Ram Sharan Maurya vs State Of U. P. on 18 November, 2020


Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Supreme Court of India

Ram Sharan Maurya vs State Of U. P. on 18 November, 2020

Author: Uday Umesh Lalit

Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran, S. Ravindra Bhat

                                                                                                  1
          Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
          Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others


                                                                                   REPORTABLE


                                           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                               CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL/INHERENT JURISDICTION


                                              CIVIL APPEAL NO.3707 OF 2020
                                (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.6841 of 2020)


                          Ram Sharan Maurya and others                              …Appellants


                                                           Versus


                          State of U.P. and others                                 …Respondents

                                                           WITH

                                              CIVIL APPEAL NO.3708 OF 2020
                                (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.6847 of 2020)

                                                           WITH

                                              CIVIL APPEAL NO.3709 OF 2020
                                (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.7817 of 2020)


                                                           WITH
                                      CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 418 OF 2020
                                                       IN
                                  SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CIVIL) NO.6841 OF 2020)
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by Dr.
Mukesh Nasa
Date: 2020.11.18
21:16:54 IST
Reason:
                                                                               2
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others


                                                 WITH
                           CIVIL APPEAL NO.3710 OF 2020
             (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13741 of 2020)
                                 Diary No.12189 of 2020


                                                 WITH

                           CIVIL APPEAL NO.3711 OF 2020
             (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13742 of 2020)
                                 Diary No.12246 of 2020

                                                 WITH

                           CIVIL APPEAL NO.3720 OF 2020
             (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13743 of 2020)
                                 Diary No.11446 of 2020

                                                 WITH

                           CIVIL APPEAL NO.3721 OF 2020
             (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13745 of 2020)
                                 Diary No.11450 of 2020


                                                 WITH

                           CIVIL APPEAL NO.3722 OF 2020
             (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13746 of 2020)
                                 Diary No.12016 of 2020

                                                 WITH

                           CIVIL APPEAL NO.3728 OF 2020
             (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13747 of 2020)
                                 Diary No.13259 of 2020
                                                                               3
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others


                                                 WITH

                            CIVIL APPEAL NO.3729 OF 2020
             (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13748 of 2020)
                                 Diary No.13288 of 2020
                                                 WITH
                           CIVIL APPEAL NO.3725 OF 2020
             (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13753 of 2020)
                                 Diary No.12798 of 2020

                                                 WITH

                           CIVIL APPEAL NO.3732 OF 2020
             (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13762 of 2020)
                                 Diary No.13517 of 2020

                                                 WITH

                           CIVIL APPEAL NO.3731 OF 2020
             (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13750 of 2020)
                                 Diary No.12452 of 2020

                           CIVIL APPEAL NO.3724 OF 2020
             (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13752 of 2020)
                                 Diary No.12792 of 2020

                                                 WITH

                           CIVIL APPEAL NO.3723 OF 2020
             (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13751 of 2020)
                                 Diary No.14138 of 2020

                                                 WITH
                           CIVIL APPEAL NO.3730 OF 2020
             (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13749 of 2020)
                                 Diary No.11452 of 2020
                                                                               4
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others


                                                 WITH

                           CIVIL APPEAL NO.3726 OF 2020
             (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13754 of 2020)
                                 Diary No.13182 of 2020

                                                 WITH
                            CIVIL APPEAL NO.3712 OF 2020
              (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.6846 of 2020)

                                                 WITH

                            CIVIL APPEAL NO.3713 OF 2020
              (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.6842 of 2020)

                                                 WITH

                           CIVIL APPEAL NO.3714 OF 2020
              (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.6687 of 2020)

                                                 WITH

                           CIVIL APPEAL NO.3717 OF 2020
             (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13761 of 2020)
                                 Diary No.11331 of 2020

                                                 WITH

                            CIVIL APPEAL NO.3715 OF 2020
              (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.6848 of 2020)

                                                 WITH
                            CIVIL APPEAL NO.3716 OF 2020
              (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.6845 of 2020)
                                                                               5
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others


                                                 WITH
                            CIVIL APPEAL NO.3718 OF 2020
              (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.6850 of 2020)

                                                 WITH

                            CIVIL APPEAL NO.3719 OF 2020
              (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.6851 of 2020)

                                                 WITH
              SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO.13142 of 2020

                                                 WITH
                           CIVIL APPEAL NO.3727 OF 2020
             (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13756 of 2020)
                                 Diary No.13639 of 2020

                                                 WITH

                         WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.703 OF 2020

                                                 WITH

                           CIVIL APPEAL NO.3733 OF 2020
             (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13757 of 2020)
                                 Diary No.13872 of 2020

                                                 AND

                           CIVIL APPEAL NO.3734 OF 2020
             (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13758 of 2020)
                                 Diary No.13888 of 2020
                                                                                6
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others


                                         JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Except Special Leave Petition (Civil) D.No.13142 of 2020: (i)

permission to file Special Leave Petition is granted in all the concerned

matters; and (ii) Special Leave to Appeal is granted in all matters.

2. These appeals arise out of the final judgment and order dated

06.05.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court1 in Special

Appeal No.207 of 2019 and all connected matters whereby the Division

Bench of the High Court set aside the Order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the

Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.1188(SS) of 2019 and

other connected matters. These appeals, inter alia, deal with the extent of

rights of Shiksha Mitras and benefits conferred upon them by the decision

of this Court in State of U.P. and another vs. Anand Kumar Yadav and

others2.

3. The facts leading to the decision of this Court in Anand Kumar

Yadav2 were set out in said decision as under:-

“3. Brief factual matrix may be noted. The U.P. Basic
Education Act, 1972 (the 1972 Act) was enacted to regulate

1
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2
(2018) 13 SCC 560
7
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

and control basic education in the State of U.P. Section 19
of the 1972 Act authorises the State Government to make
rules to carry out the purpose of the Act. The U.P. Basic
Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (the 1981 Rules)
lay down sources of recruitment and qualification for
appointment of teachers. The National Council for
Teachers’ Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act) was enacted by
Parliament for planned and coordinated development for
teacher education system. The Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (the RTE Act, 2009) was
enacted by Parliament for free and compulsory education to
all children of the age of 6 to 14 years. Section 23 provides
for qualification for appointment of teachers. NCTE was
designated as authority under Section 23(1) to lay down the
qualifications for appointment of teachers.

4. NCTE issued Notification dated 23-8-2010 laying down
such qualifications. With regard to teachers appointed prior
to the said notification, it was stated that they were required
to have qualifications in terms of the National Council for
Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum
Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools)
Regulations, 2001 (the 2001 Regulations), if the teachers
were appointed on or after 3-9-2001 subject to their
undergoing NCTE recognised six months’ special
programme in certain situations. Teachers appointed before
3-9-2001 were required to have qualifications as per the
prevalent recruitment rules. One of the requirements under
the said notification is the requirement of passing Teachers
Eligibility Test (TET). However, by Letter dated 8-11-
2010, the Central Government sought proposals for
relaxation under Section 23(2) of the RTE Act which was
followed by the relaxation Order dated 10-9-2012 for
certain categories of persons which was to operate till 31-
3-2014. Vide Letter of NCTE dated 14-1-2011, NCTE
accepted the proposal of the State of Uttar Pradesh for
training of untrained graduate Shiksha Mitras by open and
distance learning but it was made clear that no appointment
of untrained teachers was permitted.

5. In exercise of powers under the RTE Act, 2009, the RTE
Rules, 2010 were framed by the Central Government. At
the same time, the State of U.P. also purported to frame
rules called the U.P. RTE Rules, 2011.

8

Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

6. Reference may now be made to the scheme under which
the Shiksha Mitras were recruited. On 26-5-1999, a
Government Order was issued by the State of U.P. for
engagement of Shiksha Mitras (Parateacher). The purported
object of the Order was to provide universal primary
education and for maintenance of teacher student ratio in
primary schools by hiring persons who were not duly
qualified at lesser cost as against the prescribed salary of a
qualified teacher. The Government Order (G.O.) stated that
up to the limit of 10,000, Shiksha Mitras could be
contracted for academic session 1999-2000 at honorarium
of Rs 1450 per month. The salient aspects of the scheme as
summed up in the impugned judgment3 of the High Court
from the said G.O. were: (Anand Kumar case3, SCC
OnLine All para 17)

“(i) The appointment of Shiksha Mitras was to be
against the payment of an honorarium;

(ii) The appointment was to be for a period of eleven
months renewable for satisfactory performance;

(iii) The educational qualifications would be of the
intermediate level;

(iv) The unit of selection would be the village where
the school is situated and in the event that a qualified
candidate was not available in the village, the unit
could be extended to the jurisdiction of the Nyaya
Panchayat;

(v) The services of a Shiksha Mitra could be
terminated for want of satisfactory performance;

(vi) Selection was to be made at the village level by
the Village Education Committee; and

(vii) The scheme envisaged the constitution, at the
district level, of a Committee presided over by the
District Magistrate and consisting, inter alia, of the
Panchayat Raj Officer and the District Basic
3
2015 SCC OnLine All 3997 : ILR 2015 All 1108 [Anand Kumar Yadav vs. Union of
India]
9
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

Education Officer among other members to oversee
implementation.”

7. Further G.Os. were issued by the State of U.P. including
G.O. dated 1-7-2001 expanding the scheme and clarifying
that the scheme was not for employment in a regular service
but to provide opportunity to the rural youth to render
community service.

8. Even though vide Notification dated 23-8-2010,
minimum statutory qualification was laid down by NCTE,
the issue for relaxation under Section 23(2) of the RTE Act
was taken up by the Union Government for relaxation for
the limited interim statutory period and if a particular State
did not have adequate institutions for teachers training or
did not have the adequate number of candidates during the
period. The State Government, in response to the letter of
the Central Government, responded by stating that it had
appointed Shiksha Mitras on contractual basis who were
required to be given teachers training. The Central
Government issued an Order for relaxation under Section
23(2) subject to certain conditions for the period up to 31-
3-2014.

9. The State Government submitted a revised proposal
dated 3-1-2011 envisaging giving of training to the Shiksha
Mitras which was accepted by the Central Government in
terms of the Letter dated 14-1-2011 for two years’ diploma
in elementary education through open and distance learning
mode with a clear understanding that no untrained teachers
will be appointed.

10. Finally, the State of U.P. took the following steps which
were subject-matter of challenge before the High Court:

10.1. The Notification dated 30-5-2014 amending the U.P.
RTE Rules introducing Rule 16-A authorising the State
Government to relax minimum educational qualifications
for appointment of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic
Schools.

10.2. The Notification dated 30-5-2014, amending the 1981
Rules: Rule 8 laid down revised qualifications for
appointment of Assistant Master and Assistant Mistress of
10
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

Junior Basic Schools which qualifications are different
from the statutory qualifications under Section 23 of the
RTE Act. Rule 5 was amended to add Shiksha Mitras as
source for recruitment of teachers in addition to the existing
source of direct recruitment in accordance with the existing
rules. Rule 14 was also amended to enable Shiksha Mitras
to be appointed as teachers against substantive posts
without having the qualifications prescribed under Section
23 of the RTE Act.

10.3. G.O. dated 19-6-2013 was issued giving permission
for appointment of Shiksha Mitras on the post of Assistant
Teachers in primary schools without having the eligibility
and qualifications in terms of the RTE Act, 2009. A time
table was laid down for absorption of Shiksha Mitras as
Assistant Teachers.

10.4. The consequential executive orders were issued for
absorption of 1,24,000 graduate Shiksha Mitras and 46,000
intermediate Shiksha Mitras.”

… … …

13. Batch of writ petitions was filed before the High Court
by persons who claimed to be eligible for appointment and
whose chances were affected by filling up of vacancies of
teachers by regularising the Shiksha Mitras against the said
vacancies……….

14. Case set out in the petition was that in view of
Notification issued by NCTE on 23-8-2010 laying down
minimum qualification for appointment of Assistant
Teacher for Classes I to VIII, the decision of the U.P.
Government dated 19-6-2014 and amendments made by the
U.P. Government on 30-5-2014 were in conflict with the
Notification issued by NCTE on 23-8-2010 and could not,
thus, be justified. TET being a mandatory qualification, the
State Government could not make any appointment to the
post of teacher without the said qualification. The
appointments did not fall under the relaxation clause being
post 23-8-2010 Notification and being not covered by the
conditions for relaxation. The 1981 Rules of the State could
not incorporate a provision for absorption of Shiksha Mitras
in violation of law laid down by this Court in State of
11
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)4 as their appointment was dehors
the 1981 Rules, having not been made after following the
rules for appointment of teachers. It was also submitted that
the nature of appointment of Shiksha Mitras was
contractual to enable them to render community service and
not in terms of prescribed qualifications for appointment of
teachers. Training by open and distance learning mode was
relevant only for teachers validly appointed and not for
contractual employees appointed dehors the rules.
Moreover, 46,000 Shiksha Mitras were not even graduates
which was a condition for approval by NCTE in its letter
dated 14-1-2011………”

3.1 The decision rendered by the Full Bench of the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad was dealt with as under:-

“17. The findings of the High Court in brief are that having
regard to the nature of appointment of Shiksha Mitras, they
could not be treated as teachers in terms of the 1981 Rules.
They also did not have the qualifications prescribed under
the said Rules inasmuch as on the date of appointment, they
did not have graduate degree nor they had basic teachers’
certificate as prescribed under the 1981 Rules. Reservation
policy had also not been followed. No doubt they may have
served the need of the hour, their regular appointment in
violation of the requisite statutory qualification was illegal.
Reference was made to earlier Full Bench judgment in
Sandhya Singh v. State of U.P.5 with regard to the nature of
such appointments.

18. It was further held that Section 23(2) permitted
relaxation of minimum qualification for appointment of
teachers only for a limited period not exceeding five years
and qualification for TET could not be relaxed as held by
the Full Bench judgment of the High Court in Shiv Kumar
Sharma v. State of U.P
.6 for post-23-8-2010 appointments.

Nor pre-23-8-2010 appointments could be saved unless
initial appointments were to the post of teachers in terms of

4
(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753
5
(2013) 7 ADJ 1 (FB)
6
2013 SCC OnLine All 4097 : (2013) 6 ALJ 366 : 6 ADJ 310 (FB)
12
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

applicable rules as stated in the Notification dated 23-8-
2010. The amendments to the State RTE Rules, 2011 and
the Service Rules of 1981 were in conflict with the mandate
of Section 23(2) under which power to relax the minimum
qualifications was vested only with the Central Government
for a limited period. Moreover, the regularisation of
Shiksha Mitras as teachers was not permissible in view of
the law laid down in Umadevi (3)4. The appointment of
Shiksha Mitras was not as teachers nor could it be held to
be merely irregular in the absence of their minimum
qualifications for the post of teachers which was a
distinguishing feature rendering the judgments State of
Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari7
and Amarendra Kumar
Mohapatra v. State of Orissa8
inapplicable.

3.2. Affirming the view taken by the Full Bench, this Court concluded:-

“28. We are in agreement with the above findings. In view
of clear mandate of law statutorily requiring minimum
qualification for appointment of teachers to be appointed
after the date of the Notification dated 23-8-2010, there is
no doubt that no appointment was permissible without such
qualifications. Appointments in the present case are clearly
after the said date. Relaxation provision could be invoked
for a limited period or in respect of persons already
appointed in terms of applicable rules relating to
qualifications. The Shiksha Mitras in the present case do not
fall in the category of pre 23-8-2010 Notification whose
appointment could be regularised.

29. Further difficulty which stares one in the face is the law
laid down by this Court on regularisation of contractually
appointed persons in public employment. Appointment of
Shiksha Mitras was not only contractual, it was not as per
qualification prescribed for a teacher nor on designation of
teacher nor in pay scale of teachers. Thus, they could not be
regularised as teachers. Regularisation could only be of
mere irregularity. The exceptions carved out by this Court
do not apply to the case of the present nature.

7
(2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826
8
(2014) 4 SCC 583 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 54
13
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

30. In view of our conclusion that the Shiksha Mitras were
never appointed as teachers as per applicable qualifications
and are not covered by relaxation order under Section 23(2)
of the RTE Act, they could not be appointed as teachers in
breach of Section 23(1) of the said Act. The State is not
competent to relax the qualifications.

… … …

32. On the one hand, we have the claim of 1.78 lakh persons
to be regularised in violation of law, on the other hand is the
duty to uphold the rule of law and also to have regard to the
right of children in the age of 6 to 14 years to receive quality
education from duly qualified teachers. Thus, even if for a
stop-gap arrangement teaching may be by unqualified
teachers, qualified teachers have to be ultimately appointed.
It may be permissible to give some weightage to the
experience of Shiksha Mitras or some age relaxation may
be possible, mandatory qualifications cannot be dispensed
with. Regularisation of Shiksha Mitras as teachers was not
permissible. In view of this legal position, our answers are
obvious. We do not find any error in the view3 taken by the
High Court.”

3.3 However, in the peculiar fact situation, following observations were

made by this Court:-

“33. Question now is whether in the absence of any right in
favour of Shiksha Mitras, they are entitled to any other
relief or preference. In the peculiar fact situation, they ought
to be given opportunity to be considered for recruitment if
they have acquired or they now acquire the requisite
qualification in terms of advertisements for recruitment for
next two consecutive recruitments. They may also be given
suitable age relaxation and some weightage for their
experience as may be decided by the authority concerned.

