JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, CJ.:- All the petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment since common questions of law and fact are involved. BACKGROUND: 2. In the State of Tripura recruitment to the posts of teachers was not done with the urgency that is required. Advertisements were issued thrice inviting applications for filling up the posts of undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate teachers. The undergraduate teachers are supposed to teach the primary classes, the graduate teachers are supposed to teach the higher classes and postgraduate teachers are to teach specialized subjects. 3. Rules for filling up the post of Assistant Teachers in the Primary Schools/Jr. Basic Schools were framed as far back as 07.10.1970 and as per these rules, the essential qualifications for filling up the posts in the regular pay scale were trained Matriculate or higher secondary or Pre-University or untrained undergraduate or graduate. In case of appointment to the fixed scale, untrained Matriculates were also eligible. 4. The first advertisement was issued on 29.10.2002 wherein 1000 posts of Graduate Teachers, 500 posts of Undergraduate Teachers and 100 posts of Kak Barak Teachers were advertised. Kak Barak is the language spoken by the tribals of Tripura. As per this advertisement, the eligibility criteria was graduation in Science, Arts or Commerce in respect of Graduate teachers. For undergraduate teachers, the minimum educational qualification was Madhyamik (10th) pass. Even people who had failed in the old course of Higher Secondary (11th) were eligible. Thus, minimum qualification was having passed Class-X. In respect of Kak Barak teachers for all candidates other than the Scheduled Tribes, the minimum educational qualification was again Madhyamik pass, but in case of Scheduled Tribes it was Madhyamik appeared and most importantly, every candidate was to have an ability to read, write and speak Kak Barak. Thousands of people applied pursuant to this advertisement, but the posts were not filled in. 5. On 05.04.2006, again the posts were re-advertised. This time, there were 962 posts of Graduate teachers, 389 posts of Undergraduate teachers and 100 posts of Kak Barak teachers. The qualifications were the same, but all the posts were now invited in the fixed pay scale. There is no explanation as to why the number of posts fell during this period of 4(four) years. This time, there were 962 posts of Graduate teachers, 389 posts of Undergraduate teachers and 100 posts of Kak Barak teachers. The qualifications were the same, but all the posts were now invited in the fixed pay scale. There is no explanation as to why the number of posts fell during this period of 4(four) years. In any event, no recruitment was made even pursuant to this advertisement and another advertisement was issued on 23.09.2009, in which 4856 posts of Graduate teachers, 4629 posts of Undergraduate teachers and 99 posts of Kak Barak teachers were advertised. In this advertisement, surprisingly, in respect of Kak Barak teachers, the qualifications were changed from ability to read, write and speak Kak Barak to only ability to speak Kak Barak. 6. Candidates who applied in the year 2002 and 2006 pursuant to the earlier advertisements were not required to apply again, but were supposed to appear before the Interview Board. However, those candidates who had obtained higher qualification meanwhile and wanted to apply for the higher posts were required to apply again. The age limit was 18 to 37 years in respect of unreserved category and the upper age limit was 42 years in respect of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Physically Handicapped Persons and in-service Government employees. One time relaxation of age was also given to those candidates who had applied earlier if they wanted to have their candidature considered in respect of the same post as earlier. 7. As far as Postgraduate teachers are concerned, similar advertisements were issued in 2002 and 2006 and the last advertisement was issued on 23.09.2009 inviting applications from candidates who were Postgraduates or had an Honours degree in Science, Arts or Commerce. Other conditions were similar. 8. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisements, 12,050 applicants applied for 1102 posts of Postgraduate teachers. 42,841 applicants applied for 4,617 posts of Graduate teachers and 1,50,693 applications were received for 4,600 posts of Undergraduate teachers. The Government of Tripura appointed 4,617 Graduate teachers in early 2010 and 1,100 Postgraduate teachers on fixed pay in the month of August, 2010. After these selections were made, a large number of writ petitions were filed challenging the appointments on various grounds. The Government of Tripura appointed 4,617 Graduate teachers in early 2010 and 1,100 Postgraduate teachers on fixed pay in the month of August, 2010. After these selections were made, a large number of writ petitions were filed challenging the appointments on various grounds. 61 writ petitions were disposed of by a learned Single Judge of the Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court by a common judgment on 16.11.2011 in WP(C) 213 of 2010 and other connected matters. The learned Single Judge did not go into the merits of the allegations made, but remanded the matters back to the Government for thorough scrutiny and examination by constituting a committee of responsible Officers. The State challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge and some of the petitioners who were also aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge filed writ appeals. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A. 54 of 2011 and other connected matters allowed the writ appeals and held that the matters should be decided by the Court. Keeping in view the large number of petitions, and the public interest involved, the matters were ordered to be heard by the Division Bench. It would be pertinent to mention that when the writ appeals came up for hearing, this Court after going through the Revised Employment Policy issued by the State had framed certain points and directed the State to file counter affidavit in respect of the issues. 