Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently held the discrimination among students admitted to BEd courses for the 2009-10 academic session improper as it ordered Rajasthan authorities to treat a teacher's interim appointment, granted by a high court division bench in 2021, as a regular one, along with all consequential benefits.

"What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander too," the bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Vishwanathan said, pointing out that a similarly situated candidate was granted relief by the high court.

As per the facts of the case, the Rajasthan government authorities under the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, on September 11, 2017, issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Teacher Grade III Level II in the Scheduled Area (TSP). A total of 1455 posts were advertised. 

The appellant before the top court had acquired 44.58% marks in his graduation. He secured admission to the Bachelor of Education (B Ed) course on October 23, 2009 i.e. the date on which he deposited the fee. 

The appellant, belonging to the reserved category, met the required 40% marks in graduation for admission to the BEd course (compared to 45% for the general category), as outlined in the April 12, 2019 press release. Having satisfied this criterion, the appellant secured admission. But, the appellant’s name did not appear in the provisional list of selected candidates.

He contended that he was informed that his candidature was rejected for the reason that he had secured less than 45% marks in his graduation.

Appellant and another candidate, Rakesh Gaur filed separate writ petitions which were dismissed by the high court single judge bench.

On November 13, 2019, the National Council for Teacher Education issued a clarification by way of a supplementary notification which stated that minimum percentage of marks in graduation would not be applicable to those incumbents who had already taken admission to the Bachelor of Education or Bachelor of Elementary Education or equivalent course prior to July 29, 2011. 

It further stated that the notification of November 13, 2019 was to be made applicable from July 29, 2011. 

The supplementary notification of November 13, 2019 was a sequel to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Neeraj Kumar Rai and Ors Vs State of UP and Others, decided on July 25, 2017.

In the case of Neeraj Kumar Rai, the Supreme Court had noted that the 2009 Norms and Standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programmes through Open and Distance Learning, leading to a BEd degree, had not specified a minimum percentage of marks in a Bachelor’s degree. However, the Court had later observed that the NCTE notification dated August 23, 2010, had introduced the requirement of a minimum percentage of marks in graduation, which had subsequently been incorporated in the notification issued on July 29, 2011.

On October 23, 2021, the high court's division bench, relying on the NCTE notification dated November 13, 2019, issued an interim order directing the respondents to appoint the appellant as a Teacher Grade-III, in connection with the 2017 advertisement for the TSP Area (English subject), provided the appellant met the eligibility criteria.

The Supreme Court observed that it was undisputed the appellant had been appointed under the high court's interim order. However, following the impugned order, the appellant's appointment was subsequently canceled on June 7, 2022.

On March 10, 2022, another teacher Rakesh Gaur’s plea was granted based on the high court division bench judgment in the Ankul Singhal case, despite Rakesh Gaur being admitted on November 5, 2009, after the appellant, the top court noted. 

When the appellant's appeal was heard on April 27, 2022, it was dismissed based on Dinesh Chandra Damor v. State of Rajasthan. The appellant had joined the course on October 23, 2009, while the candidate in Dinesh Chandra Damor had joined on October 20, 2010, approximately one year and two months after the August 31, 2009, cut-off date, court highlighted.

It said that the appellant’s case was more akin to the case of Rakesh Gaur, who had taken admission on November 05, 2009. 

"We are clearly of the opinion on the special facts of this case that the division bench erred in applying the case of Dinesh Chandra Damor instead of applying the reasoning in the judgment in Ankul Singhal and Rakesh Gaur to the facts of this case," the bench said.

As was held in Ankul Singhal, it will be improper to discriminate inter se among a homogenous group of students admitted for the academic session 2009-10, court held. 

Case Title: Manilal Vs State of Rajasthan