Till they avail of this opportunity, the State is at liberty to
continue them as Shiksha Mitras on same terms on which
they were working prior to their absorption, if the State so
decides.”
14
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

4. Paragraph 33 of the decision in Anand Kumar Yadav2 thus directed

that Shiksha Mitras be given:-

a) opportunity to be considered for recruitment if they had

acquired or would acquire requisite qualifications in terms of

advertisement for recruitment.

b) for next two consecutive recruitments; and

c) in such recruitments, they would be entitled to:-

                          i)     suitable age relaxation; and

                          ii)    some weightage for their experience, as may be

                                 decided by the authority concerned.


5. After the decision in Anand Kumar Yadav2, a Press Note was

released by the State Government on 21.08.2017, which referred to the

directions in aforesaid paragraph 33 and stated:

“1. In sequence of compliance of above, Government to
such teachers who were absorbed/ adjusted at the post of
teacher, they will be deemed reverted on the post of Shiksha
Mitra w.e.f. 1.8.2017. They will have option to join duty in
their present school or at the school of their original posting.

2. State Government shall organize exam of TET in the
month of October 2017 and all such Shiksha Mitras shall be
provided an opportunity to acquire the required
qualification.

3. After TET examination is held, for the purposes of
selection of Assistant Teachers in the Primary Schools
under the Board, advertisement of vacancy in appropriate
15
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

number shall be got published in the month of December
2017 and all the eligible applicants shall be provided with
opportunity to make application.

4. In sequence of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, amendment was brought in “Uttar Pradesh Basic
Shiksha (Teachers) Service Rule, 1981” and for the
purposes of recruitment on vacant posts of Assistant
Teachers, advertisement shall be made. Above said
amendment shall be brought in educational qualification
and in determining the factor which shall be as under:-

a. Existing and proposed amendment in UP Basic
Education (Teacher) Service Rule, 1981 for the
purposes of selection on the basis of Educational
Factor:-

Appendix

On the basis of Educational factor

S. Exam Existing Proposed
No.

                    1.     High School      10%                    10%

                    2.     Intermediate     20%                    20%

                    3.     Graduation/      40%                    40%
                           Degree
                    4.     BTC              First Division - 12    First
                           Training         Marks (Theory)         Division -
                                                                   12
                                            First Division - 12    Marks
                                            Marks (Practical)      (Theory)

                                            Second Division –      First
                                            06 marks (Theory)      Division -
                                                                   12
                                            Second Division –      Marks
                                            06          marks      (Practical)
                                            (Practical)
                                                                   Second
                                            Third Division – 3     Division –
                                            marks (Theory)         06 marks
                                                                   (Theory)
                                                                                 16

Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

Third Division – 3
marks (Practical) Second
Division –
06 marks
(Practical)

Third
Division –
3 marks
(Theory)

Third
Division –
3 marks
(Practical)

5. Experience For the
of work as work done
Shiksha by them as
Mitra in the Shiksha
Board Mitra in
Schools each
complete
service
year 2.5
marks per
year but
maximum
weightage
is 25
marks.

5. All Shiksha Mitras shall be given honorarium of
Rs.10,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.8.2017.”

6. On 09.11.2017, the State Government notified UP Basic (Teachers)

Service (20th Amendment) Rules, 2017 amending 1981 Rules9. Following

expressions were defined in Rule 2 as under:-

9

UP Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981
17
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

“(s) “Teacher Eligibility Test” means the Teacher
Eligibility Test conducted by the Government or by the
Government of India;

(t) “Qualifying marks in Teacher Eligibility
Test” Qualifying marks in Teacher Eligibility Test will be
such as may be prescribed from time to time by the National
Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi;

(u) “Trainee teacher” means a candidate who has passed
B.Ed./B.Ed. (Special Education)/D.Ed. (Special Education)
and has also passed the teacher eligibility test and has been
selected for eventual appointment as assistant teacher in
Junior Basic School after successful completion of six
months special training programme in elementary
education recognised by National Council for Teacher
Education (NCTE);

(v) “Shiksha Mitra” means a person working as such in
junior basic schools run by Basic Shiksha Parishad under
the Government Orders prior to the commencement of Uttar
Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Rules, 2011;

Or a person who has been a Shiksha Mitra and
appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic Schools
run by Basic Shiksha Parishad and reverted to work as
Shiksha Mitra in pursuance of the judgment of the Apex
Court in SLP No. 32599/2015 State of U.P. and others v.
Anand Kumar Yadav and others
.

(w) “Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination” means a
written examination conducted by the Government for
recruitment of a person in junior basic schools run by Basic
Shiksha Parishad;

(x) “Qualifying Marks of Assistant Teacher Recruitment
Examination” means such minimum marks as may be
determined from time to time by the Government.

(y) “Guidelines of Assistant Teacher Recruitment
Examination” means such guidelines as may be determined
from time to time by the Government.”
18
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

6.1. The sources of recruitment of teachers now set out in Rule 5 were:-

“5. Sources of recruitment. – The mode of recruitment to
the various categories of posts mentioned below shall be as
follows :

                    (a) (i)    Mistresses     of By direct recruitment as
                        Nursery Schools          provided in Rule 14.

(ii) Assistant Masters By direct recruitment as
and Assistant provided in Rule 14.

Mistresses of Junior
Basic Schools

(b) (i) Headmistresses of By promotion as provided
Nursery Schools in Rule 18.

(ii) Headmasters and By promotion as provided
Headmistresses of in Rule 18.

Junior Basic Schools

(iii) Assistant Masters By promotion as provided
of Science-Maths for in Rule 18.

                        Senior Basic Schools
                        (iv)           Assistant By promotion as provided
                        Mistresses of Science- in Rule 18.
                        Maths for Senior Basic
                        Schools

(v) Assistant Masters By promotion as provided
of other than Science in Rule 18.

                        Maths for Senior Basic
                        Schools
                        (vi)           Assistant By promotion as provided
                        Mistresses of other in Rule 18.
                        than Science Maths for
                        Senior Basic Schools

(vii) Headmasters of Senior by promotion as
provided in Rule 18 Basic Schools.

(viii) Headmistresses of Senior by promotion as
provided in Rule 18 Basic Schools.

Provided that if suitable candidates are not available for
promotion to the posts mentioned at (v) and (vi) above,
appointment may be made by direct recruitment in the
manner laid down in Rule 15.”
19
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

6.2. The Essential Qualifications for appointment to the posts referred to

in Clause (a) of Rule 5 were stipulated in Rule 8(1) as under:-

“8. Academic Qualifications-(1) The essential
qualifications of candidates for appointment to a post
referred to in clause (a) of Rule 5 shall be as shown below
against each:

Post Academic Qualifications

(i) Mistresses of Bachelors degree from a University
Nursery School established by law in India or a
degree recognised by the
Government equivalent thereto
together with Certificate of teaching
(Nursery) from recognised training
institution of Uttar Pradesh and any
other training course recognised by
the Government as equivalent thereto
and teacher eligibility test passed
conducted by the Government or by
the Government of India.

(ii) Assistant ii.(a) Bachelors degree from a
Master and University established by law in India
Assistant or a degree recognised by the
Mistresses of Government equivalent thereto
Junior Basic together with any other training
Schools course recognised by the
Government as equivalent thereto
together with the training
qualification consisting of a Basic
Teacher’s Certificate (BTC), two
years BTC (Urdu) Vishisht BTC.

Two year Diploma in Education
(Special Education) approved by
Rehabilitation council of India or
four year Degree in Elementary
Education (B.El.Ed.), two years
Diploma in Elementary Education
(by whatever name known) in
accordance with the National Council
of Teacher of Education
(Recognition, Norms and Procedure),
20
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

Regulation or any training
qualifications to be added by
National Council for Teacher
Education for the recruitment of
teachers in primary education
and
teacher eligibility test passed
conducted by the Government of
India and passed Assistant Teacher
recruitment Examination conducted
by the Government.

(b) A trainee Teacher who has
completed successfully six months
special training programme in
elementary education recognized by
National Council for Teacher
Education.

(c) a shikshamitra who possessed
bachelors degree from a University
established by law in India or a
degree recognised by the
Government equivalent thereto and
has completed successfully two year
distant learning B.T.C. course or
basic Techer’s Certificate (B.T.C.),
Basic Teacher’s Certificate (B.T.C.)
(Urdu) or Vishisht B.T.C. conducted
by the State Council of Educational
Research and Training and passed the
Teacher Eligibility Test conducted by
the Government of India and passed
Assistant Teacher recruitment
Examination conducted by the
Government.

(iii) Trainee iii. Bachelors degree from a
Teacher University established by law in India
or a degree recognized by the
Government equivalent thereto
together with B.Ed./B.Ed.(Special
Education)/D.E.d.(Special
Education) qualification and passed
the teacher eligibility test conducted
by the Government or by the
Government of India.

21

Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

However, in case of B.Ed. (Special
Education)/D.Ed.(Special Education)
a course recognised by Rehabilitation
Council of India (RCI) only shall be
considered.

Thus, Shiksha Mitras became eligible for appointment to the posts

of “Assistant Masters and Assistant Mistresses of Junior Basic Schools” and

the required academic qualifications as stated in Rule 8 were:-

a) Bachelor’s degree from a University.

b) Successful completion of two years distant learning of B.T.C.

course or its equivalent course.

c) Passing of the Teachers’ Eligibility test (‘TET’, for short).

d) Passing of Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination

(“ATRE”, for short) conducted by the State Government.

6.3. Rule 14 dealt with determination of vacancies and preparation of list

as under:-

“14. Determination of vacancies and preparation of list-

(1)(a) In respect of appointment, by direct recruitment to
the post of Mistress of Nursery Schools and Assistant
Master or Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic Schools under
clause (a) of Rule 5, the appointing authority shall
determine the number of vacancies as also the number of
vacancies to be reserved for candidates belonging to
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes,
and other categories under Rule 9 and at least two leading
daily newspapers having adequate circulation in the State
as well as in concerned district inviting applications from
22
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

candidates possessing prescribed training qualification and
teacher eligibility test passed, conducted by the
Government or by the Government of India and passed
Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination conducted by
the Government.

(b) The Government may from time to time decide to
appoint candidates, who are graduates along with
B.Ed./B.Ed. (Special Education)/D.Ed. (Special Education)
and who have also passed teacher eligibility test conducted
by the Government or by the Government of India, as
trainee teachers. These candidates after appointment will
have to undergo six months special training programme in
elementary education recognised by National Council of
Teacher Education (NCTE). The appointing authority shall
determine the number of vacancies as also the number of
vacancies to be reserved for candidates belonging to
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes,
and other categories under Rule 9 and advertisement would
be issued in at least two leading daily newspapers having
adequate circulation in the State as well as in concerned
district inviting applications from candidates who are
graduates along with B.Ed./B.Ed. (Special
Education)/D.Ed. (Special Education) and who have also
passed teacher eligibility test conducted by the Government
or by the Government of India.

(c) The trainee teachers, after obtaining the certificate of
successful completion of six months special training in
elementary education shall be appointed as assistant
teachers in junior basic school against substantive post in
regular pay-scale. The appointing authority will be duty
bound to appoint the trainee teachers as assistant teachers
within one month of issue of certificate of successful
completion of said training.

(2) The appointing authority shall scrutinize the
applications received in pursuance of the advertisement
under clause (a) or (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 and prepare
a list of such persons as appear to possess the prescribed
academic qualifications and be eligible for appointment.

(3) (a) The names of candidates in the list prepared
under sub-rule (2) in accordance with clause (a)
of sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 shall then be arranged
in such manner that the candidate shall be
23
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

arranged in accordance with the quality points
and weightage as specified in the Appendix-I :

Provided that if two or more candidates obtain
equal marks, the candidate senior in age shall be
placed higher.

(b) The names of candidates in the list prepared
under sub-rule (2) in accordance with clause (b)
of sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 shall then be arranged
in such manner that the candidate shall be
arranged in accordance with the quality points
specified in the appendix-II :

Provided that if two or more candidates obtain
equal marks, the candidate senior in age shall be
placed higher.

(c) The names of candidates in the list prepared
in accordance with clause (c) sub-rule (1) of Rule
14 for appointment as assistant teacher shall be
same as the list prepared under clause (b) sub-
rule (3) of Rule 14 unless the candidate under the
said list is unable to successfully complete the
six months special training course in elementary
education in his first attempt. If the candidate
successfully completes the six months special
training in his second and final attempt, the
candidate’s name shall be placed under the
names of all those candidates who have
completed the said six months special training in
their first attempt.

(4) No person shall be eligible for appointment unless his
or her name is included in the list prepared under sub-rule
(2).

(5) The list prepared under sub-rule (2) and arranged in
accordance with clause (a) and (b) of sub-rule (3) of Rule
14 shall be forwarded by the appointing authority to the
selection committee.”
24
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

6.4. Appendix I referable to Rule 14(3)(a) and Appendix II referable to

Rule 14(3)(b) as amended by the 20th Amendment were as under:-

“APPENDIX-I10
[See Rule 14 (3)a]
Quality points and weightage for selection of candidates
Name of Quality points
Examination/
Degree

1. High School Percentage of Marks in the examination
x 10
100

2. Intermediate Percentage of Marks in the examination
x 10
100

3. Graduation Percentage of Marks in the examination
Degree x 10
100

4. B.T.C. Percentage of Marks in the examination
Training x 10
100

5. Assistant Percentage of Marks in the examination
Teacher x 60
Recruitment 100
Examination

6. Weightage 2.5 marks per completed teaching year,
Teaching up to maximum 25 marks, whichever is
experiences less.

as
shikshamitra
or/as teacher
working as
such in junior
basic schools
run by Basic
Shiksha
Parishad.

10

Appendix-I Subs. by Noti. No.2282/LXXIX-5-2017-282-98 dated 9th Nov., 2017
(Twentieth Amendment) Rules, 2017. Published in U.P. Gazette. Extra., Part 4, Section
(Ka), dated 9th November, 2017 (w.e.f. 9.11.2017).
25
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

Notes I – If two or more candidates have equal quality points,
the name of the candidate who is senior in age shall be placed
higher in the list.

2. If two or more candidates have equal quality points and
age, the name of the candidate shall be placed in the list in
English alphabetical order.”

“APPENDIX-II11
[See Rule 14 (3)(b)]
Quality Points for Selection of candidates
Name of Quality points
Examination/
Degree

1. High School Percentage of Marks
10

2. Intermediate Percentage of Marks x 2
10

3. Graduation Percentage of Marks x 4
Degree 10

4. Bachelor of Percentage of Marks x 3
Education 10
(B.Ed.)/B.Ed.

(Special
Education)/B.

Ed. (Special
Education)

Note – If two or more candidates have equal quality points
the name of the candidate who is senior in age shall be
placed higher in the list. If two or more candidates have
equal quality point; and age, the name of the candidate shall
be placed in the list in English alphabetical order.”

7. On 09.01.2018, a G.O. was issued framing Guidelines for ATRE to

be conducted in 2018 (“ATRE-2018”, for short) for filling up 68,500 posts

of Assistant Teachers for junior basic schools. Paragraph 7 of the Enclosure

11
Appendix Ins. by (Sixteenth Amendment) Notification No.3338/LXXIX-5-2012-
14(10)-2010, dated 4 December, 2012 (w.e.f. 4-12-2012)
26
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

to the G.O. prescribed the minimum qualifying marks for ATRE 2018 as

minimum of 67 marks out of 150 i.e. 45% for General and OBC candidates

and 60 out of 150 i.e. 40% for SC/ST candidates. Paragraphs 4.1, 5 and 7

of the Enclosure to G.O. were:-

“4. The minimum qualification for the application:-

(1) In Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education
(Teachers) Service (20th Amendment) Rules, 2017 the
described educational, training passed, Government of
India or by the State Government the organized Teachers
Eligibility Examination (Primary Level) passed candidates
will be eligible for filing the application in the Assistant
Teachers Recruitment Examination, 2018.

5. The Subject Matter and the Structure of the
Recruitment Examination of the Assistant Teachers:-

By the office of the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic
Education Council, Allahabad and in accordance with the
advertisement which has been published vide
Advertisement bearing No.Basic Education
Council/15876/2017-18 dated 28.10.2017:-

Time of the examination 3.00 hours Total Marks 150
Type of questions very small question No. of question 150
The level of the Subject Matter:-

(1) Hindi Language, Sanskrit and English, Science,
Maths, environment and Social Studies (upto Class 12
level).

(2) Teaching Efficiency, Child Psychology, Information
Technology, Life Efficiency Management and Attitutde –
(Upto D.L.Ed. syllabus).

27

Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

SUBJECT SYLLABUS MARKS
Hindi Grammar and unread 40
Language, story and poem, Grammar
Sanskrit and Comprehension
English
Science Science in daily life, 10
movement force, energy,
distance, light, sound,
world of creature, healthy
human body, cleanness
and nutrition,
environment and natural
resources, the goods and
state of goods.

