Summary
Candidates admitted to and undergoing a recognised teacher-training course were eligible to sit the Teacher Eligibility Test under the NCTE guidelines. The High Court could not restrict “pursuing” to final-year candidates or impose examination-result timing conditions absent from the text. The challenged appointees had subsequently completed both qualifications before appointment. Separate objections concerning graduation without Science or Mathematics were remitted for district-level examination within three months.
Issues
- Whether “pursuing” teacher training permitted TET participation before the final year or declaration of training results.
- How the separate Science and Mathematics subject-qualification objection should be resolved.
Provisions considered
- Paragraph 5(ii), NCTE Guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test, 2011Eligible candidates included persons admitted to and undergoing the specified recognised teacher-training courses; additional final-year or result-timing restrictions could not be read in. (¶¶ 5.3–5.4, 8.1–8.4)
Held
- The ordinary meaning of “pursuing” covered undergoing the requisite course. Neither final-year status nor appearing in the course examination by the TET application deadline was prescribed, and courts could not add those conditions. (¶ 8.1–8.4)
- The appointees were pursuing training at the relevant cut-off and had passed both TET and training before appointment; their exclusion on the High Court’s added conditions was unsustainable. (¶ 8.3–8.4)
- District Education Officers were separately to identify appointees lacking Science or Mathematics in graduation within three months, duly considering the second proviso to section 23 added by the 2017 amendment. (¶ 9)
Result
Appeals allowed without costs; High Court orders modified to remove the added restrictions on TET eligibility. District Education Officers directed to complete the separate subject-qualification exercise within three months.