# V. LAVANYA & ORS v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS

- **Citation:** [2016] 9 S.C.R. 835
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2016-11-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 10700of2016
- **Bench:** Shiva Kirti Singh A~D R. Banumathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/v-lavanya-ors-v-state-of-tamil-nadu-represented-by-its-principal-secretary-ors-31387
- **Pages:** 31

## Headnote

Service Law:
Selection - Selection Criteria - National Cou,ncil for Teacher
Education (J!CTE) Guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility
Test (TET) - Appoint111ent of Secondary Grade Teachers and B. T.
Assistants in the State of Ta111il Nadu - State Govern111ent granted
relaxation of 5% marks in TET to candidates belonging to SC, ST.
Backward Classes, De-notified Communities and Person with
Disability etc. - Challenged - Contradiction in decisions of the
Madras Bench and Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court -
The Madras Bench_dismissed the writ appeals and writ petitions
· challenging the policy decision of the Government whereas, the
Madurai Bench quashed the relaxation given to the reserved
category candidates - On appeal, held: The framers of the NCTE
guidelines took note of the huge socio-economic disparity existing
in the nation and accordingly, by virtue of clause 9 of NCTE
guidelines enabled the respective State Government/authorities to •
provide relaxation to the candidates belonging to socially backward
classes - Therefore, State Governi11e.nt cannot be faulted for
discharging its constitutional obligation for upliftment of socially
and economically backward communities by providing 5% rela~ation
to candidates belonging to reserve category - It was an affirmative
action taken by State Government granting relaxation for TET and
hence the view taken by the Madurai Bench is not sustainable -
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 -
s.23 - Constitution of India - Arts. J 4, 15,, 16, 335.
Estoppel - Selection of Teachers - Relaxation of qualifying
marks for Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) - In the earlier round of
litigation, Govern111ent of Tamil Nadutook-a stand that it would_. nor
grant relaxation of 111arks in TET - Plea of appellants that
835
c
D
E
F
G
H
836
A
B
c
D
E
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 9 S.C.R.
Government cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time by
changing its stand - Held: It is well settled that there can be no
question of estoppel against the Government in the exercise of its
legislative, sovereign or executive powers - It is a matter of State
policy to frame and prescribe selection norins with regard to services
and posts connected with the affairs of the State - Courts cannot
interfere with the policy decisions of the State especially when the
policy decision is taken in public interest to further the advancement
of reserved categories - Constitution of India - Art. 162 and proviso
to Art.309.
Selection - Of teachers - State Government provided
relaxation of 5% marks in TET for candidates belonging to socially
backward classes and the under privileged, after the selection
process of teachers had commenced - Plea of appellants that it
resulted in altering the criteria of selection after the commencement
of selection process - Held: State Government had not changed the
rules of selection insofar as appellants were concerned - State
Government merely widened the ambit of TET so as to reach out to
those candidates belonging to the deprived section of the society
who were not able to compete - It is ji-ee to take such actions suitable
to the socio-economic conditions prevalent in the State - It was in
the interest of reserved category candidates so that more candidates
can take part in the selection process - Therefore, this did not amount
to change in the selection after the selection process commenced.
Allowing the appeal by the State Government and
dismissing tl!e appeal by unsuccessful candidates, the Court
F
HELD:
Point No. 1: Whether the State Government has the
competence to give relaxation of 5% marks in Teacher Eligibility
Test (TET) and whether such relaxation provided by the State
Government by G.0.(Ms.) No.25 dated 06.02.2014 is legally
G
justified?
H
1.1 Clause No.9 of NCTE Guideline vests a discretion in
the School Managements (State Government, Local Bodies,
Government aided and un-aided) to grant relaxation/concessions
to persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC, d

## Text

_Characters 0–39,918 of 70,121. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39918 for what follows._

[2016] 9 S.C.R. 835
V. LAVANYA & ORS.
A
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 10700of2016)
B
NOVEMBER 09, 2016
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH A~D R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Service Law:
Selection - Selection Criteria - National Cou,ncil for Teacher
Education (J!CTE) Guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility
Test (TET) - Appoint111ent of Secondary Grade Teachers and B. T.
Assistants in the State of Ta111il Nadu - State Govern111ent granted
relaxation of 5% marks in TET to candidates belonging to SC, ST.
Backward Classes, De-notified Communities and Person with
Disability etc. - Challenged - Contradiction in decisions of the
Madras Bench and Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court -
The Madras Bench_dismissed the writ appeals and writ petitions
· challenging the policy decision of the Government whereas, the
Madurai Bench quashed the relaxation given to the reserved
category candidates - On appeal, held: The framers of the NCTE
guidelines took note of the huge socio-economic disparity existing
in the nation and accordingly, by virtue of clause 9 of NCTE
guidelines enabled the respective State Government/authorities to •
provide relaxation to the candidates belonging to socially backward
classes - Therefore, State Governi11e.nt cannot be faulted for
discharging its constitutional obligation for upliftment of socially
and economically backward communities by providing 5% rela~ation
to candidates belonging to reserve category - It was an affirmative
action taken by State Government granting relaxation for TET and
hence the view taken by the Madurai Bench is not sustainable -
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 -
s.23 - Constitution of India - Arts. J 4, 15,, 16, 335.