9. As far as Undergraduate teachers are concerned, the appointments were made in the last part of the year 2013 and various writ petitions were filed challenging the appointments made and this Court issued notice in the petitions. In the second batch of writ petitions relating to the Undergraduate teachers, certain other points were also raised, but since most of the points were common, the matters were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. ROLE OF EDUCATION: 10. Any society which seeks to advance in a civilized fashion must have a proper education system. This system must ensure that the children of this country have access to a well designed education module. Teaching should be done by qualified and learned teachers. The education system is the backbone of any civilization. ROLE OF EDUCATION: 10. Any society which seeks to advance in a civilized fashion must have a proper education system. This system must ensure that the children of this country have access to a well designed education module. Teaching should be done by qualified and learned teachers. The education system is the backbone of any civilization. If the system of imparting education is not geared up to meet the advances in technology, not only will the education system crumble but it shall lead to catastrophic results as the students shall not be aware of their rights or duties. They will not learn anything. 11. Educational institutions are temples of learning. A child hones his skills and learns the values of life when he is taught by a devoted and duly qualified teacher. The Apex Court in The Ahmedabad St. Xavier 's College Society & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., [ (1974) 1 SCC 717 ] held as follows:- “30. Educational institutions are temples of learning. The virtues of human intelligence are mastered and harmonized by education. Where there is complete harmony between the teacher and the taught, where the teacher imparts and the student receives, where there is complete dedication of the teacher and the taught in learning, where there is discipline: between the teacher and the taught, where both are worshipers of learning, no discord or challenge will arise. An educational institution runs smoothly when the teacher and the taught are engaged in the, common ideal of pursuit of knowledge. It is, therefore, manifest that the appointment of teachers is an important part in educational institutions. The, qualifications and the character of the teachers are really important. 32. Education should be a great cohesive, force in developing integrity of the nation. Education develops the ethos of the nation. Regulations are, therefore, necessary to see that there are no divisive or disintegrating forces in administration.” 12. It is thus clear that for any educational institution or education system to run in a proper manner, there should be harmony between the teacher and the student. As observed by the Apex Court, it is only when the teacher and the taught are engaged in the common ideal of pursuit of knowledge, can proper education be imparted. 13. The importance of education was reiterated by the Apex Court in State of Orissa & Anr. As observed by the Apex Court, it is only when the teacher and the taught are engaged in the common ideal of pursuit of knowledge, can proper education be imparted. 13. The importance of education was reiterated by the Apex Court in State of Orissa & Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty, [ (2011) 3 SCC 436 ], wherein the Apex Court made many pertinent observations:- “29. Education is the systematic instruction, schooling or training given to the young persons in preparation for the work of life. It also connotes the whole course of scholastic instruction which a person has received. Education connotes the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by formal schooling. The excellence of instruction provided by an educational institution mainly depends directly on the excellence of the teaching staff. Therefore, unless they themselves possess a good academic record/minimum qualifications prescribed as an eligibility, it is beyond imagination of anyone that standard of education can be maintained/ enhanced. “18. … we have to be very strict in maintaining high academic standards and maintaining academic discipline and academic rigour if our country is to progress. XXX XXX XXX 30. ... Democracy depends for its very life on a high standard of general, vocational and professional education. Dissemination of learning with search for new knowledge with discipline all round must be maintained at all costs.” The Court after referring to earlier judgments of the Apex Court went on to hold as follows:- “33. In view of the above, it is evident that education is necessary to develop the personality of a person as a whole and in totality as it provides the process of training and acquiring the knowledge, skills, developing mind and character by formal schooling. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain a high academic standard and academic discipline along with academic rigour for the progress of a nation. Democracy depends for its own survival on a high standard of vocational and professional education.” 14. The Apex Court interpreted Article 21 of the Constitution of India in a very wide manner and held that the right to life includes the right to have quality education. Thereafter, Article 21A was added by amending the Constitution of India. This Article reads as follows:- “21A. Right to education. The Apex Court interpreted Article 21 of the Constitution of India in a very wide manner and held that the right to life includes the right to have quality education. Thereafter, Article 21A was added by amending the Constitution of India. This Article reads as follows:- “21A. Right to education. -- The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.” 