Maths Numeric competency, 20

mathematical operations,
decimal, locations valid,
variant, interest, profit-

                                    loss, percentage division,
                                    factor,    unitary    rule,
                                    general               seed
                                    mathematics,           area
                                    average volume, ratio and
                                    all the problems, general
                                    Geometry,          general
                                    statistics
                    Environment     Construction of the Earth,         10
                    and         the Rivers, Mountain, Island,

General studies Ocean and Lives, Natural
Property, Latitude and
Longitude, Solar System,
Indian Geography, India
Freedom Movement,
Indian Social Reformer,
Constitution of India, Our
Government
Arrangement, Traffic and
Road Safety, Indian
Economics and
challenges, our culture
ancestor, environment
conservation, natural
calamity management
Teaching The method of teaching 10
Efficiency and efficiency, the theory
28
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

of teaching, present
Indian social and primary
education, inclusive
education, new
endeavour of the
preliminary education,
educational valuation and
measurement preliminary
education efficiency,
educational management
and administration
Child Personal Variance, the 10
Psychology factors which affect the
child development,
identification of the need
of learning, the creation
of the theory of the
environment of reading
and in the class education
its practical use and merit,
special arrangement for
the handicapped
(Divyangjan) students.

General Important current affairs 30

Knowledge/ – relating to the
Current Affairs International, National,
State the important events
place personality,
constructions,
International, relating to
the State the important
accident place,
personality, construction,
International and
National Award / Sports,
Indian, culture and Arts
etc.

Logic Analogies, assertion and 5

                    Knowledge       reason, binary logic,
                                    classification, clocks and
                                    calendars,             coded
                                    inequalities,        coding-
                                    decoding,             critical
                                    reasoning, cubes number
                                    series, puzzles, symbols
                                                                                   29

Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

and notations, venn
diagrams and dice, data
interpretation, direction
sense test, grouping and
selections, inferences,
letter series.

Information Development Teaching 5

                    Technology         efficiency, Art Teaching
                                       and in the School
                                       Management              Area
                                       information technology
                                       computer,           internet,
                                       smartphone, OER (Open
                                       Educational Resources),
                                       in the education the
                                       important Aps, digital,
                                       the information regarding
                                       use of the education
                                       materials.
                    Life               Commercial Character            10
                    Efficiency/        and Policy, Motivation
                    Management         Role of Teaching (facility
                    and Attitude       giver, listener, guider,
                                       motivator, consultant),
                                       Constitutional           and
                                       Humanitarian           merit,
                                       punishment and Award
                                       arrangement and its
                                       effective use.

                                         …     …    …

                  7. Qualifying Marks:

1. In the Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination,
the candidates who are participating for them the
examination result will be issued / given on the website.
For the General and OBC Class candidates who receive
67 marks out of total 150 marks viz. 45% marks or more
and then only those General and OBC Class candidates
will be issued passed certificate in the Assistant
Teachers Recruitment Examination.

30

Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

2. For the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes candidates
the minimum qualifying marks will be 40% viz. 60
marks out of total 150 marks.

3. Only by passing the Assistant Teachers Recruitment
Examination will not give any right of employment to
those candidates because for this appointment only this
is one of the eligible measurement.”

8. On 15.03.2018, by 22nd Amendment, 1981 Rules were amended

removing the requirement of passing of ATRE from the essential

qualifications contained in Rule 8. However, the requirement was retained

in Rule 14 dealing with the procedure for selection of Assistant Teachers.

The relevant part of Rule 8(1) dealing with Academic Qualifications for

“Assistant Master and Assistant Mistresses of Junior Basic Schools” read

as follows:-

“ii. (a) Bachelors degree from a University established by
law in India or a degree recognised by the Government
equivalent thereto together with any other training course
recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto
together with the training qualification consisting of a Basic
Teacher’s Certificate (BTC), two year BTC (Urdu) Vishisht
BTC. Two year Diploma in Education (Special Education)
approved by the Rehabilitation Council of India or four year
degree in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.), two year
Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name
known) in accordance with the National Council of Teacher
Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2002 or any training qualifications to be added
by National Council for Teacher Education for the
recruitment of teachers in primary education.

and
31
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

teacher eligibility test passed conducted by the Government
or by the Government of India.”

Rule 14 dealing with Procedure of selection stood substituted as

under:-

“14(1)(a) – Determination of vacancies

In respect of appointment, by direct recruitment to the post
of Mistress of Nursery Schools and Assistant Master or
Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic Schools under clause (a)
of rule 5, the appointing authority shall determine the
number of vacancies as also the number of vacancies to be
reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, and other categories
under rule 9 and published in at least two leading daily
newspapers having adequate circulation in the State as well
as in concerned district inviting applications from
candidates possessing prescribed training qualification and
passed teacher eligibility test, conducted by the
Government or by the Government of India and passed
Assistant Techer Recruitment Examination conducted by
the Government.

(b) Recruitment Examination- For every notified vacancy
under clause (a) for recruitment of Assistant Master or
Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic School, a separate
Assistant Techer Recruitment Examination shall be
conducted by the Government.

(c) The Government may from time to time decide to
appoint candidates, who are graduates along with
B.Ed/B.Ed. (Special Education)/D.Ed. (Special Education)
and who have also passed teacher eligibility test conducted
by the Government or by the Government of India, as
trainee teachers. These candidates after appointment will
have to undergo six months training programme in
elementary education recognized by National Council of
Teacher Education (NCTE). The appointing authority shall
determine the number of vacancies as also the number to be
reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, and other categories
under rule 9 and advertisement would be issued in at least
two leading daily news papers having adequate circulation
32
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

in the State as well as in concerned district inviting
applications from candidates who are graduates along with
B.Ed./B.Ed. (Special Education)/D.Ed. (Special Education)
and who have also passed teacher eligibility test conducted
by the Government or by the Government of India and
passed Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination
conducted by the Government.

(d) The trainee teachers, after obtaining the certificate of
successful completion of six months special training in
elementary education, shall be appointed as assistant
teachers in junior basic schools against substantive post in
regular pay-scale. The appointing authority will be duty
bound to appoint the trainee teachers as assistant teachers
within one month of issue of certificate of successful
completion of said training.

(2) Preparation of Merit List – The appointing authority
shall scrutinize the applications received in pursuance of the
advertisement under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-rule (1)
and prepare a merit list of such persons as appear to possess
the prescribed academic qualifications and passed Assistant
Teacher Recruitment Examination be eligible for
appointment.

(3)(a) The names of candidates in the list prepared under
sub-rule (2) in accordance with clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of
rule 14 shall then be arranged in such manner that the
candidate shall be arranged in accordance with the quality
points and weightage as specified in the appendix-I.

Provided that if two or more candidates obtain equal marks,
the candidates senior in age shall be placed higher.

Provided that a person working as Shiksha Mitra in Junior
Basic Schools run by Basic Shiksha Parishad shall be given
weightage in the recruitment of the post of Assistant
Teacher, only in two consecutive Assistant Teacher
Recruitment Examination conducted by the Government
after July 25, 2017.

(b) The names of candidates in the list prepared under sub-
rule (2) in accordance with clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of rule
14 shall then be arranged in such manner that the candidate
shall be arranged in accordance with the quality points
specified in the appendix-II:

33

Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

Provided that if two or more candidates obtain equal marks,
the candidate senior in age shall be placed higher.

(c) The names of candidates in the list prepared in
accordance with clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of rule 14 for
appointment as assistant teacher shall be same as the list
prepared under clause (c) sub-rule (3) of rule 14 unless the
candidate under the said list is unable to successfully
complete the six months special training course in
elementary education in his first attempt. If the candidate
successfully completes the six months special training in his
second and final attempt, the candidate’s name shall be
placed under the names of all those candidates who have
completed the said six months special training in their first
attempt.

(4) No person shall be eligible for appointment unless his
or her name is included in the list prepared under sub-rule
(2).

(5) The list prepared under sub-rule (2) and arranged in
accordance with clause (a) and (b) of sub-rule (3) of rule 14
shall be forwarded by the appointing authority to the
selection committee.”

9. In March, 2018, TET examination was held, in which

approximately 3,86,000 candidates including about 40,000 Shiksha Mitras

qualified.

10. On 21.05.2018, a G.O. was issued relaxing the qualifying marks of

45-40% to 33-30% for General and Reserved categories respectively. This

relaxation was challenged by filing W.P. No.20404 of 2018 by some

candidates and the operation of said G.O. was stayed by the High Court

vide Order dated 23.07.2018.

34

Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

11. On 27.05.2018 ATRE-2018 was conducted. In the results, 41,556

candidates were declared to have qualified with qualifying marks of 45-

40% out of which, 40296 candidates applied for counselling and were

selected for appointment on 13.08.2018. About 4500 candidates were

added to this number after re-valuation process.

12. On 28.06.2018, the National Council for Teachers Education

(“NCTE”, for short) amended its OM dated 23.08.2018. The notification

dated 28.06.2018 was to the following effect:-

“F.No.NCTE-Regl 012/16/2018.- In exercise of the
powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 23 of Right
of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
(35 of 2009) and in pursuance of notification number S.O.
750(E), dated the 31st March, 2010 issued by the
Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of
Human Resource Development, Government of India, the
National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) hereby
makes the following further amendments to the notification
number F.N. 61-03/20/2010/NCTE(N&S), dated the 23rd
August, 2010, published in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary, Part III, Section 4, dated the 25th August,
2010, hereinafter referred to as the said notification
namely:-

(1) In the said notification, in para 1 in sub-para (i), in
clause (a) after the words and brackets “Graduation and two
year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name
known), the following shall be inserted, namely:-

OR
“Graduation with at least 50% marks and Bachelor of
Education (B.Ed.)”
35
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

(2) In the said notification in para 3, for sub-para(a), the
following sub-para shall be substituted namely:-

“(a) who has acquired the qualification of
Bachelor of Education from any NCTE
recognised institution shall be considered for
appointment as a teacher in classes I to V
provided the person so appointed as a teacher
shall mandatorily undergo a six month Bridge
Course in Elementary Education recognised by
the NCTE, within two years of such
appointment as primary teacher”

13. On 26.09.2018, while dealing with the issue as to the stage at which

the weightage is to be given to Shiksha Mitras for their experience in terms

of the directions of this Court in Anand Kumar Yadav2 and 1981 Rules,

Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in

Kulbhushan Mishra and another vs. State of U.P. and others (Special

Appeal No. 812 of 2018 etc.) observed:-

“…we are of the considered view that weightage was
not contemplated to be added to the marks obtained by
a person in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment
Examination.”

14. On 01.12.2018, a G.O. was issued notifying 2 nd ATRE (“ATRE-

2019”, for short) for filling up 69,000 vacancies of Assistant Teachers.

Paragraphs 1, 4.1, 4.2 and 5 of the Annexure to the G.O. were:-

“In the schools managed by the Basic Education
Department the teachers imparting education have major
role in the development of girls and boys studying in the
schools. It has been therefore decided that in order to fill
36
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

the vacant seats of the teachers in the primary schools a state
level Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination will be
conducted.

Only those candidates who are graduate, trained and those
who have passed the Teachers Eligibility Test will be
eligible to appear in the said examination.

… … …

4. The minimum qualification, age and residence for the
application:-

(1) In Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education
(Teachers) Service (22nd Amendment) Rules, 2018 the
described educational, training passed, Government of
India or by the State Government the organized Teachers
Eligibility Examination (Primary Level) passed candidates
will be eligible for filing the application in the Assistant
Teachers Recruitment Examination, 2019.

(2) By the National Teachers Education Council, New
Delhi the Minimum Qualification with regard to the Class-
1 to Class-5 the issued Notification dated 23.08.2010,
29.07.2011, 12.11.2014 and 28.11.2014 (has been
described in Appendix-2 in preamble 1.2) and on
28.06.2018 fixed eligible candidates are entitled to file
application in the Assistant Teachers Recruitment
Examination, 2019.”

5. The Subject Matter and the Structure of the
Recruitment Examination of the Assistant Teachers:-

Time of the examination 2.30 hours (from 11.00 a.m. to
13.30 p.m.) Total Marks 150

Type of questions very small optional question, No. of
questions 150

The level of the Subject Matter:-

(1) Hindi Language, Sanskrit and English, Science,
Maths, Environment and Social Studies (upto Class 12
level).

37

Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

(2) Teaching Efficiency, Child Psychology, Information
Technology, Life Efficiency Management and Attitude –
(Upto D.L.Ed. syllabus).”

The tabular chart appended thereafter was identical to one in G.O.

dated 09.01.2018 for ATRE-2018. The chart dealt with same subjects

with identical syllabus and marks against each subject.

15. An advertisement was thereafter issued on 29.12.2018 notifying that

ATRE-2019 would be conducted on 06.01.2019.

16. On 03.01.2019, an order was passed by the High Court of Judicature

at Allahabad in Writ A No.27461 of 2018 to the following effect:-

“The grievance raised by means of the present writ petition
is that without notifying the minimum qualifying marks the
respondents are going to conduct written examination of
Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examinatin-2019 on
06.01.2019.

According to the petitioners, earlier when the examinations
were conducted, minimum qualifying marks were duly
declared by the respondents. In this regard the circular
issued by the State Government dated 01st December, 2018
(Annexure-1 to the writ petition) has been placed before
this Court.

Standing Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of
respondent nos. 1 and 3. Sri A.K. Yadav has put in
appearance on behalf of respondent no.2.

All the respondents are granted three days’ time to seek
instruction in the matter.

Put up this matter as fresh on 08.01.2019.”
38
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

17. ATRE-2019 was conducted on 06.01.2019 without there being any

specification of minimum qualifying marks.

18. However, on the next day i.e. on 07.01.2019, following order was

passed by the Special Secretary to the State Government:-

“To

1. Director,
State Education Research and Training Council, Uttar
Pradesh, Lucknow.

2. Secretary, Exam Controller Authority, U.P.
Prayagraj.

Basic Siksha Anubhag – 4 Lucknow Date 07 January 2019.

Subject:- Regarding prescribing the minimum qualifying
marks in respect of ‘Assistant Teacher Recruitment Exam
2019’ for Primary Schools run by Uttar Pradesh, Basic
Siksha Council.

Sir,

Refer to the letter no. B.S.C. 16426-27/2018-19 dated 05
January, 2019 of the Secretary, Basic Siksha Council
regarding aforesaid subject, whereby it has been requested
to prescribe the minimum qualifying marks for the
‘Assistant Teacher Recruitment Exam 2019’.

2. In this regard I have been directed to state that after
proper deliberation by the Government, in pursuant to the
G.O. No.2056/68-4-2018 dated 01.12.2018 issued for
conducting the ‘Assistant Teacher Recruitment Exam
2019’, for the purpose of result minimum qualifying marks
are being prescribed. This Minimum Qualifying Marks will
be only for ‘Assistant Teacher Recruitment Exam 2019’:-

(a) For the candidates of General Category,
candidates getting 97 marks of the total 150 meaning
65% and more will be considered passed for
‘Assistant Teacher Recruitment Exam 2019’.

39

Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

(b) For the candidates of all other Reserved
Categories, candidates getting 90 marks of the total
150 meaning 60 percent and more will be considered
passed for ‘Assistant Teacher Recruitment Exam
2019’.

(c) Candidates qualified on the basis of aforesaid
‘a’ and ‘b’ will be eligible to apply against the 69000
vacancies advertised and on qualifying merely on the
basis of aforesaid minimum marks will not have any
claim for recruitment because this exam is only one
of the eligible standard for recruitment.

(d) In case of more candidates qualifying than the
prescribed number of posts (69000), of the total
qualified candidates, eligible candidates will be
selected on the basis of final merit list against the
advertised posts in accordance with Appendix-I of
twentieth Amendment of Uttar Pradesh Basic Siksha
(teachers) Rules, 1981. Remaining candidates will
automatically be out from the selection process and
they will not have any claim on the basis of the
‘Assistant Teacher Recruitment Exam 2019’.

(e) No communication will be entertained in
respect of the Minimum Qualifying Marks.”

19. On or about 16.01.2019, the first petition namely W.P. No.118(SS)

of 2019 was filed by some Shiksha Mitras challenging the aforementioned

Order dated 07.01.2019 and assailing the fixation of minimum qualifying

marks. About 99 Writ Petitions in all were filed by Shiksha Mitras

questioning the Order dated 07.01.2019.

40

Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

20. On 24.01.2019, 23rd Amendment to 1981 Rules was published. By

this Amendment, the essential qualifications in Rule 8(ii) were substituted

as under:-

“(ii)(a) Bachelors degree from a University established by
law in India or a degree recognized by the Government
equivalent thereto together with any other training course
recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto
together with the training qualification consisting of a Basic
Teacher’s Certificate (BTC), two year BTC (Urdu) Vishisht
BTC. Two year Diploma in Education (Special Education)
approved by Rehabilitation council of India or four year
Degree in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.), two year
Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name
known) in accordance with the National Council of Teacher
Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure),
Regulations 2002, Graduation with at least fifty percent
marks and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.), provided that the
person so appointed as a teacher shall mandatorily undergo
a six month Bridge Course in Elementary Education
recognised by the NCTE, within two years of such
appointment as primary teacher or any training
qualifications to be added by National Council of Teacher
Education for the recruitment of teachers in primary
education.

and

teacher eligibility test passed conducted by the Government
or by the Government of India.”

Consequently, Graduates having 50 per cent or more marks and

holding degree of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) became eligible for posts

of Assistant Master and Assistant Mistresses in Junior Basic Schools in the

manner laid down in the Amendment. The concerned provisions in 1981
41
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

Rules dealing with eligibility of such candidate were given retrospective

effect from 01.01.2018.