Estoppel - Selection of Teachers - Relaxation of qualifying
marks for Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) - In the earlier round of
litigation, Govern111ent of Tamil Nadutook-a stand that it would_. nor
grant relaxation of 111arks in TET - Plea of appellants that
835
c
D
E
F
G
H
836
A
B
c
D
E
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 9 S.C.R.
Government cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time by
changing its stand - Held: It is well settled that there can be no
question of estoppel against the Government in the exercise of its
legislative, sovereign or executive powers - It is a matter of State
policy to frame and prescribe selection norins with regard to services
and posts connected with the affairs of the State - Courts cannot
interfere with the policy decisions of the State especially when the
policy decision is taken in public interest to further the advancement
of reserved categories - Constitution of India - Art. 162 and proviso
to Art.309.
Selection - Of teachers - State Government provided
relaxation of 5% marks in TET for candidates belonging to socially
backward classes and the under privileged, after the selection
process of teachers had commenced - Plea of appellants that it
resulted in altering the criteria of selection after the commencement
of selection process - Held: State Government had not changed the
rules of selection insofar as appellants were concerned - State
Government merely widened the ambit of TET so as to reach out to
those candidates belonging to the deprived section of the society
who were not able to compete - It is ji-ee to take such actions suitable
to the socio-economic conditions prevalent in the State - It was in
the interest of reserved category candidates so that more candidates
can take part in the selection process - Therefore, this did not amount
to change in the selection after the selection process commenced.
Allowing the appeal by the State Government and
dismissing tl!e appeal by unsuccessful candidates, the Court
F
HELD:
Point No. 1: Whether the State Government has the
competence to give relaxation of 5% marks in Teacher Eligibility
Test (TET) and whether such relaxation provided by the State
Government by G.0.(Ms.) No.25 dated 06.02.2014 is legally
G
justified?
H
1.1 Clause No.9 of NCTE Guideline vests a discretion in
the School Managements (State Government, Local Bodies,
Government aided and un-aided) to grant relaxation/concessions
to persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently-abled persons
etc. in accordance with their extant reservation policy. Clause
V. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
No. 9(a) clearly empowers the State Government/S~hool
Managements/Local Bodies to grant such relaxation. Further,
Constitution of India has made adequate enabling provisions
empowering the State to promote reservation/concessions.
Special provisions are made for advancement of the socially and
economically backward classes. These provisions will bring out
the contents of equality of opportunity guaranteed under Articles
14, 15 (1), 16 (1) of the Constitution of India by creating equal
level-playing field. Therefore, Preferential treatment or
concessions granted to SC/ST, backward classes, physically
handicapped and denotified communities is within the concept of
equality. Grant of relaxation is for the upliftment of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other backward communities ..
[Paras 21, 23 and 24](854-B-C, G-H; 855-A, C-D]
1.2 The idea behind laying down NCTE Guidelines for
conducting TET was to bring about uniformity and certainty in
the standards and quality of education being imparted to the
students across the nation. However,·at the same time the framers
of the guidelines took note of the huge socio-economic disparity
existing in the nation a_\ld accordingly, by virtue of Clause No. 9
enabled the respective state governments/authorities to provide
relaxation to the candidates belonging to socially backward
classes. Such a provision is in line with the principles.ensh·rined
in the Constitution. State Government cannot be faulted for
discharging its constitutional obligation of upliftment of socially
and economically backward Communities by providing 5%
relaxation to candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Schedule
Tribes, Backward Classes, Backward Classes (Muslim), Most
Backward Classes, De-notified Communities and P~rsons with
Disability (PWD). [Para 25)(856-D-F)
1.3 Granting relaxation to SC/ST, OBC, physically
handicapped and de-notified communities. is in furtherance of the
constitutional obligation of the State to the under-privileged and
create an equal level-playing field. After referring to clause 9 of
the NCTE Guidelines, the Madras High Court rightly held that
the Government of Tamil Nadu has acted in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause 9 of the Guidelines issued by the NCTE.
Madurai Bench was not right in quashing GO.(Ms.) No.25 dated
837
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
838
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 9 S.C.R.
