Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the termination of three Scheduled Tribe primary school teachers in Jharkhand, holding that Rule 21 of the 2012 Rules, which excludes additional-subject marks, governs only preparation of the merit list and not eligibility under Rule 4, so their vocational-subject marks had to be counted as per the marksheet; and that terminating them on a ground not put to them in the show cause notice violated natural justice.
Issues
- Whether marks secured in a vocational subject could be excluded when computing the intermediate percentage for eligibility under the Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012.
- Whether Rule 21 of the 2012 Rules, governing preparation of the merit list, applies to determining a candidate's eligibility.
- Whether terminating services on a ground not stated in the show cause notice, without a fresh notice, violated the principles of natural justice.
- What relief should be granted to appellants who had since been freshly appointed and to the heirs of an appellant who had died.
Provisions considered
- Rule 4, Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012Rule 4, in Chapter 2 (Teacher Eligibility Test), lays down the minimum qualification with a 5% relaxation for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and disabled candidates; it does not exclude vocational-subject marks, so eligibility is to be computed by the method on the marksheet. (¶¶ 17, 26, 27, 28, 29)
- Rule 21 A(ii)(A), Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012Rule 21, in Chapter 3 (Appointment), excludes additional-subject marks only while computing the educational merit point for the district merit list; it does not decide eligibility, and the Department and the Division Bench erred in applying it for that purpose. (¶¶ 13, 18, 19, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34)
- Article 309, proviso, Constitution of IndiaNoted as the source of power under which the Governor framed the 2012 Rules. (¶ 15)
Held
- In the absence of a bar or an alternative method under any law, the method of computing marks printed on the reverse of the marksheet, under which vocational-subject marks above the pass mark are added to the aggregate, must be followed; the onus then shifts to the authorities to show why it should not apply. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
- Eligibility is governed by Rule 4 and the merit list for appointment by Rule 21; the two operate in separate domains, as their headings and placement in different chapters show, so Rule 21 cannot be used to decide whether a candidate meets the eligibility criterion. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28)
- Counting vocational-subject marks, the appellants secured more than the 40% required of Scheduled Tribe candidates and were eligible. (¶¶ 21, 22, 29)
- Where a noticee successfully answers the allegations in a show cause notice, the authority cannot impose civil consequences on a different ground not put to him; termination on the basis of excluding vocational-subject marks, which was not alleged in the notices, without a fresh notice, denied a fair hearing and was vitiated. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33)
- The Division Bench erred in holding that natural justice need not be followed because facts were undisputed; that view rested on the wrong premise that Rule 21 applied, reliance on Escorts Farms was misplaced, and a hearing would not have been an idle formality. (¶¶ 34, 35)
- Since the appellants' degrees from the Vidyapeeth predated 26.02.2015 and had been treated as valid by the State, the only surviving ground of termination was the marks issue. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- Reinstated appellants were to be treated as in continuous service with full arrears and seniority, but the period not spent on duty does not count towards the experience required for promotion, since teaching experience is gained only through actual teaching. (¶ 39)
Result
Appeals allowed; Division Bench judgments and termination orders set aside. Ravi and Prem Lal treated as in continuous service from December 2015 with full arrears (payable within three months) and seniority, the off-duty period not counting for promotion experience. Heirs of the deceased appellant Surendra entitled to full arrears from termination till death, payable within three months of their approaching the Department, and he is deemed to have died in harness for any compassionate appointment scheme. No costs.