15. The purpose of amending the Constitution and making the right to education a fundamental right would be defeated if the quality of education which is imparted in the educational institution is not of the highest quality. The quality of education would depend on various factors including infrastructure, availability of staff, books, playing fields, computers etc., but as pointed out by the Apex Court in Mamata Mohanty's case (supra), the most relevant of all factors is the excellence of the teaching staff. The Apex Court held thus:- “34. Article 21A has been added by amending our Constitution with a view to facilitate the children to get proper and good quality education. However, the quality of education would depend on various factors but the most relevant of them is excellence of teaching staff. In view thereof, quality of teaching staff cannot be compromised. The selection of the most suitable persons is essential in order to maintain excellence and the standard of teaching in the institution. It is not permissible for the State that while controlling the education it may impinge the standard of education.” ROLE OF TEACHERS: 16. As held by the Apex Court in Mamata Mohanty's case, the most important factor in imparting proper education is the role of the teacher. A teacher can perform his role as a guide, philosopher, mentor, teacher and guide I to the students only if he himself is well-qualified. If the teacher is honest and believes in high moral values, his students will imbibe the same values from him. If the teacher is unqualified and incompetent, then we cannot expect the students to have any chance whatsoever of learning anything from such a teacher. When a teacher is appointed through the backdoor, on considerations other than merit, such a teacher can never be expected to impart proper education to the student. If the teacher is unqualified and incompetent, then we cannot expect the students to have any chance whatsoever of learning anything from such a teacher. When a teacher is appointed through the backdoor, on considerations other than merit, such a teacher can never be expected to impart proper education to the student. In the education system it is the teacher who is the driving force of the engine of learning. 17. The role of teachers who teach children at the primary school level is even more important. A child up to the age of 14 is more susceptible to the influence of his teacher. A child at that age accepts anything said by the teacher as the gospel truth. The child imitates his teacher and accepts whatever the teacher does to be correct. For a child of this impressionable age the teacher is the role model. In cases of children belonging to the lowest strata of society where the parents are not educated, the teacher is the only role model and, therefore, it is all the more necessary to have well qualified, trained, competent and honest teachers at the primary level. In the Indian context, the “Guru Shishya Parampara” is very relevant and the teacher is treated as a “Guru”. Teachers at graduate and postgraduate levels must also be competent in their subjects, but the values of life, the ethical and moral standards are taught more by the teachers who teach at the primary level. In our view, there can be no compromise with the quality of teachers at any level, but even more so, at the primary level. 18. The Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale & Ors., [ (1992) 4 SCC 435 ] dealing with the role of teachers held as follows:- “12........The teacher plays pivotal role in moulding the career, character and moral fibres and aptitude for educational excellence in impressive young children. The formal education needs proper equipping by the teachers to meet the challenges of the day to impart lessons with latest technics to the students on secular, scientific and rational outlook. A well equipped teacher could bring the needed skill and intellectual capabilities to the students in their pursuits. The teacher is adorned as Gurudevo-bhava, next after parents, as he is a Principal instrument to awakening the child to the cultural ethos, intellectual excellence and discipline. A well equipped teacher could bring the needed skill and intellectual capabilities to the students in their pursuits. The teacher is adorned as Gurudevo-bhava, next after parents, as he is a Principal instrument to awakening the child to the cultural ethos, intellectual excellence and discipline. The teachers, therefore, must keep abreast ever changing technics, the needs of the society and to cope up with the psychological approach to the aptitudes of the children to perform that pivotal role. In short teachers need to be endowed and energised with needed potential to serve the needs of the society. The qualitative training in the training colleges or schools would inspire and motivate them into action to the benefit of the students. For equipping such trainee students in a school or a college, all facilities and equipments are absolutely necessary and institutions bereft thereof have no place to exist nor entitled to recognition. In that behalf compliance of the statutory requirements is insisted upon. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education............” 19. Again in St. John's Teachers Training Institute (for women), Madurai & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., [ (1993) 3 SCC 595 ], the Apex Court held as follows:- “10. The teacher education programme has to be redesigned to bring in a system of education which can prepare the student-teacher to shoulder the responsibility of imparting educating with a living dynamism and the traditional pattern of “chalk, talk and teach” method has to be replaced by more vibrant system with improved methods of reaching, to achieve qualitative excellence in teacher-education.” 