06.02.2014 on the ground that such rela'Xation "bllsed upon tile
theory of socilll justice is llctu(l//y destructive of tlte very /(Ibric of
tlte.soci(I/ justice". The judgment of the Madurai Bench has not.
kept in view the constitutional obligation of the State to provide
equal level-playing field to the ·under p~ivileged. In consonance
with the M. Nagar(lj case, an affirmative action taken by State
Government granting relaxation for TET would not amount to
dilution of standards and hence the view taken by the Madurai
Bench is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.[Para 27)(858C-F]
M Nagaraj and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 8
SCC 212 : 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 336; State of Madhya
Pradesh and Am: " Kumari Nivedita Jain and Others
(1981) 4 SCC 296 : 1982 (1) SCR 759; Vikas Sankhala
and Ors. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal and Ors. Etc. (2016)
10 SCALE 163 - relied on.
K. Manjushree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.
(2008) 3 SCC 512 : 2008 (2) SCR 1025; Hemani
Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi (2008) 7 SCC 11 :
2008 (5) SCR 1066 - referred to.
Point No. 2: Whether the State Government is estopped
from granting relaxation?
2.1 In the earlier round of litigation Government of Tamil
Nadu took a categorical stand that they would not compromise
on the quality of the teachers. After referring to the said stand
of the State Government, Madurai Bench observed that the State
Government is not justified in retracting from its earlier stand.
On behalf of the appellants much reliance was placed upon the
earlier stand of the Government to contend that when the
Government had earlier taken the stand that it would not grant
relaxation of marks for TET pass and dilute the standards of
education, the Government cannot approbate and reprobate at
the same time by changing its stand. [Para 28)(858-G-H; 859-AB]
2.2 It is a matter of State policy to frame and prescribe
selection norms with regard to services and posts connected with
the affairs of the State. It is well-settled that courts cannot
V. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
interfere with the policy decisions of the State especially when
the policy decision is taken in public interest to further the
advancement of reserved categories. A policy decision taken by
the State in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 162 of the
Constitution of India is subservient oniy _to the mandate of the .
constitutional provisions and the recruitment rules framed by the
State itself, either in terms of a legislative act or an executive
order. The relaxation provided by the State Government and
criteria of selection laid down vide impugned government orders
are in exercise of the powers provided under the proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution of India and being a policy decision in
terms of its extant reservation policy cannot be impeached on
the ground that the relaxation has been given to suit some specific
class of individuals.[Para 29)(859-D-F]
2.3 It is now well settled by a catena of decisions that there
can be no question of estoppels against the Government in the
exercise of its legislative, sovereign or executive powers. The
view taken by Madurai Bench as regards the stand of the
Government to relax the norms allegedly in contradiction to its
earlier stand is not sustainable in law. [Para 30)(859-D-H]
Excise Co111111issioner U.P., Allahabad v. Ram Kumar
(1976) 3 sec 540 : 1976 Suppl.. SCR 535; M.
. Ramanatha Pillai v. State of Kera/a and Am: (1973} 2
SCC 650 : 1974 (1) SCR 515 - relied on.
Point No. 3: Whether providing relaxation of 5% marks in
TET amounts to change in the criteria of selection of teachers
839
A
B
c
D
E
after the selection process commenced?
F
3.1 The purpose of relaxation was to increase the
participation of candidates belonging to backward classes in
State's pool of teachers. The State Government merely widened
the ambit of TET so as to reach out to those candidates belonging
to the deprived section of the society who were not able to
G
compete, inspite of possessing good academic records and
qualifications. The change brought about in the selection criteria
is Government's prerogative. In terms of their extant reservation
policy, the State Government is free to take actions suitable to
the socio-economic conditions prevalent in the State, especially
H
840
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 9 S.C.R.
with regard to selection of candidates belonging to reserved
category to be employed in State Service. Merely, because the
Government has widened the ambit of selection, so as to enable
more and more candidates to take part in the selection process,
the right of candidates who were already in the process cannot
be said to have been adversely affected. It is in the interest of
reserved category of candidates that more candidates take part
in the selection process and best and most efficient of them get
selected. This will not amount to change in the criteria for selection
after the selection process commenced. [Para 33][860-G-H; 861A-C]
3.2 The Government has not changed the rules of selection
so far as the present appellants are concerned. Weightage of
marks obtained in TET as well as that of academic qualification is
still the same. The entire selection process conforms to the
equitable standards laid down by the State Government in line
with the principles enshrined in the Constitution and the extant
reservation policy of the State. It is not the case where basic
eligibility criteria has been altered in the midst of the selection
process. Conducting TET and calling for certificate verification
thereafter is an exercise which the State Government is obliged
to conduct every year as per the Guidelines issued by NCTE.
