Summary
NCTE’s prescribed teacher qualifications were binding, but its suggestion of weightage to TET marks was not mandatory. The Court therefore interfered with the High Court’s invalidation of the State’s Fifteenth Amendment selection rules. It protected appointments already made under interim orders and required a fresh advertisement for remaining vacancies.
Issues
- Whether TET-score weightage bound the State in addition to the mandatory qualification requirements.
- What relief followed after substantial appointments under interim orders.
Provisions considered
- Section 23, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009Authorises the designated academic authority to lay down minimum teacher qualifications, which remain binding. (¶¶ 7–9, 16)
- Sections 12(d) and 12A, National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993Supported NCTE’s competence concerning teacher qualifications; the particular TET-score weightage guidance was construed as non-mandatory. (¶¶ 7, 16)
Held
- NCTE was competent to issue the relevant notifications and the State could not give effect to contrary qualification rules. But NCTE’s own interpretation of the weightage language as directory was a possible construction and was accepted; TET eligibility and TET-score ranking are distinct. (¶ 14–16)
- Although the December 2012 advertisement and amended criteria were upheld, intervening appointments meant that process could not simply resume. The Court would not disturb the reported 66,655 appointments made under its interim orders. Remaining vacancies could be filled according to law after fresh advertisement. (¶ 17–19)
Result
Matters disposed of; binding qualifications upheld, mandatory TET-score weightage rejected and High Court’s contrary invalidation interfered with. Existing interim-order appointments protected; remaining vacancies left for fresh advertisement.