20. In Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya & Ors. v. Subhash Rahangdale & Ors., [ (2012) 2 SCC 425 ], the Apex Court held that importance of teachers and their training has been highlighted time and again by eminent educationists and leaders of society. The Apex Court held as follows:- “1. The importance of teachers and their training has been highlighted time and again by eminent educationists and leaders of society. The Courts have also laid considerable emphasis on the dire need of having qualified teachers in schools and colleges.” 21. In Mamata Mohanty's case, the Apex Court dealing with this aspect held no relaxation could be made qua the qualifications of teachers. It held thus :- “40. The Courts have also laid considerable emphasis on the dire need of having qualified teachers in schools and colleges.” 21. In Mamata Mohanty's case, the Apex Court dealing with this aspect held no relaxation could be made qua the qualifications of teachers. It held thus :- “40. In Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 1817 , this Court examined the issue as to whether a person lacking eligibility can be appointed and if so, whether such irregularity/illegality can be cured/condoned. After considering the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 and U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, this Court came to a conclusion that lacking eligibility as per the rules/advertisement cannot be cured at any stage and making appointment of such a person tantamounts to an illegality and not an irregularity, thus cannot be cured. A person lacking the eligibility cannot approach the court for the reason that he does not have a right which can be enforced through court. xxx xxx xxx 50. In absence of an enabling provision for grant of relaxation, no relaxation can be made. Even if such a power is provided under the Statute, it cannot be exercised arbitrarily. (See: Union of India v. Dharam Pal & Ors., (2009) 4 SCC 170 ). Such a power cannot be exercised treating it to be an implied, incidental or necessary power for execution of the statutory provisions. Even an implied power is to be exercised with care and caution with reasonable means to remove the obstructions or overcome the resistance in enforcing the statutory provisions or executing its command. Incidental and ancillary powers cannot be used in utter disregard of the object of the Statute. Such power can be exercised only to make such legislation effective so that the ultimate power will not become illusory, which otherwise would be contrary to he intent of the legislature, (vide: Matajog Dobey v. H.S. Bhari, AIR 1956 SC 44 ; and State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society & Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 412 ).” QUALIFICATIONS OF TEACHERS: 22. Recognizing the importance of role of teachers, the Central Government enacted the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. The Council was created with a view to advise the Central and State Governments on all matters pertaining to teachers' education. Recognizing the importance of role of teachers, the Central Government enacted the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. The Council was created with a view to advise the Central and State Governments on all matters pertaining to teachers' education. The functions of the Council are provided for in section 12 and the Council is empowered to lay down the guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in a school or recognised educational institution. The Council also has the power to lay down norms for any specified category of courses of training in teachers education including the minimum eligibility criteria for appointment thereof, the method of selection, duration of course etc. 23. In exercise of its powers, the Council framed the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of minimum qualifications for recruitment of teachers in schools) Regulations, 2001. As per Regulation no.4, all the State Governments were directed to modify the existing rules within a period of three years so as to bring them in conformity with the qualifications laid down in the Schedules. With regard to Elementary school teachers, both at Primary and Upper Primary levels, the educational qualifications provided are as follows:- I. ElementaryMinimum Academic and Professional Qualifications a) Primaryi) Senior Secondary School Certificate or intermediate or its equivalent; and ii) Diploma or certificate in basic teachers' training of a duration of not less than two years OR Bachelor of Elementary Education (B. El. Ed.). b)Upper Primary (Middle School section) Thus, as per these guidelines to be eligible to be appointed even as a teacher at the primary school level, a candidate should have passed Senior Secondary School or Intermediate or its equivalent with a diploma of at least two years basic teachers' training or should have graduated in Elementary Education. 24. Thereafter, the Parliament enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 which was notified on 29.08.2009. Section 23 of the Act reads as follows:- “23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers. – (1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher. Section 23 of the Act reads as follows:- “23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers. – (1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher. (2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if its deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification: Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years. (3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teachers shall be such as may be prescribed.” 