Merely because appellants were called for certificate verification,
it cannot be contended that they have acquired a legal right to
the post. Impugned GO. Ms.No.25 did not take away the rights
of the appellants from being considered on their own merits as
pointed out by the Madras Bench. The views taken by the Madras
Bench are affirmed that "by merely al/owin1: more persons to
compete, .the petitioners cannot contend that their accrued right
has been taken away". The State Government cannot be faulted
for altering the selection criteria by relaxing 5% marks in favour
of reserved category candidates. In the present case, the
relaxation afforded to the reserved category candidates has in
no way eliminated the appellants from the selection process;
rather a fair opportunity has been provided to other candidates
who can legitimately compete with the appellants herein. [Paras
35, 37][861-G-H; 862-A, C-D; 863-A-BJ
Te} Prakash Pathak and Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court
V. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY
841
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
and Ors. (2013) 4 sec 540 - relied OD;
K. Manjushree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.
(2008) 3 SCC 512 : 2008 (2) SCR 1025; Hemani
Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi (2008) 7 SCC 11 :
2008 (5) SCR 1066 - referred to.
Point No.4: Challenge to GO. Ms. No.71 dated 30.05.2014?
4.1 The appellants have not only challenged the new grading
system introduced by GO. No. 71; but they have also challenged
the weightage of marks of 40% earmarked for academic
performance. It is their contention that the Government has
blindly accepted the recommendation of Single Judge without
application of mind. [Para 38] [863-E]
4.2 As it is evident from the records, distribution of marks
for academic performance and TET fixed by the respondents vide
GO. No. 252 continues to be the same even after issuing of GO.
No. 71. The TET conducted on 17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013 was
pursuant to the issuing of G.O.Ms.No.252 fixing the weightage
for the marks in the basic qualification itself in which the appellants
have participated. Thus, it is not open to the appellants to
challenge the said procedure adopted by the respondents after
writing the examination. [Para 39][863-F, H; 864-A]
4.3 Equivalence of academic qualifications is a matter for
experts and courts normally do not interfere with the decisions
of the Government based on the recommendations of the experts
It is the prerogative of State-Authorities to formulate a system
whereby weightage marks is decided with reference to actual
marks secured by each candidate. In the present case, as no
arbitrariness is proved on the part of the respondents, in
formulating the grading system, court cannot interfere with the
same. It cannot be expected to go into every minute technicalities
of decision taken by the experts and perform the job of the
respondent-State. [Para 41][864-F-H; 865-A]
4.4 The Madras High Court rightly rejected the challenge
to GO.(Ms.) No.25 dated 06.02.2014 and G.O.(Ms.)No. 71 dated
30.05.2014, holding that as per the NCTE Guidelines, the State
Government has the power to grant relaxation on the marks
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
842
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 9 S.C.R.
A obtained in the TET for the candidates belonging to reserved
category and the same. is affirmed. The Madurai Bench did not
keep in view the NCTE Guidelines and the power of the State
Government to grant relaxation in terms of their extant
reservation policy and erred in quashing GO.(Ms.) No.25 dated
B
06.02.2014 and hence the same is liable to be set aside. [Para
43][865-E-F)
c
D
E
F
University of Mysore v. CD Govinda Rao (1964) 4 SCR
575; Mohd. Sujat Ali v. Union of India (1975) 3 SCC
76 : 1975 (1) SCR 449 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
2008 (2) SCR 1025
referred to
Para 13
2008 (5) SCR 1066
referred to
Para 13
2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 336
relied on
Para 23
2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 511
relied on
Para 24
(2016) 10 SCALE 163
relied on
Para 26
1976 Suppl. SCR 535
relied on
Para 30
1974 (1) SCR 515
relied on
Para30
2008 (2) SCR 1025
referred to
Para 31
2008 (5) SCR 1066
referred to
Para 31
(2013) 4 sec 540
relied on·
Para36
(1964) 4 SCR 575
referred to
Para 41
1975 (1) SCR 449
referred to
Para 41
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10700
of2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2014 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in W. A. No. 1031 of2014
WITH
C. A. Nos. 10715-10716, 10720, 10726, 10731-10732, 10737,
G
10736, 10735, 10734, 10733, 10727-10730, 10725, 10721-10723, 10719,
10701-10714and 10717-10718of2016.
H
V. Krishnamurthy, Ajmal Khan, Ms. Nalini Chidambaram,
P. P. Rao, Subramonium Prasad, V. Kanagaraj, Sr. Advs., T. Harish
Kumar, G. Sankaran, Navneet D., Anandh Kannan N.,
G. Sivabalamurugan, Ms. Theepa, Reegan S. Bel, N. Rajaraman, Satya
V. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY
843
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Mitra Garg, Mrs. Manju Aggarwal, S. Loois, M. Yogesh Kanna,
R. Nedumaran, M. S. Nithya, Sumit Kumar, Mrs. Kumari Supriya,
P. B. Suresh Babu, Senthil Jagadeesan, V. Ramasubramanian, Advs. for
the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
- R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The present bat~h of appeals raise identical questions of law
and fact concerning appointment of Secondary Grade Teachers and B.T.