21. On 07.03.2019, 24th Amendment to 1981 Rules was published

further amending Rule 8(ii) by adding sub-clause (aa) after sub-clause (a)

to the following effect:-

“(aa) Graduation with at least fifty percent marks and
Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.), provided that the person so
appointed as a teacher shall mandatorily undergo a six
month Bridge Course in Elementary Education recognised
by the NCTE, within two years of such appointment as
primary teacher or any training qualifications to be added
by National Council of Teacher Education for the
recruitment of teacher in primary education, and teacher
eligibility test passed conducted by the Government or by
the Government of India.”

This Amendment gave retrospective effect to sub clause (aa) of Rule

8(ii) from 28.06.2018.

22. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed W.P. No.1188(SS) of

2019 (Mohd. Rizwan and others vs. State of U.P.) and other 98 Writ

Petitions by common judgement and order dated 29.03.2019. Some of the

relevant passages from the judgement are:-

“1. The order under challenge is Government Order
bearing No.46/68-4-2019-2056/2019 dated 7.1.2019 issued
by the Special Secretary, Basic Education Anubhag-4,
Government of U.P., Lucknow fixing the minimum
qualifying marks for Assistant Teacher Recruitment
Examination, 2019 as 65% for general category and 60%
42
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

for reserved category. Undisputedly, no minimum
qualifying marks have been fixed vide Government Order
dated 01.12.2018 and notification/advertisement dated
05.12.2018, pursuant to which, the examination in question
has been conducted on 6.1.2019. Undisputedly, the
exercise for fixing minimum qualifying marks have been
started pursuant to the letter bearing no. B.Sh.P.-16426-
27/2018-19 dated 5.1.2019 preferred by the Secretary,
Board of Basic Education to the Government making
request for fixation of minimum qualifying marks for the
examination in question, meaning thereby, the State
Government must be intending something other way to
declare the result of Assistant Teacher Examination, 2019.

… … …

157. Under the given circumstances it has been noted that
the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination may not be
treated as shortlisting examination by prescribing such a
high minimum qualifying marks as the same may affect the
rights of the petitioners (Shiksha Mitras) who may likely to
be deprived from getting weightage of 25 marks which is
statutory prescription in the 22nd Amendment. Further,
since the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination is not
the minimum qualification prescribed by the Academic
authority and the same has been added in the Rules of 1981
by way of 20th and 22nd Amendment, therefore, the
qualifying marks should be minimum qualifying marks.
Further, the said qualifying marks should be seen like
minimum. Further, the Shiksha Mitras should be subjected
for the same treatment as has been given to them in earlier
examination of Assistant Teacher Recruitment
Examination-2018 in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Court in re: Anand Kumar Yadav (supra). Since this
examination would be the second and last examination for
the Shiksha Mitras in terms of the aforesaid judgement of
Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, this examination i.e.
Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-2019 should
be conducted in a similar manner as the Assistant Teacher
Recruitment Examination-2018 has been conducted.

… … …

159. To be more precise, since to provide weightage to the
candidates, who have qualified Assistant Teacher
Recruitment Examination, is a legal prescription under Rule
43
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

14(3)(a) of the Rules and the same weightage has been
provided in the earlier examination to those candidates,
who have qualified Assistant Teacher Recruitment
Examination with the minimum 45% and 40% qualifying
marks, therefore, enhancing the qualifying marks up to 65%
and 60%, permitting the candidates, who are having B.Ed.
qualification and quality point marks of those candidates
may not be determined as per Appendix-I is nothing but
appears to be an attempt to oust those persons, who are
eligible for the weightage.

… … …

163. It would be apt to consider here the relevant provision
of law, which provides about qualifying marks in Teacher
Eligibility Test and qualifying marks in Assistant Teacher
Recruitment Examination. As per Rule 2(t) of the Rules
1981 (as amended by Twenty Second Amendment, 2018),
qualifying marks in Teacher Eligibility Test will be such as
may be prescribed from time to time by the NCTE, whereas
as per Rule 2(x), qualifying marks of Assistant Teacher
Recruitment Examination means such minimum marks as
may be determined from time to time by the Government.
Conjoint reading of aforesaid provisions reveals that for
Teacher Eligibility Test, qualifying marks shall be
prescribed by the NCTE and there is no rider as to what
qualifying marks should be fixed, therefore, for Teacher
Eligibility Test, the qualifying marks is 60% and 55% for
both the category and there is no quarrel on it.

164. However, in Assistant Teacher Recruitment
Examination, it has categorically been indicated in Rule
2(x) that the qualifying marks means such minimum marks
determined by the State Government from time to time. On
account of aforesaid prescription, the State Government has
firstly determined the minimum qualifying marks as 45%
and 40% for both the categories and thereafter, for the same
selection of Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, it
has been fixed as 33% and 30% as the State Government
could have determined any minimum marks from time to
time, therefore, it is the domain of the State Government to
fix the qualifying marks for the Assistant Teacher
Recruitment Examination, but such qualifying marks
should be ‘minimum’ and ‘minimum’ should be seen like
‘minimum’. ‘Minimum’ may not be seen as ‘maximum’.

44

Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

165. Further, since the person, who qualifies the Assistant
Teacher Recruitment Examination with minimum
qualifying marks shall not be appointed on the post of
Assistant Teacher, rather, he/she shall only be eligible to
reach in the next stage, thereby he/she shall be awarded
weightage and the his/her total quality points shall be
calculated. On the basis of total quality points, the
candidate shall come in the zone of eligible candidate, who
shall be appointed according to his/her merit. Meaning
thereby, qualifying the examination of Assistant Teacher
Recruitment Examination does not make the person eligible
to be selected on the post of Assistant Teacher, but it only
makes him/her eligible to get weightage, therefore, the
submission of learned counsel for the State-respondents
that so as to short list the eligible candidates, merit of
Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination has been
enhanced up to 65% is misfit argument.

… … …

172. Admittedly, the examinees were not aware about the
decision of the State Government regarding minimum
qualifying marks before the examination in question so
besides the fact that rules of game may not be fixed after
start of the game, one more aspect is relevant here that in
view of the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in re: P.V.
Indirsan (2) (supra) and Rahul Dutta (supra) the minimum
eligibility marks should be declared before the examination
and if the marks have not been fixed prior to the
examination in question, may not be fixed later on,
therefore the impugned order dated 07.01.2019 would be
said to have been issued in derogation of aforesaid laws of
the Hon’ble Apex Court.

173. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid findings I am of
the considered view that by not declaring the minimum
qualifying marks of Assistant Teacher Recruitment
Examination before holding examination is causing
prejudice to the petitioners, including all aspirants, as they
have been denied an opportunity to adequately prepare for
the result. Further, since the State Government had to
conduct two examinations to appoint Assistant Teacher
pursuant to the direction of Hon’ble Apex Court in re:
Anand Kumar Yadav (supra), therefore, the manner of these
two examinations should be similar inasmuch as for
Shiksha Mitras, Assistant Teacher Recruitment
45
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

Examination-2019 was the second and last examination to
get benefit of weightage as per judgement of Anand Kumar
Yadav (supra).”

22.1 While considering the issue of eligibility of B.Ed.

candidates, it was observed:-

“154. It is true that there is no challenge in any of the writ
petitions that the inclusion of B.Ed. candidates is
unwarranted and uncalled for and they may not be selected
getting quality point marks as per Appendix-I, but
circumstances under which the aforesaid anomaly has been
committed by the State Government has nowhere been
explained in the counter affidavit or by way of argument.

… … …

168. I also find favour in the submission of Sri U.N.
Misra that it cannot be comprehended as to what is the
object of enhancing minimum qualifying marks from 45%
to 65% for Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination
when it is only a qualifying examination. Mr. U.N. Misra
has rightly submitted that if the averment of the counter
affidavit is believed to be correct, the said enhancement has
been made to select the best available candidates, then who
are the best candidates, as per State-respondent. Since the
inclusion of B.E.d. candidates have been made in the
present examination, therefore, it appears that the
enhancement has been made to oust the Shiksha Mitras
from the selection in question and to select the B.Ed.
candidates. If it is the intention of the State-respondent to
enhance the minimum qualifying marks, then it would be
violative to the rules itself which categorically provides that
the Shiksha Mitras would be getting 25 marks as weightage.

… … …

178. Besides, the counsel for the State-respondent could
not convince as to how the quality points marks of B.Ed.

candidates would be determined / calculated as per
46
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

Appendix – I when these B.Ed. candidates would not be
getting any marks for item no.4 [marks of B.T.C] and item
no.6 [weightage of 25 marks]. If these B.Ed. candidates are
given quality point marks as per Appendix-II, they can
easily get marks for all the items but quality points marks
for this examination would be calculated as per Appendix-
I.

179. This Court is unable to comprehend the rationale
behind it but since this particular point has not been directly
assailed, therefore, no order on this point needs to be issued.

180. However, it clearly reveals that neither the Board of
Basic Education nor the State Government has carried out
proper exercise before conducting selection in question
permitting B.Ed. candidates in the present selection in
question which increased the number of aspirants
drastically without deciding the method for calculating their
quality points marks, without determining the vacancies for
them as B.Ed. candidates are different from B.T.C.
candidates, enhancing the minimum qualifying marks for
the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examinatoin-2019 by
way of G.O. dated 07.01.2019 and conducting Assistant
Teacher Recruitment Examination-2019 differently from
Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-2018 whereas
the State Government was to conduct two examinations in
a same manner as per dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court. This
unexplained anomaly may convince this Court to quash the
entire selection process but keeping in view the fact that
large number of candidates have already appeared in
selection process, therefore, this Court is only
examining/testing the fitness of Government Order dated
07.01.2019.”

22.2 It was concluded:-

“181. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the issue and case law so cited by the learned counsel for
the respective parties I am of the considered view that the
Government Order dated 07.01.2019 is not sustainable in
the eyes of law being arbitrary and violative of Article 14
of the Constitution of India as it makes an unreasonable
classification by giving different treatment to two groups of
47
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

identically situated persons appearing in two consecutive
examinations and there is no valid reason and justification
for drastically increasing minimum qualifying marks
without having any nexus with the object sought to be
achieved. It further appears that the Government Order
dated 07.01.2019 is nullifying the beneficial direction of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in re: Anand Kumar Yadav (supra),
pursuant to which 25 marks of weightage has been
prescribed under Rule 14(3)(a) of the Rules 1981 (22nd
Amendment, 2018) purposely for practical experience
which is an integral part of merit.”

23. On 14.06.2019, 25th Amendment to 1981 Rules was published.

By this Amendment, Appendix I which was referable to Rule 14(3)(a) was

amended as under:-

“APPENDIX-I
Quality points and weightage for selection of candidates

Name of Quality points
Examination
/Degree

1. High School Percentage of Marks in the
examination x 10
100

2. Intermediate Percentage of Marks in the
examination x 10
100

3. Graduation Percentage of Marks in the
Degree examination x 10
100

4. Training Percentage of Marks in the
Qualificatio examination x 10
ns of Rule 100

5. Assistant Percentage of Marks in the
Teacher examination x 60
Recruitment 100
Examination
48
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

6. Weightage 2.5 marks per completed teaching
Teaching year, up to maximum 25 marks, which
experiences ever is less
as
shikshamitra
or as teacher
working as
such in
junior basic
schools run
by Basic
Shiksha
Parishad

Note:

1. If two or more candidates have equal quality
points, the name of the candidate who is senior in age
shall be placed higher in the list.

2. If two or more candidates have equal quality
points and age, the name of the candidates shall be
placed in the list in English alphabetical order.”

23.1 Appendix II, referable to Rule 14(3)(b) was omitted by the same

Amendment.

23.2 Resultantly, Appendix I as it now stands after said Amendment, is

the only and common Appendix for both the sources referred to in Rule 14.

24. Special Appeals arising from the judgment and order dated

29.03.2019 passed by the Single Judge, were allowed by the Division Bench

of the High Court by its common judgment and order dated 06.05.2020. It

must be stated that though 99 Writ Petitions were allowed by the Single

Judge, appeals were preferred only in 24 matters. Therefore, many Shiksha
49
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

Mitras who had succeeded before the Single Judge, were not parties before

the Division Bench.

25. Two principal issues were considered by the Division Bench of the

High Court; one relating to the fixation of 65-60% as minimum qualifying

marks for ATRE-2019 and particularly after the holding of the examination;

and the other concerning the eligibility of B.Ed. candidates for the posts of

Assistant Teachers under 1981 Rules.

25.1 With regard to the first issue, the conclusions of the Division

Bench were:-

“71. In Anand Kumar Yadav (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court merely provided that the Shiksha Mitras
shall be given an opportunity to participate in the selection
process at hand in two consecutive selections, irrespective
of age while being given benefit of age relaxation as
determined by the State Government, in an open and
transparent selection process along with other duly
qualified candidates and it nowhere provided that the
Shiksha Mitras shall constitute a homogeneous class apart
from other duly qualified candidates participating in the
selection process. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while
keeping in mind the interest of the school children held that
the regularization of unqualified Shiksha Mitras on the post
of Assistant Teacher was illegal as the school children
whose interests, though were not duly represented, had a
right to obtain quality education from duly qualified
teachers under the provisions of Right to Education Act and
gave due importance to the merit of the candidates who are
ultimately going to be appointed on the post of Assistant
Teacher as the ultimate losers would be the small primary
school children if the merit is compromised in the selection
process.

50

Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

72. As a common parlance, qualifying marks are
prescribed after the examination is conducted as the
Recruiting Authority is in a position to assess how the
candidates have performed and determine the benchmark
keeping in mind the number of vacancies. The State
Government rightly in the advertisement dated 1.12.2018
did not declare the cutoff marks for qualifying the ATRE –
2019.

73. Thus, the arguments of the writ petitioners and finding
recorded by the learned Writ Court that the increase in cut-
off marks from 45% and 40% to 65% and 60% by the
Government Order dated 07.01.2019 is nullifying the
beneficial direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anand
Kumar Yadav (supra) has no legs to stand, and is pre-
mature as the benefit is available only at the time of
recruitment, once they hold the prescribed minimum
qualifications and their names are published in the merit list
prepared under Rule 14(2) of the 1981 Rules.”

25.2 The issue regarding the eligibility of B.Ed. candidates was dealt

with as under:-

“81. By virtue of the amendment in the NCTE notification
dated 23.8.2010 on 28.6.2018, the appellants of Special
Appeal No.165(D) of 2019 participated in the TET
examination on 18.11.2018 and qualified the same and
therefore becoming eligible for appearing in the ATRE
2019, the writ petitioners knowing well about the
amendment in the notification dated 23.8.2010 by NCTE
notification dated 28.6.2018, they never challenged the
validity of the said notification and thus, the notification
issued by the NCTE being under a Central Enactment
which is referable to Entry 66 of list I of the Seventh
Schedule is binding upon the State Government and even a
legislative exercise done by the State in the matter of laying
down of standards in education would have to yield to the
notifications of the NCTE inasmuch as the exercise of
power by the State Government is referable to Entry 25 of
List III of the Seventh Schedule, which besides being in the
concurrent list is, subject to Entry 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List
– I. The State Government rightly followed the mandate
51
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

issued by the NCTE and permitted the B.Ed. candidates to
appear in the second ATRE – 2019.

… … …

87. The educational qualifications fixed by the NCTE for
appointment as Assistant Teachers are binding on the
recruitment made by the State Governments. The
participation of B.Ed. candidates was never challenged
before the learned Writ Court and the observations made in
the impugned order dated 29.3.2020 pertaining to
participation of B.Ed. candidates in the selection process
are merely the obiter dicta having no bearing on the issue
raised before the learned Writ Court regarding the legality
and validity of the Government Order dated 7.1.2019
whereby the minimum qualifying marks had been fixed for
ATRE – 2019 examination.

… … …

89. The Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Shiv
Kumar Pathak
(supra), has held that the eligibility
conditions for appointment of Assistant Teachers as laid
down by the NCTE are binding on the State Government as
the NCTE is the competent authority for fixing such
educational qualifications and therefore, the B.Ed.
candidates had been included by the State Government in
clause 4 (2) of statutory guidelines dated 1.12.2018. In the
aforesaid clause, it is very categorically stated that the
notification dated 28.6.2018 issued by the NCTE whereby
B.Ed. candidates were made eligible for appointment as
Teacher in Primary Schools for teaching classes I to V
provided the person so appointed as an Assistant Teacher
shall mandatorily undergo six months’ Bridge Course in
Elementary Education recognised by the NCTE within two
years after such appointment as Assistant Teachers.

… … …

92. Thus, we are of the view that once the B.Ed. candidates
were made eligible to be considered for appointment to the
post of Assistant Teacher, subject to them acquiring the
minimum qualification, the State Government was bound to
permit them to participate in the ARTE – 2019 passing
which is the minimum qualification to be considered for
appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. Accordingly,
52
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

the State Government carried out the necessary
amendments to the 1981 Rules to align them with the NCTE
notification, prior to commencement of the recruitment
process.”