25. It is thus clear that for any appointment made after promulgation of this Act, a teacher must possess the minimum qualification laid down by the academic authority authorised by the Central Government. If a State does not have educational institutions offering courses or training in teachers education, relaxation for a period not exceeding 5 (five) years can be granted by the Central Government. Pursuant to the powers conferred under the Act, a notification was issued on 23.08.2010 wherein minimum qualification for appointment of teachers for Classes I to V is Senior Secondary or its equivalent with at least 50% marks and 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education or Senior Secondary with at least 45% marks and 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education in accordance with the NCTE Regulations 2002 or Senior Secondary with at least 50% marks and 4 years Bachelor of Elementary Education course or Senior Secondary with at least 50% marks and 2 years Diploma in Education and the teacher must pass the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose. It is thus more than obvious that the Parliament in its wisdom thought, and rightly so, that the teachers must possess some basic minimum qualification before they can be appointed as teachers. It is thus more than obvious that the Parliament in its wisdom thought, and rightly so, that the teachers must possess some basic minimum qualification before they can be appointed as teachers. This again reemphasizes the role of teachers. THE SITUATION IN TRIPURA: 26. As far as Primary school teachers are concerned, as per the information provided there were only 795 trained teachers available. In the notification issued on 23.08.2010, it is also provided that where a Government or local authority has issued advertisement to initiate appointment of teachers prior to the said date, such appointments may be made in accordance with the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time to time) and quoted hereinabove. It appears that the Government of Tripura sent a communication to the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India seeking exemption in respect of qualification in respect of Elementary School Teachers. In response thereto, the Central Government sent a communication dated 05.09.2013 which permitted the State Government to appoint teachers at the Primary School levels who had not qualified TET in those cases where the advertisement and selection process had started prior to 23.08.2010. Furthermore, the Ministry of HRD granted relaxation to the Government of Tripura vide notification dated 18.06.2012 and permitted the Government of Tripura to appoint teachers under relaxed professional qualification norms, i.e. they may not have qualified the training. However, this relaxation was granted subject to the condition that teachers appointed under the relaxed qualification norms must acquire minimum qualification within a period of two years from the date of appointment. Para-4 and 5 of the communication are very important and reads as follows:- “4. It is for the Government of Tripura to appoint teachers who have the requisite academic qualification as stipulated in NCTE Regulations 2001 and get these teachers trained within two years of their appointment. 5. It would not be possible for the Government of India to consider any relaxation in academic qualification at all.” 27. It is thus clear that the Union of India only granted relaxation in respect of professional training subject to the stipulation that the candidates selected must qualify the training within a period of two years from the date of appointment. It would not be possible for the Government of India to consider any relaxation in academic qualification at all.” 27. It is thus clear that the Union of India only granted relaxation in respect of professional training subject to the stipulation that the candidates selected must qualify the training within a period of two years from the date of appointment. At the same time, the Central Government made it clear that there would be no relaxation in the academic qualifications at all and all appointments should be made in accordance with the NCTE Regulations. THE EMPLOYMENT POLICY: 28. The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the employment policy of the State of Tripura and since this is an important issue, it would be pertinent to quote the entire policy which reads as follows:- “GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (PERSONNEL & TRAINING) DEPARTMENT NO.F. 1(4)-GA(P & T)/99 Dated, Agartala, the 30th August, 2003. MEMORANDUM Subject:- Revised Employment Policy. In supersession of all instructions issued earlier in this regard, the Governor is pleased to order that the following instructions should be observed in making employment to various categories of posts under the Government of Tripura. (1) AGE LIMIT. Lower age limit shall be 18 years in respect of all categories of candidates. Upper age limit for general category candidates shall be 37 years and for ST/SC/PH candidates shall be 42 years. The date of determining the age limit shall be fixed on the date of application for a particular post. However, the candidates, who are nearing the upper age limit for Govt. employment, shall be allowed advantage in respect of upper age limit (the age for this purpose will be fixed as 35 years or more in respect of General candidates and 40 years or more in respect of ST/SC/PH candidates). Minimum 25% vacancies in a particular grade/post meant for direct recruitment in any Department will be filled up by such candidates. In case of non-availability of such candidates, other candidates may be considered for appointment. (2) RESERVATION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & SCHEDULED TRIBES. Reservation for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes shall be 31% and 16% respectively which may be revised in accordance with instructions issued by the Government of Tripura from time to time. (3) RESERVATION FOR PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS, EX-SERVICEMEN. In case of non-availability of such candidates, other candidates may be considered for