Assistants in the State of Tamil Nadu as per the-Guidelines prescribed
by National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as
the NCTE) in this regard. These appeals impugn the conflicting
judgments passed by both Madras and Madurai Bench of the High Court
of Madras in W.A. No. 1031/2014 & Others. dated 22.09.2014; and
W.P. No. 4558/2014 dated 25.09.2014 respectively. The dispute revolves
around the relaxation of 5% marks to the reserved category candidates
in the State Teachers EligibilityTest (hereinafter referred to as the TET)
approved by the State Government, which is allegedly in contravention
of the norms to that effect embodied in the notification dated 23.08.2010
issued by the NCTE.
3. Pursuant to the mandate of Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ("the RTE Act"), the NCTE laid down
minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a
Teacher through a Notification dated 11.02.2011. As per the said
Notification: " ... to be eligible for appointment as a teacher if any of
the schools referred to in clause (n) of section 2 of the RTE Act is
that he/she should pass the teacher eligibility test (TET) which will
be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with
the Guidelines framed by the NCTE". NCTE Guidelines prescribed
60% marks to be declared as pass in TET. The said Guidelines enabled
the State Government to grant concession to persons belonging to
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, other Backward Classes, differentlyabled persons etc.
4. In pursuance of the provisions of the Act, the State Government
enacted the Tamil Nadu Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2011. State Government issued Order No. G.O.Ms.No.181
dated 15.11.2011, prescribing 60% marks as pass marks for TET under
the said G.O. The Teacher Recruitment Board was appointed as the
Nodal Agency for conducting the TET and recruitment of teachers.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
844
A
B
c
D
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 9 S.C.R.
Subsequently, the State Government vide GO.(Ms.) No.252 School
Education (Q) Department dated 05.10.2012 issued the Procedure/
Guidelines for State Teachers' Eligibility Test. The said Guidelines
earmarked 60% marks for State eligibility test and the remaining 40%
for academic performance of the candidates. The 40% performancebased marks were divided into I 0 marks and 15 marks each for the
Higher Secondary Examination/Degree Examination and D.T.Ed/B. Ed.
examination respectively.
5. The Teachers Recruitment Board conducted the first TETPaper I (Secondary Grade Teacher) and Paper II (Graduate Teacher)
on 12.07.2012 throughoutthe State in which 7, l 4,526 candidates appeared
and 2448(0.3%) were successful. The details of number of the
candidates who appeared and who passed are as under:-
Exam
No. of candidates
No. of candidates
% of pass
who anneared
who ruissed.
Paper I
3,05,405
1,735
0.57%
Paper ll
4,09,121
713
0.17%
Total
7,14526
2,448
0.34%
A supplementary TETwas also conducted on 14.10.2012 for Paper
E
I and Paper II in which all the candidates who had appeared in the first
examination and had .not secured 60% marks were allowed to appear
without any additional examination fee. Around six lakh candidates
appeared in the said exam, out of which 19,261(around3%) onlydeared
the TET. The details are as under:-
F
G
H
Exam
No. of
No. of candidates
% of pass
candidates who
who passed
appeared
Paper!
2,78,725
10,397
3.7%
Paper II
3.64,370
8,864
2.4%
Total
6,43,095
19,261
2.9%
6. The third TET which is the subject matter of the present
challenge was conducted by the Teacher Recruitment Board in two
papers viz., Paper I and Paper II on 17.08.2013 and l 8.08.2013
respectively. The TET was conducted pursuant to Notification dated
V. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
22.05 .. 2013 by which 10,672 vacancies of BT Assistants was advertised.
As per the Notification, TET is only a pre-requisite eligibility test for
those who are seeking appointment as a teacher; a TET certificate issued
will be valid for seven years from the date of its issuance and recruitment
of teachers will be conducted separately as and when there is a need,
following the Guidelines issued by the State Government. Around 16,000
candidates qualified TETwith more than 60% marks. In January, 2014,
candidates who had obtained 60% or more were called for Certificate
Verification (CV). Verification of certificates was done as per the G.O.
(Ms.) No. 252 dated 05.10.2012 and weightage marks were also
awarded. However, recruitment of teachers and appointment thereof
was not done.
·
7. In the meanwhile, the Hon'ble Chief Minister announced on·
the floor of the Assembly, relaxation of 5% marks in the passing marks
of60% and thus prescribed the passing marks as 55% for the candidates
belonging to Scheduled Caste, Schedule Tribes, Backward Classes,
Backward Classes (Muslim), Most Backward Classes, De-notified
Communities and Persons with Disability (PWD). In tune with the
announcement, the State Government issued orders in GO.Ms.No.25
School Education (TRB) Department dated 06.02.2014 in which
relaxation of 5% of marks was given to the candidates belonging to SC,
ST, BC, BC(M), MBC, DNC and PWD candidates. However, minimum
qualifying marks with regard to general candidates was retained as 60%
or 90% marks in both the papers. Relevant portion of the said G.O.