25.3 The operative directions issued by the Division Bench of the High

Court were :-

“105. For the reasons aforementioned, it cannot be said
that the Government Order dated 7.1.2019 is violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India nor it makes an
unreasonable classification or is nullifying the judgement of
the Apex Court in the case of Anand Kumar Yadav (supra).
Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order 29.3.2019
passed in Writ Petition No.1188 (SS) of 2019 and other
connected matters filed by Shiksha Mitras and dismiss the
said writ petitions by allowing all the Special Appeals and
direct the State of U.P. to declare the result of examination
which was held on 6.1.2019 in terms of the Government
Order dated 7.1.2019 at the earliest as directed by the Apex
Court in the case of Bhola Prasad Shukla v. Union of India
and others
(supra). All applications for
intervention/impleadment/civil miscellaneous applications
are also disposed of in same terms.”

26. Accordingly, the result was declared by the Examining Body on

12.05.2020 and 1,46,060 candidates were declared successful. Thereafter,

U.P. Basic Education Board issued an advertisement on 16.05.2020 inviting

applications from those candidates who were declared successful in ATRE-

2019.

27. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench of the High

Court, the present appeals by special leave have been preferred by various
53
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

appellants. A Writ Petition has also been preferred. Broadly, the matters

can be classified into three categories. Those filed by i) Shiksha Mitras, ii)

Persons having B.Ed./BTC qualifications; and iii) Ex-servicemen or persons

with disability etc. These matters squarely deal with the aforestated two

issues considered by the Division Bench of the High Court in the judgement

under appeal.

However, SLP (Diary) No.13142 of 2020 filed by persons who were

not parties at any stage of the proceedings in the High Court, seeks

permission to file special leave petition and submits that they be given the

benefit of erroneous questions in the examination. Since the issue raised in

said petition is unconnected with the rest of the matters, permission to file

special leave petition is not granted. The concerned petitioners are at liberty

to agitate the issue, if required, in properly instituted proceedings.

Rest of the matters can be tabulated in following three categories: –

      A]        Filed by Shiksha Mitras
                Sr.     Civil Appeals arising form                     Petitioners/
                No.                                                    Applicants
                i       SLP (C) No.6841 of 2020                        275
                ii      SLP (C) No.6847 of 2020                        4
                iii     SLP (C) No.7817 of 2020                        34
                iv      SLP(C)No.     (D.No.12246) of 2020             27
                v       SLP(C)No.     (D.No.11450) of 2020             795
                vi      SLP(C)No.     (D.No.13259) of 2020             23
                                                                                        54

Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

vii SLP(C)No. (D.No.12452) of 2020 98
viii SLP(C)No. (D.No.14138) of 2020 174
ix SLP(C)No. (D.No.11452) of 2020 1352
x SLP (C) No.6842 of 2020 11
xi SLP (C) No.6687 of 2020 4
xii SLP(C) No. (D.No.11331) of 2020 5
xiii SLP (C) No.6848 of 2020 6
xiv SLP (C) No.6845 of 2020 24
xv SLP (C) No.6850 of 2020 3
xvi SLP (C) 6851 of 2020 166
xvii SLP(C)No. (D.No.13872) of 2020 246
xviii SLP (C) No.6846 of 2020 By Association
xix SLP(C) No. (D.No.13888) of 2020 80

B] Filed by B.Ed./BTC Candidates
Sr. Writ Petition and Civil Appeals arising Petitioners/
No. form Applicants
i SLP(C) No. (D.No.12016) of 2020 4
ii SLP(C)No. (D.No.12798) of 2020 62
iii SLP(C) No. (D.No.13517) of 2020 4
iv SLP(C) No. (D.No.13182) of 2020 45
v SLP(C) No. (D.No.13639) of 2020 5
vi WP (C) No.703 of 2020 2

C] Filed by Ex-Servicemen or Persons with Disability
Sr. Civil Appeals arising from Petitioners/
No. Applicants
i SLP(C) No.12189 of 2020 75
ii SLP(C) (D.No.11446) of 2020 56
iii SLP(C) No. (D.No.13288) of 2020 16
iv SLP(C) No. (D.No.12792) of 2020 13

28. While issuing notice in the matters, by Order dated 21.05.2020, the

State Government was called upon by this Court to furnish details

regarding:-

55

Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

“(i) How many Shiksha Mitras are presently working in the
State and how many Shiksha Mitras appeared in the instant
selection process;

(ii) How many Shiksha Mitras secured more than 45%
marks in General Category or more than 40% marks in
reserved category;”

29. In the counter affidavit-filed on behalf of the State, following details

were provided in paragraphs 6, 18 and 32:-

“6. The brief facts of the case are that in the State of Uttar
Pradesh, out of 1,78,000 ‘Siksha Mitras’, who were given
fortuitous appointments as Primary Teachers on contractual
basis, a total of approximately 1,37,500 ‘Siksha Mitras’
were absorbed as Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic
Schools. Their absorption into the regular service of State
as Assistant Teachers by amendment made by the State
Government by its notification dated 30.05.2014
introducing the provision of Rule 16-A in the U.P. Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 by
the U.P. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education (First Amendment) Rules, 2014 and
consequential executive orders of the State Government
were challenged before Hon’ble High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad in Writ-A No.34833 of 2014, Anand Kumar
Yadav and others v. Union of India
.

… … …

18. It is submitted that the details of total number of
candidates and Shiksha Mitras who participated and
qualified in ATRE-2019 are as under;

                    1     Total Registered Candidates                  4,31,466
                    2     Total Appeared Candidates                    4,09,530
                    3     Total Qualified candidates in                 36,614
                          General Category Cut Off 65%
                    4     Total Qualified candidates in                1,09,446
                          Reserved Category Cut Off 60%
                                Total Qualified (Point 3+4)            1,46,060
                                                                                  56

Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

5 Total Shiksha Mitra Appeared in 45,357
Exam
6 Shiksha Mitra passed in General 1561
category Cut Off of 65%
7 Shiksha Mitra passed in Reserved 6457
category Cut Off of 60%
Total Shiksha Mitra Passed 8,018
(point 6+7)
Information in reference of Cut
Off 45% or 40%
1 Shiksha Mitra who secured marks 8,858
between 45% to 65%
General category Approx
2 Shiksha Mitra who secured marks 23,771
between 40% to 60%
Reserved category Approx
Total of 1+2 32,629
3 Candidate Secured marks between 65,080
45% to 65% General category
(other than Shiksha Mitra) Approx
4 Candidate Secured marks between 1,50,426
40% to 60% Reserved category
(other than Shiksha Mitra) Approx
Total of 3+4 2,15,506

32. In compliance of Order dated 21.05.2020 the details
are given herein below,

Sl. Particulars Details
No.

                    1   Number of Shiksha Mitras                 1,52,330
                        presently working in the State
                    2   Number of Shiksha Mitras                 45,357
                        appeared in ATRE-2019
                    3   Number of Shiksha Mitras                 9386
                        securing more than 45% in
                        General Category
                    4   Number of Shiksha Mitras                 23,243
                        securing 40% marks in reserved
                        category
                        Total (3) & (4)                          32,629
                    5   Number of Shiksha Mitras                 1561
                        securing 65% marks in General
                        Category
                                                                                  57

Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

6 Number of Shiksha Mitras 6457
securing more than 60% marks in
Reserved category
Total (5) & (6) 8018

29.1. It was also submitted in the counter affidavit:-

“11. It is submitted that guidelines for ATRE-2018 was
issued for recruitment of 68,500 Assistant Teachers. It is
pertinent to mention herein that the ATRE is merely a
qualifying examination and which is conducted for a
particular year of vacancy. Thus ATRE-2018 was
conducted for filling up 68500 vacancies of Assistant
Teachers. Clause 1 (Kha) of guidelines dated 09.01.2018
for ATRE-2018 clearly stipulates that the examination is
valid for this very recruitment only. Further Clause 7(3)
states that passing of ATRE will not give any right of
employment to those candidates because this is only one of
the qualifying criteria of selection.

12. The total number of candidates who participated in
ATRE-2018 are 1,07,873 out of which 41556 qualified.
Total number of Shiksha Mitras who participated in ATRE-
2018 are 34,311 out of which finally 8588 qualified.

13. Thus it is apparent that ATRE-2018 was conducted as
qualifying examination for a particular year of appointment
where qualifying marks were prescribed as 45% and 40%
for General and Reserved Category candidates. Therefore
relief sought by Petitioners that the cut off marks of ATRE-
2018 be fixed for ATRE-2019 is totally misconceived.

… … …

26. Thus it is submitted that fixing of qualifying marks
does not amount to bringing a change in the process of
examination or changing any criteria. In any view of the
matter after the examination are over, the candidate
qualifying in merit from top alone are entitled for
recruitment and while doing so, there is a likely hood that a
percentage fixed by the State Government may further rise
in as much as against the 69000 vacancies, 4.10 lacs
candidates have appeared. Thus, prescribing minimum
58
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

qualifying marks is neither illegal nor arbitrary. The
Hon’ble High Court in the impugned Judgement has
discussed in detail and held that the fixing cut off marks is
neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. The Ld. Division
bench in para 72 and 73 of the impugned judgement has
held that State government has rightly in the advertisement
dated 01.12.2019 did not declare the cut off marks for
applying in ATRE-2019 as the recruiting authority is in a
position to assess how the candidates have performed and
determine the benchmark keeping in mind the number of
vacancies. The Hon’ble High Court further held that the
beneficial direction of this Hon’ble Court in Anand Kumar
Yadav case is available to Petitioners once they hold the
prescribed minimum qualifying marks.

… … …

28. The contention of Petitioners that Shiksha Mitras who
appeared in ATRE-2018 and ATRE-2019 form a
homogeneous class is totally misconceived. The Hon’ble
Division Bench has rightly rejected the contention of the
Petitioners that they do not constitute a homogeneous class.
It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court in the case of Anand
Kumar Yadav case never held that Shiksha Mitras
constitute homogeneous class. It is submitted that both the
examinations were conducted under different guidelines for
different vacancies therefore it is wholly misconceived
arguments that there should be same cut off marks for both
ATRE.”

30. It must be stated here that except for the posts held by Shiksha

Mitras presently working and who appeared in ATRE-2019, the State

Government was permitted by interim orders passed by this Court, to fill

up the remaining posts of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools.

31. The contest in the present case is principally between Shiksha

Mitras on one side, who are aggrieved by fixation of minimum qualifying
59
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

marks at 65-60% levels and permitting B.Ed. candidates to participate in

the selection process; while the opposition is from the State Government

and B.Ed./BTC candidates who are Non Shiksha Mitras.

32. The submissions on behalf of Shiksha Mitras were advanced by Mr.

P.S. Patwalia, Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Dr. Rajiv

Dhawan, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Mr. V. Shekhar, Mr. S. Guru Krishna Kumar,

Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Mr. Dinesh Diwedi, Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Mr. Jayant

Bhushan, learned Senior Advocates and Mr. Gaurav Agrawal and Ms.

Tanya Agarwal, learned Advocates. Their submissions were :-

a) 1,37,500 Shiksha Mitras who were initially absorbed in

regular service and whose absorption was set aside as a result

of the orders passed by the Full Bench of the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad and by this Court in Anand Kumar

Yadav2, constituted a homogeneous class.

b) As against the minimum qualifying percentage which was at

the level of 45-40% for ATRE-2018, the fixation of

minimum qualifying percentage at the level of 65-60% for
60
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

ATRE-2019 created unnatural and arbitrary distinction

between two sets of Shiksha Mitras.

c) Such fixation at 65-60% was done after the examination and

would amount to changing the rules of the game post

examination. Reliance was placed on the judgments of this

Court in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and

another12 and other cases.

d) Being in service for last more than 15 years where they were

required to obtain essential qualifications and prepare for

ATRE-2019 while discharging their service obligations,

Shiksha Mitras could not be put at the same level as fresh

graduates having B.Ed./BTC qualifications.

e) The fixation of minimum qualifying percentage in ATRE-

2019 at 65-60% incorporated an exclusionary element as

against Shiksha Mitras who, despite being entitled to

weightage for their experience as Shiksha Mitras in terms of

12
(2008) 3 SCC 512
61
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

specific amendment in 1981 Rules, were now being denied

said benefit.

f) In terms of 1981 Rules, only 60% of the score obtained in

ATRE would be considered along with other parameters in

arriving at the quality points. However, ATRE-2019 turned

into a principal selection criteria.

g) With 5% reservation for ex-servicemen, seats allocable to

them come to 3450 against which about 650-700 candidates

applied. At 65-60% cut off level, very few of them would

stand a chance. Similar would be the situation in respect of

other reserved categories such as physically handicapped and

dependants of freedom fighters. All these categories would

have greater chances at 45-40% cut off.

With regard to the issue of eligibility of B.Ed. candidates, some of

the learned counsel submitted:-

i) In terms of 1981 Rules, as they stood when ATRE-2019 was

conducted, the persons holding B.Ed. degree could not be

appointed as Assistant Teachers but would first be appointed
62
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

as Trainee Teachers; and they could be considered for the

posts of Assistant Teachers only after their successful

completion of six months’ training as Trainee Teachers.

ii) As per Rule 14(b), it was upto the Government to consider

and decide the number of candidates to be appointed as

Trainee Teachers, which exercise was never done.

iii) 23rd, 24th and 25th Amendments to 1981 Rules were effected

after ATRE-2019 was held. The retrospective effect granted

to these amendments was beyond the rule making power of

the State Government and thus could not save the obvious

illegality.

33. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General

appeared for the State while Mr. H.N. Salve, Mr. R. Venkataramani, Mr.

Pallav Shishodiya, Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan and Ms. V. Mohana, learned

Senior Advocates appeared for B.Ed./BTC candidates. Their submissions

were:-

A) The State was within its rights to fix cut off marks at 65-

60% level. As per Rule 2(1)(x) of 1981 Rules, qualifying
63
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

marks in respect of ATRE would be “such minimum marks

as may be determined from time to time by the

Government”.

B) The order dated 07.01.2019 itself disclosed that the proposal

for fixing the cut off was initiated on 05.01.2019 i.e. before

ATRE-2019 was held on 06.01.2019. The proposal stated

that approximately 11 lakh candidates had appeared in TET-

2018 out of which 3,86,000 were declared successful and

“there being a possibility of competition”, it was proposed

that the cut off marks be fixed at 5% higher than TET

Examination”.

C) The reasons for fixing the cut off marks at 65-60% level

were:-

(i) to narrow down the scope of selection because

of the increased number of applications; and

(ii) to achieve improvement in academic

performance whereby meritorious candidates

with higher marks would alone be permitted to

enter the zone of consideration.

64

Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

(iii) The pattern of ATRE-2019 was completely

different. As against short descriptive answers

required in ATRE-2018, the emphasis in

ATRE-2019 was on multiple choice-objective

questions.

D) There was no change in the rules of game as the cut off

marks were prescribed for the first time by order dated

07.01.2019. Reliance was placed on the decision of this

Court in Yogesh Yadav vs. Union of India and others13

and Jharkhand Public Service Commission vs. Manoj

Kumar Gupta14.

E) The ATRE was valid only for recruitment of that particular

year and the candidates had to abide by the conditions of

recruitment pertaining to the concerned ATRE examination.

Shiksha Mitras who participated in ATRE-2018 and in

ATRE-2019 did not form a homogeneous class.

F) Since 60% marks from ATRE would be taken into account

while preparing quality points, there was no occasion for any

13
(2013) 14 SCC 623
14
(2020) 1 SCALE 504
65
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

candidate not doing his best at ATRE-2019. Thus, non-

disclosure of cut off marks in the advertisement/Guidelines

was inconsequential.

G) The eligibility and entitlement of B.Ed. candidates to take

part in ATRE-2019 was never in challenge before the Single

Judge.

H) In the Guidelines dated 01.12.2018, under the heading

‘minimum qualifications’, it was specifically mentioned that

the eligibility of the candidates would be in terms of

minimum qualifications fixed by NCTE through its various

notifications including one dated 28.06.2018.

(I) 1981 Rules were amended prior to the commencement of

recruitment process which now provided for recruitment of

B.Ed. candidates directly to the post of Assistant Teacher

subject to their undergoing post-appointment training which

was in accordance with law.

34. It was also submitted by Ms. Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor

General that the State would provide one more opportunity to Shiksha

Mitras to compete in the next selection to dispel any impression of prejudice
66
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

but the present selection be allowed to go ahead with cut off at 65-60%

level.

34.1 In the written submissions filed on behalf of the State, an example

was placed as under:-

“3. A tabular chart showing that a candidate who has
throughout obtained 70% marks will be left out by a
Shiksha Mitra who has obtained 50% marks
throughout his career in case cut off marks are
reduced to 45% & 40% from 65% & 60%.

