Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1099 (MP)

Arun Giri Goswami v. State of M. P.

2014-09-03

A.M.KHANWILKAR, ALOK ARADHE

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Although diverse reliefs have been claimed in these petitions, but, at the time of argument learned counsel for the petitioners, in all fairness, stated that he would confine the challenge in these petitions to Rule 6 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005, as inserted by the amendment dated 24.4.2008 to Rule 6 of the Rules of 2005. The said Rule reads thus :- “6 (2) Samvida Shala Shikshak Eligibility Examination” hereinafter referred to as ‘Eligibility Examination’ as prescribed shall be conducted for the employment of Samvida Shala Shikshak. The eligibility examination shall be conducted by an agency prescribed by the Government. The validity of the eligibility examination shall be for two years after declaration of result or next eligibility examination to be held which will be earlier.” 3. According to the petitioners, the requirement of appearing in the eligibility examination to be conducted periodically by the State Authorities is not only contrary to the stated policy of the Central Government formulated in exercise of powers under the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the guidelines framed thereunder, but, also preposterous as there can be no requirement of reappearing in eligibility examination once the candidate has passed the same. Inasmuch as, the candidates who have succeeded in the eligibility examination as per extant norms, are entitled to be appointed as teachers across the State subject to participating in the interview process to be conducted at the local school level. Besides, the eligibility examination having being conducted in the year 2005 and again in the year 2008 in which the petitioners had qualified, there was no reason for the petitioners to once again appear in the similar examination in the year 2011. Moreover, the Authority cannot frequently conduct such examination. 4. The respondents on the other hand, contend that Rule 6 was necessitated in the year 2008 because of the change of qualification norms introduced during the same time by amendment of 2008. In that, sub rule (5) was inserted in Rule 6 providing for higher benchmark of percentage for the concerned Degree/Diploma, for being appointed against the post of Grade – I, II or III, as the case may be. In that, sub rule (5) was inserted in Rule 6 providing for higher benchmark of percentage for the concerned Degree/Diploma, for being appointed against the post of Grade – I, II or III, as the case may be. Similarly, coming into force of the Act of 2009 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, which provide higher benchmark, it became imperative for the State to carryout corresponding amendment in the Rules framed under the Act of 1993. Accordingly, amendment to the Rules was brought into force in the year 2011 as a result of which it became essential to conduct fresh eligibility examination. It is further submitted that even guidelines framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers under section 23 (1) of the Act of 2009 mandate conducting of periodical eligibility examination for which reason the argument of the petitioners that frequent eligibility examination cannot be permitted will have to be turned down in absence of challenge to the guidelines framed by the Central Government. Having considered the rival submissions, we would first refer to the amended sub rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2005. It provides for conducting eligibility examination for the employment of Samvida Shala Shikshak. That has been conducted by the Agency prescribed by the Government. The term of validity of the examination has been specified as two years after declaration of result or next eligibility examination to be held, whichever is earlier. The question is : whether this provision opposes or repugnant to the provisions of the Central Legislation or the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder or for that matter guidelines framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers under section 23 (1) of the said Act. The tenure of validity of eligibility examination has been specified in guidelines No.11. The said guidelines reads thus :- “11. The appropriate Government should conduct a TET at least once every year. The Validity Period of TET qualifying certificate for appointment will be decided by the appropriate Government subject to a maximum of seven years for all categories. But there will be no restriction on the number of attempts a person can take for acquiring a TET Certificate. A person who has qualified TET may also appear again for improving his/her score.” 6. These guidelines mandate the State Government to conduct TET (Teachers Eligibility Test) at least once every year. But there will be no restriction on the number of attempts a person can take for acquiring a TET Certificate. A person who has qualified TET may also appear again for improving his/her score.” 6. These guidelines mandate the State Government to conduct TET (Teachers Eligibility Test) at least once every year. The validity period of the qualifying certificate has been prescribed up to maximum seven years. From this provision it is amply clear that requirement of conducting periodical eligibility examination has been specified by the Central Government itself. That condition has not been challenged in the present set of petitions. So long as the said requirement operates, the State Government is obliged to conduct periodical eligibility examination at least once every year and the validity of the qualifying certificate issued in respect of such examination can be up to the maximum of seven years for all categories. Hence, the argument that frequent eligibility examination cannot be conducted by the State Government will have to be stated to be rejected. 7. It is also noticed that both the eligibility examinations held in the year 2008 or for that mater in the year 2011 were necessitated because of the changed situation and the enhanced qualification standards provided firstly by the amended Rules in 2008 and again in the year 2011. The amendment in the year 2011 was obviously necessitated because of the higher standards prescribed by the Central Legislation and the Rules and Regulation framed thereunder. Hence, justification for conducting examination in the year 2008 as well as in 2011 as offered by the State Government will have to be accepted. 8. In any case, as required in terms of Guideline No.11 the State Government could and ought to conduct eligibility examination once every year. The benefit that can be claimed by the petitioners under Guideline No.11, at best, it is usurped that the qualifying certificate issued in the context of the examination conducted by the State Government should be valid for maximum of seven years. However, in the present case, as has been noted earlier, the examination was required to be conducted in the year 2008 because of the changed situation and the enhanced qualification standards prescribed by the amended Rules of 2005. Similar position was adopted in the year 2011, which necessitated conducting fresh examination. However, in the present case, as has been noted earlier, the examination was required to be conducted in the year 2008 because of the changed situation and the enhanced qualification standards prescribed by the amended Rules of 2005. Similar position was adopted in the year 2011, which necessitated conducting fresh examination. The validity certificate issued in respect of examination conducted in the year 2005 to the candidates, therefore, could not be pressed into service and for which reason the provision in the form of sub- rule (2) of Rule 6 inserted by the amendment of 2008 cannot be questioned. 9. So far as the petitioners are concerned, the qualifying certificate issued to them in relation to the eligibility examination conducted in the year 2008 also became irrelevant after the coming into force of the Act of 2009 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder which inevitably obliged the State Government to amend the Rules of 2005 providing for higher benchmark of percentage for the eligibility examination. For that reason, the petitioners cannot be permitted to make grievance about invalidation of the certificate given to them on the basis of examination conducted in the year 2008. 10. The argument of the petitioners founded on Guideline No.1 mentions about background and rationale for including the Teachers Eligibility Test as minimum qualification. To question the validity of Rule 6 (2) of the Rules also deserves to be stated to be rejected. For, the said guidelines itself highlight necessity of conducting such examination. It predicates that by conducting such examination quality requirement for recruitment of teachers can be ensured. The teachers who qualify such examination are expected to possess the essential aptitude and ability to meet the challenges of teaching at the primary and upper primary level. 11. Suffice it to observe that background and rationale mentioned in Clause 1 of the Guidelines cannot be the basis to whittled down the requirement specified in Guideline No.11, which is mutually exclusive and intended to ensure that the teachers so selected would possess essential aptitude and ability of teaching at the primary and upper primary level. 12. We place on record that the petitioners have also asked for relief of regularisation. 13. Having rejected the argument regarding validity of the Rules, the question of acceding to the prayer of regularisation does not arise. 12. We place on record that the petitioners have also asked for relief of regularisation. 13. Having rejected the argument regarding validity of the Rules, the question of acceding to the prayer of regularisation does not arise. This aspect has been dealt with separately in the judgment delivered today in W.P. No.17194/2013. That prayer is disposed of on the same terms as in that case. 14. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, these petitions ought to fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.