(Ms.) No.25 dated 06.02.2014, reads as under:-
'' In continuation of the announcement made by the Hon'ble
ChiefMinister, the Government orders as follows:
a) Relaxing 5% marks from the prese11t pass marks of
60% and fix the pass mark at 55% for candidates belonging
to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes,
Backward Classes (Muslim), Most Backward Classes, Denotified Communities and Persons with Disability (PWD)
as given below. The candidates are required to obtain the
folfowing minimum marks in Paper I for Secondary Grade
Teachers and Paper II for Graduate Assistants:-
845
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
846
A
B
c
SUPRE.ME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 9 S.C.R.
Category
Maximum
Minimum Marks(%) to be
Malks
obtained in TNTET
Paper I
Paper II
General
150
60"/o
or
90
60"/o
or
90
malks
marks
SC, ST,BC,
150
55% or 82.5
55% or 82.5
BC(M),MBC,
malks rounded marks rounded
DNCand
off
to
82
off
to
82
Pers.ens with
malks
marks
Disability
(PWD)
b) Relaxing 5% marks from the 60% marks prescribed for clearing
of the Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test, 2013 held on ·J 7.08.2013 and
18.08.2013 for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes,
Backward Classes (Muslims), Most Backward Classes, De-notified
Communities and Persons with Disability (PWD) and fixed at 55% or
D
82 marks.
C) For all future Teacher Eligibility Tests, to fix the minimum marks
for candidates belonging to General Categ6ry at 90 marks (60% of 150)
and for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes,
Backward Classes, Backward Classes (Muslims), Most Backward
E
Classes, De-notified Communities, and Persons with Disability (PWD)
at 82 marks (55% of 150)."
The said relaxation of5% marks was held applicable to TET held
on 17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013 and all future TETs for the reserved
.category candidates.
F
8. Vide GO.Ms. No. 29 School Education (Q) Department
dated 14.02.2014, corresponding amendments were made in criteria
for selection of candidates who have cleared the TET (or appointment
to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers and Graduate Assistants
prescribed in G.O. dated 05.10.2012. The said order laid down the
weightage of marks under TET head as '36' for those candidates who
G
obtain 55% and above but below 60% marks in TET. The order also
specified th!\t the amended selection criteria would be applic~ble to TET
held on 17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013. Relevant portion of the· said G.0.
reads as under:
"Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test for Secondary Grade
H
V. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY
847
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
Teachers and Graduate Assistants:-
A
Examination
Weightage
90%
80%
70%
60% and
55% and
passed
of marks
and
and
and
above but
above
above
above
above
below70%
but
but
but
below
below
below
60%
90%
80%
TNTET
60
60
54
48
42
36
4. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board is directed
to take note"Ofthis Government order for finalizing selection
B
list of the Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test 2013 held on
C
17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013 and for all future Tamil Nadu
Teacher Eligibility Test with respect to candidates belonging
to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes,
Backward Classes (Muslims), Most Backward Classes, Denotified Communities and Persons with Disability (PWD)."
9. Resultantly, a number of writ petitions were filed before the
High Court challenging the Government Orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.252
School Education(Q) Department, dated 05.10.2012, G.0.Ms.No.25
School Education (TRB) Department dated 06.02.2014 and
G.0._Ms.No.29, School Education (TRB) Department dated 14.02.2014
on different grounds. The Writ Court disposed of these petitions by
upholding the validity of G.O.Ms.No.25, School Education (TRB)
Department dated 06.02.:2014. However, the learned Single Judge set
aside the grading system adopted by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.
252 dated 05.10.2012 observing that it lacks rationality as it places a
candidate with the difference of l tu 9 marks in the same basket.
I 0. Pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge,
while continuing with the weightage of marks fixed earlier a\ per the
Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.252 School Education (Q)
Department, dated 05.10.2012 with reference to the basi9 qualification
mark~, the State Government passed a subsequent order in G.O.(Ms.)
No.71 School Educatio11 (TRB) Department dated 30.05.2014 in tunewith the suggestion made by the learned Single Judge. Relevant portion
of the said q9.(Ms.) No.71 dated 30.05.2014, is as under:
"7. The Government no\v issue revised orders for fixing
D
E
F.
G
H
848
A
B
c
D
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 9 S.C.R.
the weightage and for distributing the weightage marks fixed
in the light of the High Court orders as mentioned in para 5
above for selection of candidates for appointm~nt to the
post of Secondary Grade Teachers and Graduate Assistants
in Government Schools from among those candidates who
have cleared the Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test. The
weightage of marks and the distribution of weightage of
marks be fixed as follows:-
A) Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test Weightage for
Secondary Grade Teachers
(a) There shall be 100 marks in total
(b) The computation of 100 marks will be in the following
manner
(i) Higher Secondary Exam: 15 marks
(ii) D.T.Ed.,/D.E.Ed., Exam: 25 marks
(iii) Teacher Eligibility Test : 60 marks
The weightage so assigned as indicated in (b) above to be
distributed based on the actual percentage of marks obtained
by the candidate in the qualifying examinations as shown
E
below:-
Qualifying
Weightage
Percentage of
l\iarks
Examination · ofmarks
marks obtained in
assigned
t11e qualifying
F
examination
H.Sc.
