Service law – Appointment – Post of Teacher Grade III Level II in the Scheduled Area (TSP) – Eligibiity was graduation with minimum 45% marks and one year Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) – However, candidates who had taken admission in B.Ed course after issuance of notification dated 31.8.09 of National Council for Teacher Education, had to secure minimum 50 % at graduation level or equivalent examination – Appellant applied for the post, he had 44.58% marks in his graduation and had taken admission in the B.Ed course on 23.10.2009-after the cut-off date – Appellant, being from the reserved category, qualifying percentage for admission to the B.Ed Course was 40% marks in graduation (45% for general category) – Rejection of appellant’s candidature since he had secured less than 45% marks in his graduation – Appellant and similarly situated candidate filed writ petitions, which were dismissed – Appellant then filed an appeal – Meanwhile, notification by NCTE that minimum percentage of marks in graduation shall not be applicable to those incumbents who had already taken admission to B.Ed or equivalent course prior to 29.07.2011 – Interim order passed directing the respondents to accord appointment to the appellant and pursuant thereto, the appellant was appointed – However, the Division Bench relying on a matter, dismissed the appeal, and thereafter his appointment was cancelled, though the appeal filed by the similarly situated candidate had already been allowed:
Held: It would be improper to discriminate inter se among a homogenous group of students admitted for the academic session 2009-10 – It could not be that those students admitted in the first round of counselling would be eligible, even with less than 50% marks in graduation, while the others admitted in the subsequent rounds of counselling would not be – It was on this reasoning that an identically situated student who had taken B.Ed admission after the appellant, was given relief – One person or situation should be treated the same as another – Judgment of the High Court is set aside – Authorities directed to treat the appointment given to the appellant, pursuant to the interim order of the Division Bench, as a regular appointment and after reinstating the appellant, grant him consequential benefits – Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. [Paras 15, 16]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.