                    % of marks          Marks      of     a     Marks of a
                    taken         for   Candidate     other     Shiksha Mitra
                    preparing final     than Shiksha Mitra      having 50%
                    merit list as per   with    throughout      academic
                    Rule           14   70%       academic      record
                    [Quality            record
                    Marks]
                    High      School              7                    5
                    10%
                    Intermediate                  7                    5
                    10%
                    Graduation                    7                    5
                    10%
                    Training                      7                    5
                    Certificate 10%
                    Marks obtained       42 (in case he gets    27 (in case he
                    in ATRE-2019                70%)             gets 45% in
                                                                   ATRE)
                    Weightage              No Weightage          25 marks in
                    2.5 marks per                                    toto
                    year to Shiksha
                    Mitras upto 25
                    Marks
                    Total Marks              70 marks             72 Marks

Thus, it is clear that not only quality of teachers will be
compromised but a meritorious candidate will be ignored in
case cut off marks are reduced to 45% & 40% from 65% &
60%.”
67
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

34.2 In the written submissions filed on behalf of B.Ed./BTC candidates,

following charts were also presented:-

“On important statistics of ATRE 2018 and 2019

S. Parameter ATRE ATRE
No. 2018 2019
1 Total Number of 68500 69000
Vacancies
2 Total Number of 1,07,000 4,09,530
Candidates who
appeared
3 Qualifying Marks 40-45% 60-65%
4 Total Number of 41,556 1,46,078
qualified candidates (38.83%) (37.62%)
5 Total number of Shiksha 34,311 45,357
Mitras that participated
6 Total Number of Shiksha 8588 8,018
Mitras that qualified (25.02%) (17.67%)
7 Total number of Shiksha N/A 32,629
Mitras that secured
between 40-45% and 60-

                        65% marks in ATRE
                        2019
                    8   Total number of other              N/A         2,15,506
                        candidates that secured
                        between 40-45% and 60-
                        65% marks in ATRE
                        2019
                    9   Total      number       of        41,556       4,02,2013
                        candidates who will              (38.83%)      (98.21%)
                        qualify as per 40-45%
                        cut-off

“The following chart illustrates how a Shiksha Mitra having
35% marks through out his academic career (except 50% in
BTC, which is passing marks) would be selected if the
qualifying marks in ATRE-2019 is lowered to 45%,
whereas a BTC candidates having secured 67% marks
through out his academic career would be left out:

68

Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

Matric 10+2 Grad BTC/ Weightage ATRE- Total
(10% of (10% (10% B.Ed. 2.5/annum 19 (60% marks
%) of %) of %) (10% of %)
of %)
S.M with 3.5 3.5 3.5 5 25 27 67.5
35% in (45%)
academics
Other with 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 0 40.2 67
67% in (67%)
academics

35. As stated in the counter affidavit of the State, out of 1,78,000

Shiksha Mitras who were given fortuitous appointments as Primary

Teachers on contractual basis, 1,37,500 Shiksha Mitras were absorbed as

Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools. Their absorption was subject

matter of challenge and the orders passed by the State conferring the

advantage of absorption were set aside on the ground that no such benefit

could be conferred upon persons who did not have the requisite

qualifications to be appointed as Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools.

The number of 1,37,500 has some significance as ATRE-2018 and ATRE-

2019 were conducted to fill up 68,500 and 69,000 posts of Assistant

Teachers respectively; the aggregate being 1,37,500.

After suitable amendments to 1981 Rules, Shiksha Mitras became

eligible for appointment to the posts of “Assistant Masters and Assistant
69
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

Mistresses of Junior Basic Schools” provided they acquired the academic

qualifications prescribed in 1981 Rules.

As per para 34 of the counter affidavit, 1,52, 330 Shiksha Mitras are

presently working in the State and 45, 357 Shiksha Mitras appeared in

ATRE-2019. Thus, more than 1,02,000 Shiksha Mitras did not appear in

ATRE-2019 either because they did not have the requisite qualifications or

they were not interested in competing for the posts of Assistant Teachers.

36. According to the record, out of 1,46,060 candidates who qualified in

ATRE-2019, 8018 are Shiksha Mitras while B.Ed. and BTC candidates are

97,368 and 38,610 respectively and the candidates having other

qualifications are 2064. As against the total number of qualified candidates,

8018 Shiksha Mitras thus constitute 17.67%. It must be noted here that

B.Ed. candidates were not allowed to participate in the earlier selection

process and could not appear at ATRE-2018. Their entitlement, as a matter

of fact, arose for the first time after ATRE-2018. Even when B.Ed.

candidates were out of contest, the percentage of qualified Shiksha Mitras

in ATRE-2018 (25.02%) was not substantially high as is evident from the

chart extracted in paragraph 34.2 hereinabove.
70
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

37. We must now consider the issue of eligibility of B.Ed. candidates in

the present selection. In TET examination held in March, 2018, out of

3,86,000 qualified candidates, Shiksha Mitras were 40,000 only; meaning

thereby that a large number of candidates other than Shiksha Mitras had been

declared qualified. Paragraph 4(2) of G.O. dated 01.12.2018, referred to

certain directives of NCTE which in turn, had dealt with eligibility of B.Ed.

candidates. It was, therefore, quite apparent that in the ensuing selection

process considerable number of B.Ed. candidates would participate. In this

background, the absence of any challenge to the entitlement of B.Ed.

candidates to participate in the process and to appear at ATRE-2019 is

crucial.

But we do not propose to rely only on this aspect and proceed to

consider whether the candidates holding B.Ed. degrees are entitled in law to

be considered eligible in the present selection process.

38. The National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (‘the NCTE

Act’, for short) was enacted, inter alia, to provide for the regulation and

proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system.

Chapter II of the NCTE Act deals with establishment of the Council while
71
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

Chapter III deals with ‘Functions of the Council’. Some of the functions of

the Council, as laid down in Section 12, are as under:-

“12. Functions of the Council.- It shall be the duty of the
Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring
planned and coordinated development of teacher education
and for the determination and maintenance of standards for
teacher education and for the purposes of performing its
functions under this Act, the Council may–

(a)-(b) … … …

(c) co-ordinate and monitor teacher education and its
development in the country;

(d) lay down guidelines in respect of minimum
qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in
schools or in recognised institutions;

(e) lay down norms for any specified category of courses or
trainings in teacher education, including the minimum
eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of
selection of candidates, duration of the course, course
contents and mode of curriculum;

(f)-(m) … … …

(n) perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it
by the Central Government.”

38.1 The NCTE Act, as originally enacted, was primarily concerned with

regulating standards in “teacher education system”. The provisions of the

NCTE Act came up for consideration in State of Maharashtra vs. Sant

Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others15. This

Court held:-

15

(2006) 9 SCC 1
72
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

“62. From the above decisions, in our judgment, the law
appears to be very well settled. So far as coordination and
determination of standards in institutions for higher
education or research, scientific and technical institutions
are concerned, the subject is exclusively covered by Entry
66 of List I of Schedule VII to the Constitution and the State
has no power to encroach upon the legislative power of
Parliament. It is only when the subject is covered by Entry
25 of List III of Schedule VII to the Constitution that there
is a concurrent power of Parliament as well as the State
Legislatures and appropriate Act can be made by the State
Legislature subject to limitations and restrictions under the
Constitution.

63. In the instant case, admittedly, Parliament has enacted
the 1993 Act, which is in force. The preamble of the Act
provides for establishment of National Council for Teacher
Education (NCTE) with a view to achieving planned and
coordinated development of the teacher-education system
throughout the country, the regulation and proper
maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher-
education system and for matters connected therewith. With
a view to achieving that object, the National Council for
Teacher Education has been established at four places by
the Central Government. It is thus clear that the field is fully
and completely occupied by an Act of Parliament and
covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII. It is,
therefore, not open to the State Legislature to encroach
upon the said field. Parliament alone could have exercised
the power by making appropriate law. In the circumstances,
it is not open to the State Government to refuse permission
relying on a State Act or on “policy consideration”.

38.2 In Basic Education Board, U.P. vs. Upendra Rai and others16, the

issue was whether the provisions of the NCTE Act related to the ordinary

16
(2008) 3 SCC 432
73
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

educational institutions and whether they would override the provisions of

U.P. Basic Education Act and Rules made thereunder. This Court held:-

“22. It may be mentioned that the word “institution” is
defined in Section 2(e) of the NCTE Act to mean an
institution which offers courses or training in teachers’
education. Thus, the NCTE Act does not deal with the
ordinary educational institutions like primary schools, high
schools, intermediate college or university. The word
“institution” as defined in Section 2(2) [sic 2(e)] only
means teachers’ training institutes and not the ordinary
educational institutions. Hence, it is only the teachers’
training institutions which have to seek grant of recognition
or continuation of recognition from the Regional
Committee. The ordinary educational institutions do not
have to seek any such recognition or continuation under the
NCTE Act. In fact, the NCTE Act does not relate to the
ordinary educational institutions at all. We, therefore, fail
to understand how it can be said that the NCTE Act
overrides the U.P. Basic Education Act and the Rules made
thereunder. In fact, the two Acts operate in altogether two
different fields. The NCTE Act deals with the teachers’
training institutions while the U.P. Basic Education Act
deals with the ordinary primary schools in U.P. and not any
teachers’ training institute. The argument of learned
counsel for the respondent is thus wholly misconceived.”

38.3 The NCTE Act was thereafter amended in 2011 by Act 18 of 2011

and after such amendment the long title to the Act now reads ‘an Act to

provide for the establishment of a National Council for Teacher Education

with a view to achieving planned and co-ordinated development of the

teacher education system throughout the country, the regulation and

 National Council for Teachers Education (Amendment) Act (18 of 2011)
74
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education

system including qualifications of school teachers and for matter

connected therewith’.

By the same amendment Section 12A was inserted in the NCTE

Act, the relevant part of said Section being:-

“12A. Power of Council to determine minimum
standards of education of school teachers.- For the
purpose of maintaining standards of education in schools,
the Council may, by regulations, determine the
qualifications of persons for being recruited as teachers in
any pre-primary, primary, upper primary, secondary, senior
secondary or intermediate school or college, by whatever
name called, established, run aided or recognised by the
Central Government or a State Government or a local or
other authority:

… … …”

Section 32 of the NCTE Act empowers the NCTE to make regulations

by issuing notification in the official gazette generally to carry out the

provisions of the NCTE Act which regulations may now provide for ‘the

qualifications of teachers under 12A#.

38.4 It is thus clear that for maintaining standards of education in

schools, the NCTE is now specifically empowered to determine the

qualifications of persons for being recruited as teachers in schools or

colleges. In addition to regulating standards in “teacher education system”,

#
Section 32(2)(dd) of the NCTE Act
75
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

the NCTE Act now deals with regulation and proper maintenance of norms

and standards in respect of qualifications of persons to be recruited as

teachers.

39. Having noted the aforestated change in the scope and ambit of the

NCTE Act, another development must also be noticed. The Right of

Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (‘the RTE Act’, for

short) was enacted by the Parliament, inter alia, to provide to the children

in the age group of six to fourteen years “full time elementary education of

satisfactory and equitable quality in a formal school which satisfies certain

essential norms and standards”. Section 23 of the RTE Act deals with

qualifications for appointment of teachers and states:-

“23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and
conditions of service of teachers.-

(1) Any person possessing such minimum
qualifications, as laid down by an academic
authority, authorised by the Central Government,
by notification, shall be eligible for appointment
as a teacher.

(2) ……
(3) ……”

40. By Notification dated 31.03.2010, the Central Government, in

exercise of powers conferred under Section 23 of the RTE Act authorised
76
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

the NCTE as an “Academic Authority” to lay down the minimum

qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher.

The Notification dated 28.06.2018 issued by the NCTE was in

exercise of power so conferred upon it by virtue of the Notification dated

31.03.2010. In terms of the Notification dated 28.06.2018, the qualification

of ‘Bachelor of Education’ from any NCTE recognised institution shall now

be a valid qualification for appointment as a teacher in classes I to V

provided the person so appointed as a teacher mandatorily undergoes six

months’ Bridge Course in elementary education within two years of such

appointment.

41. Going by the Parliamentary intent in empowering NCTE under the

provisions of the NCTE Act and specific authorization in favour of NCTE

under said Notification dated 31.03.2010, the authority of NCTE is beyond

any doubt. Though there is no specific regulation as contemplated under

Section 32 read with Sections 12 and 12A of the NCTE Act, for the present

purposes by virtue of the specific authorization under the Notification dated

31.03.2010, NCTE was entitled to lay down that those holding the

qualification of ‘Bachelor of Education’ as detailed in said Notification are

entitled to be appointed as teachers for classes I to V. Such prescription on
77
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

part of the NCTE would be binding. It is for this reason that G.O. dated

01.12.2018 notifying ATRE-2019 clearly stated that the candidates

possessing minimum qualifications specified in Notifications issued by the

NCTE including one dated 28.06.2018 were entitled to participate in

ATRE-2019.

42. The eligibility and entitlement of B.Ed. candidates in law, thus

being beyond any doubt, the next question to be considered is whether

without making appropriate consequential amendments to 1981 Rules

before ATRE-2019 was held, the candidates possessing B.Ed. qualification

could be allowed to take part in ATRE-2019. Reliance was placed on the

following observations from the decisions of this Court.

i) P. Mahendran and others etc. v. State of Karnataka and others17

“4. … …In the absence of any express provision contained
in the amending Rules it must be held to be prospective in
nature. The Rules which are prospective in nature cannot
take away or impair the right of candidates holding Diploma
in Mechanical Engineering as on the date of making
appointment as well as on the date of scrutiny by the
Commission they were qualified for selection and
appointment. … …”

17
(1990) 1 SCC 411
78
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

ii) Madan Mohan Sharma and another v. State of Rajasthan and

others18

“…Once the advertisement had been issued on the basis of
the circular obtaining at that particular time, the effect
would be that the selection process should continue on the
basis of the criteria which were laid down and it cannot be
on the basis of the criteria which has been made
subsequently”

43. The Notification dated 28.06.2018 being binding on the State

Government, the statutory regime put in place by the State has to be read in

conformity with said Notification. The eligibility or entitlement being

already conferred by Notification dated 28.06.2018, the amendments to

1981 Rules were effected only to make the statutory regime consistent with

the directives issued by the NCTE. The right or eligibility was not

conferred by amendments effected to 1981 Rules for the first time and

therefore the element of retrospectivity present in the concerned

amendments has to be read in that perspective. The intent behind those

amendments was not to create a right for the first time with retrospective

effect but was only to effectuate the statutory regime in tune or accord with

NCTE directives. Theoretically, even if such statutory regime was not

made so consistent, the concerned candidates holding B.Ed. degrees could

18
(2008) 3 SCC 724
79
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

still be eligible and could not have been denied candidature for ATRE-

2019.

44. Pertinently, the performance in ATRE is one of the indicia that goes

into making of quality points which in turn have to be considered at the

stage of preparation of merit list for selection. By the time the actual

process of selection was undertaken, the statutory regime in the form of

1981 Rules was perfectly consistent and in order.

The decisions relied upon and quoted above therefore have no

application to the instant case.

45. The decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Dr. Preeti

Srivastava and another etc. vs. State of M.P. and others etc.19 was also

relied upon to submit that since the requirements in 1981 Rules (as they

stood before 23rd Amendment) in so far as entitlement of B.Ed. candidates

was concerned, were in addition to the conditions emanating from the

Notification dated 28.06.2018, it must be independently satisfied and as

such there could be no retrospective amendment to 1981 Rules. In said

decision, it was held by this Court.

“39. … In every case the minimum standards as laid down
by the Central statute or under it, have to be complied with

19
(1999) 7 SCC 120
80
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

by the State while making admissions. It may, in addition,
lay down other additional norms for admission or regulate
admissions in the exercise of its powers under Entry 25 List
III in a manner not inconsistent with or in a manner which
does not dilute the criteria so laid down.”

As held by this Court, an additional norm laid down by the State

would certainly be applicable and enforceable. But once, the NCTE laid

down that candidates holding B.Ed. degrees would be entitled to be

appointed as teachers for classes I to V, provided they undergo a six

months’ Bridge Course, the stipulation in 1981 Rules (before 23rd

Amendment) that they must first be appointed as trainee teachers must give

way to that under the Notification dated 28.06.2018. Said stipulation in

1981 Rules cannot be considered as an additional norm. It ran completely

counter to that under the Notification dated 28.06.2018 which is why the

Amendment in that behalf was given retrospective effect to bring in

consistency.

46. In the circumstances, we approve the conclusions drawn by the

High Court with regard to this issue and hold that the B.Ed. candidates were

rightly allowed to participate in the instant selection process.
81
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

47. We now deal with the questions concerning fixation of 65-60% as

minimum qualifying marks for ATRE 2019.

The first question deals with the submission that such fixation was

arbitrary and irrational and can be considered under following sub-heads:-

(a) Whether there could be different parameters regarding

minimum qualifying marks in ATRE-2019 as against those in

ATRE-2018.

(b) Whether Shiksha Mitras who appeared in ATRE-2018 and

ATRE-2019 constituted one single homogenous class.

(c) Should there not be a different yardstick for Shiksha Mitras,

who had been rendering service as teachers, as against what

could be applied for fresh graduates.

(d) Should not “minimum qualifying marks” appear to be

minimum? Was not the cut off at 65-60% per se arbitrary;

(e) Could ATRE-2019 be converted into an exclusionary test and

thereby deny to the Shiksha Mitras the benefit of weightage

for experience.

The second question concerns about the correctness of the exercise

of power in such fixation after ATRE-2019 was held.
82
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

48. For selection of 68,500 posts, 1,07,000 candidates had participated

in ATRE-2018; and with qualifying marks at 45-40%, 41,556 candidates

had qualified. The percentage of qualifying candidates was thus 38.83%.