15
P%
Px 15
100
DTEd.,1
25
Q%
Qx25
D.E.Ed.,
100
TET
60
R%
Rx 60
G
100
Total
100
xxxxx
H
V. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY
849
lTS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
B) Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test Weightage for
A
Graduate Assistants:
(a) There shall be 100 marks in total
(b) The computation of 100 marks will be in the following
manner
(i) Higher Secondary Exam : 10 marks
(ii) Degree Exam
(iii) B.Ed., Exam
: 15 marks
: 15 marks
(iv) Teacher Eligibility Test : 60 marks
The weightage so assigned as indicated in (b) above to be
distributed based on the actual percentage of marks obtained
by the candidate in the qualifying examinations as shown
below:-
Qualifying
Weigbta.ge
Percentage of
Marks
Examination
of marks
marks obtained in
assigned
the qualifying
examination
H.Sc.
10
P%
Px 10
100
·Degree
15
Q%
Q x 15
100
B.Ed.
15
R%
Rx 15
100
TET
60
S%
Sx 60
100
Total
100
xxx
The Government Order passed in G.O.(Ms.) No.71 School
Education (TRP) Department dated 30.05.2014 was challenged both on
the ground ofweightage having been awarded for the marks obtained in
three qualifications and also the method of gradation.
11. The High Court of Judi~ature at Madras heard various writ
petitions and writ appeals filed before it challenging the concerned G.Os
and by the orders impugned herein disposed of the same. The High
Court dismissed the writ appeals as we! I as the writ petitions holding that
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 9 S.C.R.
A
the challenge to the policy decision of the Goyernment can sustain only
ifit suffers from arbitrariness and unreasonableness which did not surface
in these cases. It was held that the writ petitioners/writ appellants are
non-suited to challenge the procedure adopted in granting weightage to
the marks obtained in the basic qualification required.
B
c
E
F
G
H
12. As opposed to the view taken by the Madras Bench of the
High Court, in a batch of writ petitions; the Madurai Bench has quashed
the relaxation given to the reserved category candidates. The Madurai
Bench also heard the challenge to Ggvernment Orders passed in
GO~Ms.No.252 School Education (Q) Department, dated 05.10.2012,
GO.Ms.No.25 School Education (TRB) Department dated 06.02.2014
and G.O.Ms.No.29, School Education (TRB) Department dated
14.02.2014 and held that in the absence J'f any statistics to prove that
the prescription of 60% marks resulted in· fewer number of candidates
belonging to reserved categories getting appointed, it' is not possible to
uphold the Government Order. The Court further observed that the
argument that relaxation was necessary to advance social justice, is·
nothing but a myth and is devoid of any factual data and analysis.
13. These petitions by way of special leave have been filed
challenging the two contradicting decisions of the Madras Bench and
Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. For the sake of convenience,
unless otherwise expressly mentioned, the term appellant has been used
to refer to the private parties or original writ petitioners. Contention of
the appellants is that after the Select List was finalized on the basis of
GO.Ms. No. 252 dated 05.10.2012·, marks were awarded to all the.
candidates as per Go.vernment Order and all the candidates were awaiting ·
the order of appointment and thereafter, Government issued orders in
GO.Ms. No. 25 School Education Department relaxing 5% marks with
respect to candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
Backward Classes, Mos! ~.ackward Classes, Backward Classes
(Muslims) De-notified communities and differently-abled persons by
which the pass marks was reduced to 55% from 60% and G.O.Ms.
School Education No. 29 dated 14.02.2014 was issued amending the
criteria for selection prescribed in GO.Ms. 252 dated 05.10.2012. It
was submitted that the Government has reduced the passing percentage
for qua! ifying in the TET and changed the criteria for selection after the
commencement of the selection process, which is arbitrary, illegal and
violative of Article 14 of the Coustitution oflndia. In-this regard, reliance
V. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
.
~as place_d upon K Mm1jusltree v. State o{Andltra Pradesh and
Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512 and Hemani Malhotra v: High Court of Delhi
(2008) 7 sec 11 to contend that it is impermissible to change the rules
of selection once the selection process has started.
14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted
that relaxation has been extended by the State Government only to the
reserved category candidates. It was submitted that Clause 9 of the
NCTE Guidelines for conducting TET empowers the State Government
to give concessions/relaxations to candidates belonging to reserved
categories ·and the State Government in exercise of its power under
Clause 9 of the NCTE Guidelines granted relaxation and the same cannot
be challenged. 1t is submitted that the TET examination is a qualifying
examination and after writing the examination a11d after accepting the
rules and terms of selection in the first place, the appellants cannot
challenge the procedure adopted by the respondent-State and challenge
the weightage of marks. It was submitted that the Madras Bench has.
rightly upheld G.0. (Ms.) No. 25 dated 06.02.2014, G.O.Ms. No. 29
dated 14.02.2014 and GO.Ms. No. 71dated30.05.2014 and the contrary
view taken by the Madurai Bench is unsustainable.
15. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the
impugned j udgm.ents, the following issues arise for consideration:-
(i) Whether the State Government has the competence to give
relaxation of 5% marks in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) and
whether such relaxation provided by the State Government by
G.O.(Ms.) No.25 dated 06.02.2014 is legally justified? ·
(ii) Having regard to the stand of the Government in the earlier
round of Writ Petitions in Writ Petition No.30426 of 2012 and
22407 of 2013, not to relax the qualifying marks for Teacher
Eligibility Test (TET), whether Government is estopped from
granting relaxation?
(iii) Whether providing relaxation of5% marks in Teacher Eligibility
Test (TET) by G.O.(Ms.) No.25 dated 06.02.2014 amounts to
change in the criteria of selection of teachers after the selection
process commenced?
·
(iv) Whether prescribing 40% marks as weightage for the
academic performance is arbitrary and does not take into
consideration different streams ofeducation and subjects of
study?
851
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
852
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 9 S.C.R.
A
Point No. I: Whether tile State Government has tile
B
c
competence to give relaxatio11 of 5% marks in Teaclter Eligibility
Test (TET) and wltetlter suclt relaxation provided by tlte State
Government by G.O.(Ms.) Nu.25 dated 06.02.2014 is legally
iustijied?
16. In exercise of the power conferred under Section 23 ( 1) of
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 35 of2009, a
Notification was issued by NCTE prescribing the minimum qualification
for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in Class I to VIII
in a school referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of Act 35 of 2009.
Notification dated 23.08.2010 was followed by Guidelines dated
11.02.2011 issued by the NCTE for conducting TET under the Act.
Guideline_No.9 deals with qualifying marks, which reads as under:-
-
"Qualifying marks.-
9. A person who scores 60% or more in the TET exam will
D
be considered as TET pass. School managements
(Government, local bodies, government aided and unaided)
E
(a) may consider giving concessions to persons belonging
to SC/ST, OBC, differently abled persons, etc., in
accordance with their extant reservation policy;
(b) should give weightage to the TET scores in the
recruitment process; however, qualifying the TET would
not confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment
as it is only one of the eligibility criteria for appointment."
F
While prescribing 60% marks as minimum qualifying marks for
TET, Clause 9 enables concerned government/authorities to grant
concessions/relaxation to persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differentlyabled persons, etc., in accordan<;e. with their extant reservation policy.
17 .As noticed earlier, the Government ofTamil Nadu in G.0.(Ms.)
G
No.252 School Education (Q) Department dated 05.10.2012 fixed the
c(iteria for selection of candidates who have cleared the TET for ·
appoiiitment to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers and B.T.
Assistants. As per the said Govern1nent Order, out of the 100 marks, 40
marks have been earn1arked for academic performance. Remaining 60
marks out of 100 has been fixed for the TET. A Notification was issued
H
'·
V. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
by the Teachers Recruitment Board on 22.05.2013 for the conduct of
TEI, followed by recruitment of teachers. Clause 6 of the Notification,
which deals with "General Information", makes it clear that the TET is
only a pre-requisite eligibility test for those who are seeking appointment
as a teacher and that a TET certificate issued will be valid for seven
years from the date of its issuance. Recruitment of teachers is conducted
separately_ as and whe~ there is a heed, following the Guidelines issued
by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Accordingly, it was notified to the
- candidates that TET is only an eligibility test and conducting of the same
is distinct from the recruitment of teachers, which is a subsequent event
18. Section 23 o:fthe RTE Act empowers the Central Government
to authorize the academic authority to prescribe minimum qualification
to be eligible for appointment of teachers. Once the academic.authority
fixes the minimum qualification, then the relaxation is possible only under
Section 23(2). Sub-section (2) enables the State to approach the Central
Government to relax the minimum qualification required for appointment
of teachers, where a State does not have adequate institutions offering
courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum
qualification as laid down under sub-section (!)are not available in
sufficient numbers. On such request, the Central Government may, if it
deems necessary, by Notification, relax the minimum qualification required ·
for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years,
as may be specified in that Notification. In terms 0fSection 23 (2) power
to relax such minimum: qualification has been reserved with the Central
Government
19. Contention of the appellants is that Section 23 (2) of the RTE
Act requires the State/Union Territories to request the Central Government
for relaxation of prescribed minimum qualification to be eligible for
appointment of teachers and the power to relax the minimum qualification
is exclusively within the domain of the Central Government and the same
does not rest with the State Government or NCTE. It is further submitted
that the High Court without properly appreciating the import of Section
23 of the Act, and Rules 17 and 18 of the Rules, erroneously held that
Clause No.