsuccessful c
and failed in the said Special Recruitment drive but
they would be allowed to appear in the next
Recruitment Test to be held for filling up the
remaining vacant posts of Computer Instructors
... without insisting upon them to have B.Ed. degree D
as one time exception and concession;

(c) The State Government shall also hold the said test
by inviting applications through issuing an
advertisement and also allow candidates to take
E
the test sponsored by the Employment Exchange.
In the said test all other rules of appointment for
such post and the rules of reservation would also
~ apply. The only exception would be the candidates
who had received more than 35% marks in the
earlier Special Recruitment drive but less than 50% F
marks which was qualifying marks may not have
B.Ed. degree, which would be treated as-one time
exception for them as they were working as
Computer Instructor.
G
18. In the light of the aforesaid observations and directions,
the present appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.

N.J. Appeals partly allowed.