On the other hand, 4,09,530 candidates participated in the present selection

process for 69,000 posts and with 65-60% cut off marks, 1,46,078

candidates had qualified. The percentage of qualifying candidates this time

was 37.62%, which was almost equal to that in ATRE-2018. However, the

number of qualified candidates in ATRE-2018 was less than the number of

vacancies; while even with the cut off at 65-60% the number of qualified

candidates in the present selection was far in excess of the number of posts.

These figures give indications about the nature and the difficulty level of the

examinations and show that even with cut off at 65-60%, the percentage of

qualifying candidates was almost the same.

49. It is true that the total number of posts of Assistant Teachers sought

to be filled up by ATRE-2018 and 2019 was 1,37,500, the exact number of

Shiksha Mitras whose absorption as Assistant Teachers was set aside; and

that Shiksha Mitras were granted certain benefits in terms of the directions

issued by this Court in Anand Kumar Yadav2. One of the submissions was

that all Shiksha Mitras who were granted such benefit constituted a
83
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

homogenous class and as such there could not be any inter se distinction

between Shiksha Mitras who appeared in ATRE-2018 on one hand and those

who appeared in ATRE-2019 on the other. It was also contended that the

syllabus for both the examinations with allocation of marks for different

subjects being identical, any distinction between two sets of Shiksha Mitras

and subjecting those who appeared at ATRE-2019 to considerably high cut

off would be arbitrary and illogical.

50. It needs to be stated here that though the syllabus and subject wise

allocation of marks were identical, the nature of ATRE-2019 was entirely

different. The questions in ATRE-2018 were descriptive in nature and the

duration of examination was three hours. However, those in ATRE 2019

were multiple choice – objective questions and the duration of examination

was also different. Rather than writing descriptive answers to questions

which was the modality in ATRE-2018, multiple choices were given and the

correct answer was to be tick marked in ATRE 2019. Naturally, the nature

and the difficulty level of both the examinations were different. Sub question

(a) must therefore be answered in the affirmative and it must be accepted

that there could be different parameters regarding minimum qualifying

marks for ATRE-2019.

84

Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

51. All the candidates including Shiksha Mitras who appeared in ATRE

2018 formed one class while those who appeared in ATRE 2019 formed

another class. There cannot be inter se connection or homogeneity between

candidates appearing in one examination or selection with those appearing

in another examination or selection. The candidates would undoubtedly

compete with each other in the same examination on a para meter which

applies to all of them equally. But to say that Shiksha Mitras who appeared

in ATRE-2019 must be allowed equality with candidates of ATRE-2018,

who were part of a different selection process would be incorrect and

illogical. The basic norms of ATRE-2019 must be tested on their own and

cannot depend upon para meters or norms on the basis of which ATRE-2018

was held. Otherwise the integrity of the examination process will get

defeated and nullified.

Shiksha Mitras were given chances in two successive selections and

some of the Shiksha Mitras who had failed in ATRE-2018 appeared in

ATRE-2019 in exercise of such chance. Those who could not clear ATRE-

2018 with 45-40% cut off cannot now be heard to say that the same cut off

ought to be maintained when the nature of examination and the difficulty

level had completely changed.

85

Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

We, therefore, reject the submission that Shiksha Mitras who

appeared in ATRE-2018 and ATRE-2019 formed a homogenous class and

answer sub question (b) accordingly. The candidates who appeared in

ATRE-2018 between themselves formed one class while those who

appeared in ATRE-2019 formed another class. The merit of one class had

to be tested on the basis of the examination which the candidates forming

that class had undergone and no para meters or norms of the earlier

examination could be imported or implanted in the latter examination.

52. Relying on the decision of this Court in State of M.P. and others

vs. Gopal D. Tirthani and others20, it was submitted that Shiksha Mitras

who had been discharging their services as teachers could not be put at the

same level with fresh graduates having B.Ed./BTC qualifications. In that

case, this Court was called upon to consider setting apart of certain seats by

the State Government for in service candidates in Post Graduate courses. It

was observed by this Court: –

“21. … There is nothing wrong in the State Government
setting apart a definite percentage of educational seats at
postgraduation level consisting of degree and diploma
courses exclusively for the in-service candidates. To the
extent of the seats so set apart, there is a separate and
exclusive source of entry or channel for admission. It is not
reservation. In-service candidates, and the candidates not in

20
(2003) 7 SCC 83
86
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

the service of the State Government, are two classes based
on an intelligible differentia. There is a laudable purpose
sought to be achieved. In-service candidates, on attaining
higher academic achievements, would be available to be
posted in rural areas by the State Government. It is not that
an in-service candidate would leave the service merely on
account of having secured a postgraduate degree or diploma
though secured by virtue of being in the service of the State
Government. If there is any misapprehension, the same is
allayed by the State Government obtaining a bond from
such candidates as a condition precedent to their taking
admission that after completing PG degree/diploma course
they would serve the State Government for another five
years. Additionally, a bank guarantee of rupees three lakhs
is required to be submitted along with the bond. There is,
thus, clearly a perceptible reasonable nexus between the
classification and the object sought to be achieved.”

This Court was considering validity of certain percentage of seats

earmarked for in-service candidates and it found the classification to be

correct, having nexus with the object of ensuing availability of competent

professionals in the rural parts of the State. On the other hand, the object of

giving opportunities to Shiksha Mitras was to ensure that they were given

fair chance to compete with others so that the best of the lot would be

available to take care of primary education in the State. In our view, the

submission does not deserve acceptance. Sub question (c) is answered

accordingly.

53. It was further submitted that the fixation of cut off at 65-60% was at

a considerably high level and ceased to be “minimum qualifying marks” as
87
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

contemplated by the relevant provisions of 1989 Rules. This submission

found favour with the Single Judge of the High Court who observed that the

minimum qualifying marks must appear to be minimum.

The minimum marks required to pass the TET examination are at a

level of 60% for open category. Those who desired to be teachers had

already gone through a process rigorous enough to test their ability with

minimum passing percentage at 60%%. Moreover, 60% of the marks scored

by a candidate in ATRE-2019 would go to determine the quality points

allocable to a candidate. Leaving aside the weightage allowable for Shiksha

Mitras, the overall academic performance of a candidate thus constituted

about 40% of quality points whereas a large chunk thereof depended upon

the performance in ATRE-2019. In terms of 1981 Rules, a candidate would

be required to “pass” ATRE and thus ATRE was not only an examination

that had to be cleared to get into the zone of consideration but 60% of marks

scored in that examination would be used for the purposes of preparation of

merit list. From the perspective of selection, ATRE deserved adequate

importance and emphasis. The reason was obvious that all the candidates

would be tested on a parameter or a norm which would be equal and identical

to all the competing claimants.

88

Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

The fixation at 65-60% level was to garner the best available talent.

Even with this qualifying norm, the percentage of qualified candidates in

ATRE-2019 was 37.62% which was quite close to 38.83% in ATRE-2018

and the number of qualified candidates was far in excess of the vacancies

required to be filled up. Thus, cut off at 65-60% level in the present case,

by itself cannot be termed as incorrect or illegal exercise of power. Sub

question (d) is answered accordingly.

54. It was then submitted that going by the provisions of 1981 Rules, the

performance in ATRE was supposed to be only one of the indicia. However,

by fixing the cut off at 65-60% level, instead of subserving the requirement

of furnishing one of the indicia, ATRE-2019 became an exclusionary test. It

was submitted that the performance in ATRE overshadowed every other

parameter and in the process the benefit of weightage that every Shiksha

Mitra was entitled to, stood denied to him.

55. Though as a result of the 22nd Amendment, passing of ATRE ceased

to be part of Rule 8, the requirement was specifically retained in Rule 14 of

1981 Rules. Further, 60% of the marks scored by a candidate in ATRE, in

terms of Appendix I read with Rule 14(2) would go in determining quality

points to prepare the merit list. The major portion of quality points being
89
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

directly relatable to the performance in ATRE, mere fixation at 65-60% level

which applied to all the candidates across the board cannot be said to be

exclusionary. ATRE featured as the common platform on the basis of which

individual merit of various candidates could be tested, which is why a major

portion of allocable quality points was assigned to the performance in

ATRE. In the circumstances, the performance in ATRE-2019 was given

adequate and due weightage by fixation of cut off at 65-60% level.

56. The submission that as a result of such fixation large number of

Shiksha Mitras were denied advantage of weightage as determined under the

provisions of 1981 Rules, also does not deserve acceptance. In Kulbhushan

Mishra and another vs. State of U.P. and others, the Division Bench of the

High Court had concluded that weightage allocable to the experience of

Shiksha Mitras was not contemplated to be added to the marks obtained by

a person in the ATRE. All the Shiksha Mitras were thus aware that they had

to qualify in the ATRE and they would be entitled to weightage for their

experience only thereafter. More than 8000 Shiksha Mitras did qualify in

ATRE-2019, which number must have included those who had earlier failed

to make it in ATRE-2018. Those Shiksha Mitras who were meritorious and

took the examination with seriousness that it deserved, certainly succeeded
90
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

in securing marks more than the cut off of 65-60%. The directions issued by

this Court in Anand Kumar Yadav2 were to ensure that regardless of any

other considerations, Shiksha Mitras would have opportunity to match their

skills against other candidates. Viewed thus, the fixation of cut off at 65-

60% which was intended to select the best of the candidates cannot be

termed as exclusionary nor was it intended to deprive the Shiksha Mitras of

the advantage of weightage for experience. Sub question (e) must therefore

be answered against Shiksha Mitras.

57. While answering the first question, we therefore conclude that the

fixation of cut off at 65-60% in ATRE-2019 was perfectly valid and

justified. Considering the large number of candidates who appeared at

ATRE-2019 as well as the nature and difficulty level of the examination, the

cut off was designed to draw the best available talent. The endeavour on

part of the State in attempting to secure the best of the teachers was therefore

fully justified. It needs no emphasis that the right to education guaranteed

in terms of Article 21A of the Constitution would envisage quality education

being imparted to the children which in turn, would signify that the teachers

must be meritorious and the best of the lot. Any process which applied
91
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

equally to all the candidates and was designed to garner the best talent,

cannot be called arbitrary or irrational.

58. With regard to the second question, it is clear from the record that

the cut off at 65-60% for ATRE-2019 was declared a day after the

examination was held. As is reflected from the Order dated 07.01.2019, the

process was initiated on 05.01.2019 but the actual declaration was on

07.01.2019. The correctness of such exercise was called in question by

Shiksha Mitras and certain decisions of this Court were relied upon. The

basic submissions were that the candidates ought to have been made aware

of the cut off well in advance and the fixation of cut off after the examination

was over, would be incorrect and invalid.

We may now consider some of the decisions relied upon by either

side.

A] In State of Haryana vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and others21,

a bench of two judges of this Court considered the question whether the

action of the State in appointing first seven persons from the list of qualified

candidates leaving out other qualified candidates when there were enough

vacancies, was correct. It was observed:-

21
(1974) 3 SCC 220
92
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

“10. One fails to see how the existence of vacancies give a
legal right to a candidate to be selected for appointment.
The examination is for the purpose of showing that a
particular candidate is eligible for consideration. The
selection for appointment comes later. It is open then to the
Government to decide how many appointments shall be
made. The mere fact that a candidate’s name appears in the
list will not entitle him to a mandamus that he be appointed.
Indeed, if the State Government while making the selection
for appointment had departed from the ranking given in the
list, there would have been a legitimate grievance on the
ground that the State Government had departed from the
rules in this respect. The true effect of Rule 10 in Part C is
that if and when the State Government propose to make
appointments of Subordinate Judges the State Government

(i) shall not make such appointments by travelling outside
the list, and (ii) shall make the selection for appointments
strictly in the order the candidates have been placed in the
list published in the Government Gazette. In the present
case neither of these two requirements is infringed by the
Government. They have appointed the first seven persons
in the list as Subordinate Judges. Apart from these
constraints on the power to make the appointments, Rule 10
does not impose any other constraint. There is no constraint
that the Government shall make an appointment of a
Subordinate Judge either because there are vacancies or
because a list of candidates has been prepared and is in
existence.”

B] In State of U.P. etc. v. Rafiquddin and others etc.22, the distinction

between a normal test and a competitive examination in the light of the

submission that the minimum marks were fixed without notice to the

candidates, was brought out by this Court as under:-

“12. The Division Bench of the High Court observed that
the Commission had no authority to fix any minimum
marks for the viva voce test and even if it had such a power
it could not prescribe the minimum marks without giving

22
1987 (Supp) SCC 401
93
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

notice to the candidates. The Bench further observed that if
the Commission had given notice to the candidates before
the steps for holding the competitive examination were
taken the candidates may or may not have appeared at the
examination. In our opinion the High Court committed a
serious error in applying the principles of natural justice to
a competitive examination. There is a basic difference
between an examination held by a college or university or
examining body to award degree to candidates appearing at
the examination and a competitive examination. The
examining body or the authority prescribes minimum pass
marks. If a person obtains the minimum marks as prescribed
by the authority he is declared successful and placed in the
respective grade according to the number of marks obtained
by him. In such a case it would be obligatory on the
examining authority to prescribe marks for passing the
examination as well as for securing different grades well in
advance. A competitive examination on the other hand is of
different character. The purpose and object of the
competitive examination is to select most suitable
candidates for appointment to public services. A person
may obtain sufficiently high marks and yet he may not be
selected on account of the limited number of posts and
availability of persons of higher quality. Having regard to
the nature and characteristics of a competitive examination
it is not possible nor necessary to give notice to the
candidates about the minimum marks which the
Commission may determine for purposes of eliminating the
unsuitable candidates. The rule of natural justice does not
apply to a competitive examination.”
(Emphasis supplied)

C] The procedure for selection of ten posts of District and Sessions

Judges (Grade-II) by direct recruitment was in issue in K. Manjusree12.

According to the resolution dated 30.11.2004, the method of selection

comprised of a written examination for 75 marks and oral examination for

25 marks. There would be minimum percentage of marks required for

passing the written examination and the successful candidates would be
94
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

called for interview; and the merit would be determined, according to the

aggregate of marks in written and oral examinations. There was thus no

requirement of any minimum qualifying marks in the oral interview.

However, after the entire process was over, the Sub-Committee introduced

a cut off percentage for oral examination, as a result of which, certain

candidates stood disqualified. While dealing with the challenge by four such

candidates, a bench of three judges of this Court observed:

“27. But what could not have been done was the second
change, by introduction of the criterion of minimum marks
for the interview. The minimum marks for interview had
never been adopted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court
earlier for selection of District & Sessions Judges, (Grade
II). In regard to the present selection, the Administrative
Committee merely adopted the previous procedure in
vogue. The previous procedure as stated above was to apply
minimum marks only for written examination and not for
the oral examination. We have referred to the proper
interpretation of the earlier Resolutions dated 24-7-2001
and 21-2-2002 and held that what was adopted on 30-11-

2004 was only minimum marks for written examination and
not for the interviews. Therefore, introduction of the
requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the
entire selection process (consisting of written examination
and interview) was completed, would amount to changing
the rules of the game after the game was played which is
clearly impermissible. We are fortified in this view by
several decisions of this Court. It is sufficient to refer to
three of them — P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of
India23
, Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India24 and
Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa25.”
(Emphasis supplied)

23
(1984) 2 SCC 141
24
(1985) 3 SCC 721
25
(1987) 4 SCC 646
95
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

After considering the earlier decisions in P.K. Ramachandra Iyer

and others v. Union of India and others23, Umesh Chandra Shukla v.

Union of India and others24, Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa25 and

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Rajendra

Bhimrao Mandve and others26, this Court observed:

“33. The Resolution dated 30-11-2004 merely adopted the
procedure prescribed earlier. The previous procedure was
not to have any minimum marks for interview. Therefore,
extending the minimum marks prescribed for written
examination, to interviews, in the selection process is
impermissible. We may clarify that prescription of
minimum marks for any interview is not illegal. We have
no doubt that the authority making rules regulating the
selection, can prescribe by rules, the minimum marks both
for written examination and interviews, or prescribe
minimum marks for written examination but not for
interview, or may not prescribe any minimum marks for
either written examination or interview. Where the rules do
not prescribe any procedure, the Selection Committee may
also prescribe the minimum marks, as stated above. But if
the Selection Committee wants to prescribe minimum
marks for interview, it should do so before the
commencement of selection process. If the Selection
Committee prescribed minimum marks only for the written
examination, before the commencement of selection
process, it cannot either during the selection process or after
the selection process, add an additional requirement that the
candidates should also secure minimum marks in the
interview. What we have found to be illegal, is changing the
criteria after completion of the selection process, when the
entire selection proceeded on the basis that there will be no
minimum marks for the interview.

26

(2001) 10 SCC 51
96
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

36. The Full Court however, introduced a new requirement
as to minimum marks in the interview by an interpretative
process which is not warranted and which is at variance
with the interpretation adopted while implementing the
current selection process and the earlier selections. As the
Full Court approved the Resolution dated 30-11-2004 of the
Administrative Committee and also decided to retain the
entire process of selection consisting of written
examination and interviews it could not have introduced a
new requirement of minimum marks in interviews, which
had the effect of eliminating candidates, who would
otherwise be eligible and suitable for selection. Therefore,
we hold that the action of the Full Court in revising the
merit list by adopting a minimum percentage of marks for
interviews was impermissible.”

This Court, thus, allowed the challenge and directed the High Court

to prepare a fresh merit list in regard to 83 candidates who had qualified in

the written examination with reference to their marks in written test and

interview without applying any minimum marks for interviews.