appointment. (2) RESERVATION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & SCHEDULED TRIBES. Reservation for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes shall be 31% and 16% respectively which may be revised in accordance with instructions issued by the Government of Tripura from time to time. (3) RESERVATION FOR PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS, EX-SERVICEMEN. Reservation for Physically Handicapped persons and the Ex-Servicemen shall be 3% and 2% respectively which may be revised in accordance with instructions issued by the Government of Tripura, from time to time. (4) EMPLOYMENT TO DEPENDENTS OF PERSONS WHO DIE-IN-HARNESS. In order to ensure that the family of a Government Servant who dies while in service does not suffer from extreme financial difficulties, employment would be provided to one of the dependents of the deceased Government servant. Such employment would be provided only if there is no other member of the family already in the employment of the State Government or the Central Government or Corporations, Undertakings or such other bodies of the State Government or the Central Government. The intention is to ensure that the family gets the benefit of having at least one salaried person, subject to the availability of vacancies of the appropriate category and having regard to the Roster Point, the educational qualification, age etc. prescribed in the relevant Recruitment Rules. Qualified candidates may be appointed by the concerned appointing authority, provided that where the dependent member does not have the requisite qualification prescribed in the relevant Recruitment Rules, appointment may be made only after the required relaxation of the provisions of the Recruitment Rules duly approved by the appropriate authority. (5) DEPENDENTS OF RETIRED GOVT. SERVANTS, RETRENCHED EMPLOYEES AND PERSONS FROM ORPHANAGES OR P.L. HOMES RUN BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT OR LOCAL BODIES. Due consideration will be given to the dependents of retired Govt. servant, retrenched employees and the persons who have been in orphanages or P.L. Homes run by the Government or local bodies. Relaxation of upper age limit in respect of retrenched employees may be considered on the merit of case concerned with the prior approval of the Cabinet. (5)(a) DEPENDENTS OF DEFENCE PERSONNEL BELONGING TO TRIPURA WHO HAVE DIED OR WHO ARE AT LEAST 50% (FIFTY PERCENT) DISABLED IN MILITARY SERVICE. Relaxation of upper age limit in respect of retrenched employees may be considered on the merit of case concerned with the prior approval of the Cabinet. (5)(a) DEPENDENTS OF DEFENCE PERSONNEL BELONGING TO TRIPURA WHO HAVE DIED OR WHO ARE AT LEAST 50% (FIFTY PERCENT) DISABLED IN MILITARY SERVICE. Dependents of Defence Personnel belonging to Tripura who have died or who are disabled in military service will be considered for employment on priority. (6) OTHER BACKWARD COMMUNITIES. Persons belonging to Other Backward Communities shall be given preference for appointment in Government Service as per instructions issued from time to time. (7) MINORITIES. Adequate representation of persons belonging to linguistic and religious minorities shall be taken into account at the time of selection. In case of direct recruitment, one column should be incorporated in the application form to indicate the community to which the applicant concerned belongs and also his/her mother tongue. (8) WEIGHTAGE TO N.C.C. CERTIFICATE HOLDERS AND NATIONAL AWARD WINNERS. Preference for employment in Government service shall be given to the N.C.C., 'B' & 'C' certificate holders especially in the Police/Fire Services/Jail and other similar Organizations. Preference shall also be given to the winners of National Awards in the field of Education and Sports. (9) SENIORITY & NEED. 70% of the vacancies shall be filled up on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and 30% on the basis of need. The term 'Seniority' denotes the length of time for which a person has been waiting for employment with reference to the year of passing of the examination which is laid down as the essential qualification for that particular post. 'Need' shall be said to exist in case for which the family income is below the poverty line as determined by the Government from time to time. (10) COVERAGE. Appointing authorities should take necessary steps to ensure that appointments are not confined to persons from any particular area or areas and those persons from all comers of the State get adequate coverage. Sd/- (J.K. SINHA) Joint Secretary to the Government of Tripura.” CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES: 29. Arguments on behalf of the petitioners were addressed by Sri A.K. Bhowmik and Sri K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. Advocates, Sri P. Roy Barman, Sri Somik Deb and Sri Arijit Bhowmik, learned Advocates. 30. Sd/- (J.K. SINHA) Joint Secretary to the Government of Tripura.” CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES: 29. Arguments on behalf of the petitioners were addressed by Sri A.K. Bhowmik and Sri K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. Advocates, Sri P. Roy Barman, Sri Somik Deb and Sri Arijit Bhowmik, learned Advocates. 30. On behalf ofthe State, arguments were addressed by Sri B.C. Das, learned Advocate General, and Sri B.R. Bhattacharjee, Sri Sankar Deb and Sri S.M. Chakraborty, learned Sr. Advocates. 