Summary
The Court set aside invalidation of Uttar Pradesh’s Sixteenth Amendment teacher-recruitment rules on repugnancy grounds. Following its companion Shiv Kumar Pathak decision, it held that the NCTE suggestion of weightage to TET marks was a guideline rather than mandatory. This concerned selection weightage, not dispensation with TET eligibility.
Issues
- Whether the State selection rules conflicted with a binding requirement to give weightage to TET marks.
Held
- TET remained an essential qualification under the applicable NCTE notification, but the later suggestion about marks weightage governed a distinct selection question. (¶ 6–10)
- The weightage suggestion in the 11 February 2011 notification was not mandatory. As explained in the companion decision, the State rules therefore could not be held void on the alleged repugnancy ground. (¶ 11–12)
Result
Appeals allowed; impugned High Court judgment set aside and State left at liberty to proceed according to law.