D] Relying on the decision in K. Manjusree12, a bench of two judges of

this Court in Hemani Malhotra etc. vs. High Court of Delhi27, concluded:-

“15. There is no manner of doubt that the authority making
rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the
minimum marks both for written examination and viva
voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for viva
voce before the commencement of selection process, the
authority concerned, cannot either during the selection
process or after the selection process add an additional
requirement/qualification that the candidate should also
secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this

27
(2008) 7 SCC 11
97
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks
by the respondent at viva voce test was illegal.”
(Emphasis supplied)

E] In Tej Prakash Pathak and others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and

others 28, a bench of three judges was called upon to consider a situation

identical to that considered in State of Haryana vs. Subash Chander

Marwaha and Others21, where only three candidates were selected while

others were ruled out despite there being vacancies. This Court doubted the

decision in K. Manjusree12 and referred the matter to a larger bench. Some

of the observations were as under: –

“1. Leave granted.

“5. … the rules of the game … the criteria for
selection cannot be altered by the authorities
concerned in the middle or after the process of
selection has commenced.”

“27. … changing the rules of the game after the
game was played … is clearly impermissible.”
The above, and statements to the similar effect
have petrified into a rule of law in the context
of employment under the State or its
instrumentalities. Whether such principle of
law is immutable, what are those “rules of the
game” which cannot be changed after the game
is either commenced or played, in our opinion
requires an authoritative pronouncement by a
larger Bench of this Court.”

… … …

28
(2013) 4 SCC 540
98
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

6. Therefore, the appellants challenged the selection
process on the ground that the decision of the Chief Justice
to select only those candidates who secured a minimum of
75% marks would amount to “changing the rules of the
game after the game is played”—a cliché whose true
purport is required to be examined notwithstanding the
declaration of this Court in Manjusree12 case that it is
“clearly impermissible”.

… … …

14. Unfortunately, the decision in Subash Chander
Marwaha21 does not appear to have been brought to the
notice of Their Lordships in Manjusree12. This Court in
Manjusree relied upon P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union
of India23
, Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India24
and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa25. In none of the
cases, was the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha21
considered.

15. No doubt it is a salutary principle not to permit the
State or its instrumentalities to tinker with the “rules of the
game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria is
concerned as was done in C. Channabasavaih v. State of
Mysore29
, etc. in order to avoid manipulation of the
recruitment process and its results. Whether such a
principle should be applied in the context of the “rules of
the game” stipulating the procedure for selection more
particularly when the change sought is to impose a more
rigorous scrutiny for selection requires an authoritative
pronouncement of a larger Bench of this Court. We,
therefore, order that the matter be placed before the Hon’ble
Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders in this regard.”

29
AIR 1965 SC 1293
99
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

F] In Yogesh Yadav13, the attempt on part of the authorities in

employing a cut off to select the best candidates was questioned. A bench

of two Judges of this Court observed:-

“13. The instant case is not a case where no minimum marks
are prescribed for viva voce and this is sought to be done
after the written test. As noted above, the instructions to the
examinees provided that written test will carry 80% marks
and 20% marks were assigned for the interview. It was also
provided that candidates who secured minimum 50% marks
in the general category and minimum 40% marks in the
reserved categories in the written test would qualify for the
interview. The entire selection was undertaken in
accordance with the aforesaid criterion which was laid
down at the time of recruitment process. After conducting
the interview, marks of the written test and viva voce were
to be added. However, since a benchmark was not stipulated
for giving the appointment. What is done in the instant case
is that a decision is taken to give appointments only to those
persons who have secured 70% marks or above marks in
the unreserved category and 65% or above marks in the
reserved category. In the absence of any rule on this aspect
in the first instance, this does not amount to changing the
“rules of the game”. The High Court has rightly held that it
is not a situation where securing of minimum marks was
introduced which was not stipulated in the advertisement,
standard was fixed for the purpose of selection. Therefore,
it is not a case of changing the rules of the game. On the
contrary in the instant case a decision is taken to give
appointment to only those who fulfilled the benchmark
prescribed. The fixation of such a benchmark is permissible
in law. This is an altogether different situation not covered
by Hemani Malhotra case27.”

G] In Salam Samarjeet Singh vs. High Court of Manipur at Imphal

and another30, there was disagreement between two judges of this Court.

30

(2016) 10 SCC 484
100
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

Banumathi, J. did not accept the submission that the fixation of minimum

marks for ‘interview’ amounted to changing the “rules of the game” and

concluded that fixing of 40% marks for interview was consistent with the

concerned Rules. Shiva Kirti Singh, J. took a different view while relying

upon the decision in K. Majushree12 and Hemani Malhotra27. The matter,

therefore stands referred to a larger Bench.

H] In Sivanandam C.T. and others vs. High Court of Kerala and

others31, while dealing with the correctness of the decision in fixing

minimum qualifying marks for interview after the process was over, a bench

of two judges of this Court relied upon the order in Tej Prakash Pathak 28

and referred the matter to a larger Bench.

I] The facts in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Surender Singh

and others32 show that the selection was for the posts of Assistant Teachers

(Primary) in the schools of the appellant and clause 25 of the advertisement

provided discretion to the Selection Board to fix minimum qualifying marks

for each category of vacancies. A bench of two judges of this Court

observed:-

31
(2018) 1 SCC 239
32
(2019) 8 SCC 67
101
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

“18. From a perusal of the said clause it is noticed that
though under the very clause there are no cut-off marks
specified, Clause 25 would, however, provide the full
discretion to DSSSB to fix the minimum qualifying marks
for selection. In the instant case, keeping in view that the
recruitment was for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary)
and also taking note of the orders passed by the High Court
in an earlier petition requiring the maintenance of minimum
standards, DSSSB while preparing the select list had
stopped the selection at a point which was indicated as the
cut-off percentage. In a circumstance where Clause 25 was
depicted in Advertisement No. 1/2006, when the private
respondents herein and the other petitioners before the High
Court were responding to the said advertisement, if at all
they had a grievance that the clause is arbitrary and might
affect their right ultimately since no minimum marks that is
to be obtained have been indicated therein, they were
required to assail the same at that stage. On the other hand,
despite being aware of the clause providing discretion to
DSSSB to fix the minimum qualifying marks, they have
participated in the selection process by appearing for the
qualifying examination without raising any protest. In that
circumstance, the principle of approbate and reprobate
would apply and the private respondents herein or any other
candidate who participated in the process cannot be heard
to complain in that regard.

19. It is no doubt true that the select list was concluded at
the particular cut-off point wherein the last selected
candidate under the unreserved category had obtained
89.25%. The said decision had been taken by DSSSB to
ensure the minimum standard of the teachers that would be
recruited and the appellant herein being the recruiting
agency in any event, did not have objection. In any event, it
is not the case of the petitioners that they had obtained
higher marks than the candidate who was shown as the last
candidate in the merit list. If that was the position and when
it is noticed that the appellant and the other writ petitioners
had secured lesser percentage of marks than the last
candidate included in the merit list, there could not have
been any further consideration whatsoever in the course of
judicial review. To that extent, the learned Single Judge,
from the observations as noticed above has kept in view all
aspects of the matter and in that light had arrived at the
102
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

conclusion that no error was committed either by DSSSB
or the appellant herein.”
(Emphasis supplied)

J] In Jharkhand Public Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar Gupta

and another14, the cut off in respect of Paper III was fixed after the

examination. Reversing the decision of the High Court, a bench of two

Judges of this Court observed:-

“7. A perusal of Clause 4.1 of the scheme clearly indicates
that the moderation committee has been constituted
only for the purpose of deciding the cut-off marks
in each subject for declaring the result. The
advertisement clearly indicates that only those candidates
who obtained 50% marks in Paper I and II would be eligible
to take the test in Paper III. The minimum qualifying marks
in case of General/OBC candidates was 50%. At this stage,
there was no need to fix the qualifying marks for Paper III.
That need will arise only when the moderation
committee meets and decides what should be the
level of competence expected from the people who are to
be considered for appointment as Lecturers. It is for the
moderation committee to decide what should be the cut-off
marks. There could be the subject where all the people who
qualified Paper I and II get very low marks in Paper III and
the moderation committee may be justified in lowering
the standards and prescribing lower qualifying
standards. On the other hand, there may be a subject where
there are many candidates who do extremely well
in Paper III and the moderation committee may
decide to fix a higher minimum standard. The
constitution of a moderation committee is normally done
only to do this sort of moderation.

8. As far as the finding of the High Court that the rules of
the game were changed after the selection process had
started, we are of the considered view that this is not the
case as far as the present case is concerned. There
were no minimum marks provided for Paper III in the
103
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

advertisement. This could be done by the moderation
committee even at a later stage. This is not a change
brought about but an additional aspect brought in while
determining the merit of the candidates who are found fit to
be eligible for consideration for appointment of Lecturers.”

59. Having set out relevant portions from the decisions of this Court, the

answer to the second question will depend upon whether the present case

is fully covered by the principles laid down in K. Manjusree12. If the case

is so covered, in keeping with the Orders of reference in Tej Prakash

Pathak28, Salam Samarjeet Singh30 and Sivanandam31, the instant matter

must either be referred to a larger Bench to be heard along with those

matters or must await the decision in the reference to the larger Bench.

60. In terms of Rule 2(1)(x) of 1981 Rules, qualifying marks of ATRE

are such minimum marks as may be determined ‘from time to time’ by the

Government. Clause (C) of Rule 14 of 1981 Rules lays down that a

candidate must have ‘passed Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination

conducted by the Government’. Thus, one of the basic requirements for

being considered to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher under 1981 Rules

is passing of ATRE with such minimum marks as may be determined by

the Government. Unlike para 7 of the Guidelines for ATRE-2018 which

had spelt out that a candidate must secure minimum of 45% or 40% marks
104
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

(for ‘general’ and ‘reserved’ categories respectively) for passing ATRE-

2018, no such stipulation was available in G.O. dated 01.12.2018 notifying

ATRE-2019. Though, the minimum qualifying marks were set out in the

Guidelines for ATRE-2018, it is not the requirement of 1981 Rules that

such stipulation must be part of the instrument notifying ATRE. By very

nature of entrustment, the Government is empowered to lay down

minimum marks ‘from time to time’. If this power is taken to be

conditioned with the requirement that the stipulation must be part of the

instrument notifying the examination, then there was no such stipulation

for ATRE-2019. Such reading of the rules will lead to somewhat illogical

consequences. On one hand, the relevant Rule requires passing of ATRE

while, on the other hand, there would be no minimum qualifying marks

prescribed. A reasonable construction on the relevant rules would

therefore imply that the Government must be said to be having power to

lay down such minimum qualifying marks not exactly alongside

instrument notifying the examination but at such other reasonable time as

well. In that case, the further question would be at what stage can such

minimum qualifying marks be determined and whether by necessity such

minimum qualifying marks must be declared well before the examination.
105
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

61. K. Manjusree12 and Hemani Malhotra27 were the cases which

pertained to selections undertaken to fill up posts in judicial service. In

these cases, no minimum qualifying marks in interview were required and

the merit list was to be determined going by the aggregate of marks secured

by a candidate in the written examination and the oral examination. By

virtue of stipulation of minimum qualifying marks for interview, certain

candidates, who otherwise, going by their aggregate would have been in

zone of selection, found themselves to be disqualified. The stipulation of

minimum qualifying marks having come for the first time and after the

selection process was underway or through, this Court found such exercise

to be impermissible.

These were cases where, to begin with, there was no stipulation of

any minimum qualifying marks for interview. On the other hand, in the

present case, the requirement in terms of Rule 2(1)(x) read with Rule 14 is

that the minimum qualifying marks as stipulated by the Government must

be obtained by a candidate to be considered eligible for selection as

Assistant Teacher. It was thus always contemplated that there would be

some minimum qualifying marks. What was done by the Government by

virtue of its orders dated 07.01.2019 was to fix the quantum or number of
106
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

such minimum qualifying marks. Therefore, unlike the cases covered by

the decision of this Court in K. Manjusree12, where a candidate could

reasonably assume that there was no stipulation regarding minimum

qualifying marks for interview, and that the aggregate of marks in written

and oral examination must constitute the basis on which merit would be

determined, no such situation was present in the instant case. The

candidate had to pass ATRE-2019 and he must be taken to have known

that there would be fixation of some minimum qualifying marks for

clearing ATRE-2019.

Therefore, there is fundamental distinction between the principle

laid down in K. Manjusree12 and followed in Hemani Malhotra27 on one

hand and the situation in the present case on the other.

62. We are then left with the question whether prescription of such

minimum qualifying marks by order dated 07.01.2019 must be set aside

merely because such prescription was done after the examination was

conducted. At this juncture, it may be relevant to note that the basic prayer

made in the leading Writ Petition before the single Judge was to set aside

the order dated 07.01.2019. What could then entail as a consequence is

that there would be no minimum qualifying marks for ATRE-2019, which
107
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

would run counter to the mandate of Rule 2(1)(x) read with Clause (C) of

Rule 14. It is precisely for this reason that what was submitted was that

the same norm as was available for ATRE-2018 must be adopted for

ATRE-2019. In order to lend force to this submission, it was argued that

Shiksha Mitras who appeared in ATRE-2018 and ATRE-2019 formed a

homogeneous clause and, therefore, the norm that was available in ATRE-

2018 must be applied. This argument, on the basis of homogeneity, has

already been dealt with and rejected.

63. If the Government has the power to fix minimum qualifying marks

‘from time to time’, there is nothing in the Rules which can detract from

the exercise of such power even after the examination is over, provided the

exercise of such power is not actuated by any malice or ill will and is in

furtherance of the object of finding the best available talent.

In that respect, the instant matter is fully covered by the decisions of

this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Surender Singh32 and

Jharkhand Public Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar Gupta and

another14. In the first case, the power entrusted under Clause 25 of the

advertisement also provided similar discretion to the Selection Board to fix

minimum qualifying marks for each category of vacancies. While
108
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

construing the exercise of such power, it was found by this Court that it

was done ‘to ensure the minimum standard of the teachers that would be

recruited’. Similarly, in Jharkhand Public Service Commission14, the

exercise of power after the examination in paper III was over, was found

to be correct and justified.

64. If the ultimate object is to select the best available talent and there is

a power to fix the minimum qualifying marks, in keeping with the law laid

down by this Court in State of Haryana vs. Subash Chander Marwaha

and Others21, State of U.P. vs. Rafiquddin and Others22, Municipal

Corporation of Delhi vs. Surender Singh32 and Jharkhand Public

Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar Gupta and another14, we do not

find any illegality or impropriety in fixation of cut off at 65-60% vide order

dated 07.01.2019. The facts on record indicate that even with this cut off

the number of qualified candidates is more than twice the number of

vacancies available.

It must be accepted that after considering the nature and difficulty

level of examination, the number of candidates who appeared, the

concerned authorities have the requisite power to select a criteria which
109
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

may enable getting the best available teachers. Such endeavour will

certainly be consistent with the objectives under the RTE Act.

65. In the circumstances, we affirm the view taken by the Division

Bench of the High Court and conclude that in the present case, the fixation

of cut off at 65-60%, even after the examination was over, cannot be said

to be impermissible. In our considered view, the Government was well

within its rights to fix such cut off.

66. Consequently, the challenge at the instance of Shiksha Mitras in all

these matters, specifically referred to in Para 27 hereinabove, is negated

and the appeals preferred by Shiksha Mitras are dismissed.

The appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.6846 of 2020 preferred by the

Association of Shiksha Mitras also prayed for absorption of Shiksha

Mitras. Such a prayer cannot be granted in view of the pronouncement of

the decision of this Court in Anand Kumar Yadav2. Said appeal is,

therefore, dismissed.

67. Though we have rejected the challenge on behalf of the Shiksha

Mitras and dismissed their appeals, we hope that in keeping with the

submissions made on behalf of the State, as recorded in paragraph 34
110
Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

hereinabove, one more opportunity shall be afforded to Shiksha Mitras to

compete in the next selection. We leave it to the discretion of the State

Government to consider the manner and the modalities in which such

opportunity can be availed of. Needless to say, the matter in that behalf is

entirely left to the discretion of the State Government.

68. In the appeals preferred by ex-servicemen or persons with

disability, it was submitted that as against the vacancies earmarked for these

categories, very few candidates had applied and at 65-60% cut off the

number of qualified candidates was far lesser. The cut off at 65-60% having

been held valid and justified, these appeals are also dismissed. If there are

less number of candidates against the vacancies for these categories, such

vacancies shall be subject to the Rules in that behalf. If the vacancies

cannot be carried forward, the same shall and must enure to the advantage

of the candidates in the present selection.

Similarly, Writ Petition (Civil)No.703 of 2020 and appeals arising

out of petitions preferred by B.Ed./B.T.C. candidates as well as Contempt

Petition (Civil)No.413 of 2020 and all Intervention Applications also stand

disposed of in same terms. No costs.

111

Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.6841 of 2020)
Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others

69. The State Government shall now be entitled to fill up all the

concerned posts in terms of the result declared on 12.05.2020 and in

accordance with law.

…………………………….J.

[Uday Umesh Lalit]

…….………………………J.

[Mohan M. Shantanagoudar]

New Delhi;

November 18, 2020.



Source link