Summary
A reserved-category candidate for Teacher Grade III with 44.58% in graduation, who was admitted to B.Ed. on 23.10.2009 in the 2009-10 session, was held eligible. Following Ankul Singhal and the relief given to an identically placed candidate admitted even later, the Supreme Court held that students of one homogeneous 2009-10 batch cannot be discriminated against by date of admission, and directed that his interim appointment be treated as regular.
Issues
- Whether the appellant, who had less than 45% marks in graduation and was admitted to B.Ed. on 23.10.2009, was ineligible under the advertisement's minimum-marks criteria tied to NCTE notifications.
- Whether the High Court erred in applying Dinesh Chandra Damor rather than Ankul Singhal and Rakesh Gaur to the appellant's case.
Provisions considered
- Proviso inserted after clause (b), NCTE notification dated 13.11.2019 (amending the notification dated 23.08.2010 as amended on 29.07.2011)The supplementary notification, issued following Neeraj Kumar Rai and deemed effective from 29.07.2011, provides that the minimum percentage of marks in graduation does not apply to those who had taken admission to B.Ed. or equivalent courses before 29.07.2011; the High Court relied on it in its interim order appointing the appellant. (¶¶ 8, 9, 12)
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaThrough the reasoning in Ankul Singhal, treating students of one homogeneous 2009-10 batch differently depending on the round of counselling in which they were admitted was held to be impermissible discrimination. (¶¶ 11, 15)
Held
- It is improper to discriminate among a homogeneous group of students admitted for the 2009-10 academic session: students admitted in the first round of counselling cannot be treated as eligible with lower graduation marks while others admitted in later rounds of the same process are excluded (approving the reasoning in Ankul Singhal, against which the State's SLP had been dismissed). (¶¶ 11, 15)
- The appellant, admitted to B.Ed. on 23.10.2009, was identically placed to Rakesh Gaur, admitted on 05.11.2009, who had been granted relief by the High Court; his case was unlike Dinesh Chandra Damor, where the candidate joined in October 2010, well after the cut-off date, and the Division Bench erred in applying that decision. Like cases must be treated alike. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- The appointment given to the appellant under the interim order was directed to be treated as regular, with reinstatement, consequential benefits and pay fixation, but no back wages except for the period actually worked. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's judgment set aside; the interim appointment to be treated as regular with reinstatement, consequential benefits and pay fixation but no back wages beyond the period worked; orders within four weeks; no costs.