31. The main arguments raised on behalf of the petitioners are with regard to the constitutional validity of the employment policy. It is alleged that the policy in question is extremely vague and ambiguous, lays down no guidelines and vests the selecting/appointing authority with unfettered arbitrary discretionary powers. It is also contended that the policy gives reservation/preference to those in the age group of 35 to 37 years (40 to 45 years for reserved categories), provides preference for Other Backward Communities, provides reservation to linguistic and religious minorities, and provides reservation/preference for children of employees and 30% seats are being reserved only on an economic criteria. It is, therefore, submitted that the entire policy is unconstitutional. It is further submitted that the interviews were held area wise and this amounts to giving reservation on area wise basis and, therefore, also the selection is bad. Lastly, it is contended that the entire interview process was a sham and appointments have been made for totally extraneous considerations in pursuance of a hidden agenda. The interviews were not conducted in a proper manner and people who were lower in merit have been selected. The method of recruitment has also been challenged and it is alleged that the State could not have constituted different recruitment boards and this has led to selection of the undeserving and rejection of the meritorious candidates. In respect of the undergraduate teachers, it is also alleged that their appointments have been made without following the eligibility criteria and candidates who are not eligible or trained have been selected, whereas trained eligible candidates have been rejected. It is urged that the State has violated the norms laid down by the NCTE and the directions of the Union Government. On the basis of these arguments, it is prayed that the entire selections be set aside. 32. On the other hand, the respondents-State has raised many preliminary objections. It is urged that the State has violated the norms laid down by the NCTE and the directions of the Union Government. On the basis of these arguments, it is prayed that the entire selections be set aside. 32. On the other hand, the respondents-State has raised many preliminary objections. The main preliminary objection is that in terms of the advertisement, the petitioners had applied for the posts. The petitioners appeared before the interview board without any demur and took a chance of being selected. Having faced the interview board, the petitioners cannot now turn around and challenge the mode of selection. Another point raised is that the petitioners have not prayed for the relief of quashing of the employment policy and relief which has not been claimed should not be granted to them on merits. The State has defended the revised employment policy and the method and procedure of selection. The arguments are not being detailed since each of the contentions will be dealt with separately. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS: ESTOPPEL AGAINST PETITIONERS: 33. On behalf of the respondent-State, it is contended that there are two types of cases, one in which the policy has been challenged and the other group is where the petitioners have not even whispered a word against the policy. It is urged that the policy is a public document and all persons including the petitioners are supposed to know what are the terms of the policy. It is further urged that the petitioners are debarred from challenging the recruitment policy and cannot be heard to argue that selection should not have been made only on the basis of interview and in this behalf, reliance has been placed upon various judgments of the Apex Court. Reference may be made to the following:- In Madan Lal & Ors. Vs State of J & K, reported in 1995(3) SCC 486 , the Apex Court held as follows: “9. ... It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted. 10. ... It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted. 10. Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful.” In Chandra Prakash Tiwari & Ors. v. Shakuntala Shukla & Ors., reported in 2002(6) SCC 127 , the Apex Court held as follows: “34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seem to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not 'palatable’ to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process.” In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, reported in AIR 2013 SC 1613 , the Apex Court held as follows: “24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents.” 34. On the other hand, the petitioners have also relied upon various judgments of the Apex Court. Reference may be made to the following:- In Raj Kumar & Ors. On the other hand, the petitioners have also relied upon various judgments of the Apex Court. Reference may be made to the following:- In Raj Kumar & Ors. v. Shakti Raj & Ors., reported in (1997)9 SCC 527 tots Apex Court held as follows: “16..........It is true, as contended by Shri Madhava Reddy, that this Court in Madan Lal v. State of J and K, (1955) 3 SCC 486: (1995 AIR SCW 1109) and other decisions referred therein had held that a candidate having taken a chance to appear in an interview and having remained unsuccessful, cannot turn round and challenge either the constitution of the Selection Board or the method of selection as being illegal; he is estopped to question the correctness of the selection. But in his case, the Government have committed glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates for examination under 1955 Rules, so also in the method of selection and exercise of the power in taking out from the purview of the and also conduct of the selection in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the principle of estopped by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the facts in this case.” In Nar Singh Pal v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 588 , the Apex Court held as follows: “......Fundamental Rights under the Constitution cannot be bartered away. They cannot be compromised nor can there be any estoppel against the exercise of Fundamental Rights available under the Constitution. As pointed out earlier, the termination of the appellant from service was punitive in nature and was in violation of the principles of natural justice and his constitutional rights. Such an order cannot be sustained.” 35. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that if a candidate takes a chance and appears in a selection, he cannot turn around and urge that the method of selection adopted was not a proper method. The law is very clear that once a person takes a chance of appearing in an interview, he cannot turn around and contend that the method of selection by oral interview was not the proper method of selection. However, there is nothing which debars a candidate who has appeared in the interview from raising a contention that the interviews were not conducted properly or that they were conducted in such a manner that the selection is highly unfair. However, there is nothing which debars a candidate who has appeared in the interview from raising a contention that the interviews were not conducted properly or that they were conducted in such a manner that the selection is highly unfair. 36. As far as the policy is concerned, despite our speckle questions, the State has failed to show that the employment policy was ever published in the gazette. The employment policy was not even referred to in any of the advertisements issued in the year 2002, 2006 and 2009. How can poor unemployed persons be aware of an employment policy which was never made public? It was only an interdepartmental communication. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be debarred from laying challenge to the revised employment policy. 37. Though the petitioners may be estopped from challenging the selections on the ground that the selections should not have been made only on the basis of oral interviews, they can still challenge the selection on the grounds that the oral interviews were not conducted in a proper manner and that no guidelines were laid down for selection of the eligible candidates. Therefore, this preliminary objection is rejected. LACK OF PLEADINGS WITH REGARD TO CHALLENGE TO THE POLICY: 38. The State has raised another preliminary objection that there is total lack of pleadings with regard to the challenge of the policy. It is submitted that since the policy has not been specifically challenged and no prayer has been made for quashing the policy, this Court cannot go into the question of validity of the policy. On behalf of the petitioners, counsel have drawn our attention to a number of writ petitions in which there is specific challenge to the policy. It is submitted that all the relevant material has been placed on record and, therefore, it cannot be said that the policy has not been challenged by the petitioners. 39. Before dealing with the rival contention of the parties, we may point out that on 10.01.2014 when this Court had taken up WP(C) 208 of 2010 and other connected matters wherein the challenge to the selection to the posts of postgraduate and graduate teachers was made, Sri A.K. Bhowmik, learned Sr. Counsel for some of the petitioners, at that stage had also pointed out that he had challenged the policy on various grounds and had made reference to some of the writ petitions. Counsel for some of the petitioners, at that stage had also pointed out that he had challenged the policy on various grounds and had made reference to some of the writ petitions. We find that in some of the petitions there is adequate challenge to the policy. 40. In any event, on 10.01.2014, this Court had passed the following orders:- “In these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the selection made to the post of Post Graduate and Graduate Teachers pursuant to the selection process initiated in the year 2009. In the petitions which are listed today the main challenge is that the selection is improper inasmuch as the selection has been made only on the basis of interview. It is also been contended that selections have been made zone wise whereas they should have been for the entire State in one go. Mr. A K Bhowmik, learned senior counsel, states that he also filed a number of writ petitions in which he has not only challenged the selection on merits but has challenged the policy whereunder the selections have been made on various grounds. He prays that those matters be also heard along with these matters. On going through the policy we prima facie find certain lacunae in the policy. Some of the issues have not been raised in the petitions which are before us but since we are concerned with the issue involving employment of a large number of teachers and also concerned with the issue that the teachers who are employed to teach the future generations are of the highest quality, we want to indicate certain reservations that this Court has with regard to this policy. Mr. AK Bhowmik states that he has challenged the policy on various grounds which similar to those which we have raised. Equality under law and are the cornerstones Constitution. All persons must be treated equally and any process of selection to be legally valid must be such where every person has an equal chance to be selected. The selection must just and fair. Equality under law and are the cornerstones Constitution. All persons must be treated equally and any process of selection to be legally valid must be such where every person has an equal chance to be selected. The selection must just and fair. The State may, therefore, take notice of the following points and if advised, may file another counter-affidavit with regard to the issues raised by us as hereunder: (1) Under Clause 1 of the policy where the age limit is provided there is another Clause which states that advantage shall be given while making appointment to those persons who are above 35 years of age in respect of general candidates and above 40 years of age in respect of reserved category candidates and that a minimum of 25% vacancies in a particular grade/ posts shall be filled in by such candidates. We are prima facie unable to understand how the State can make reservation on the basis of age. The State may, therefore, file an affidavit justifying its action and place material before this Court to show how such reservation/preferential treatment is permissible under law. (2) Clause 4 deals with employment to dependence of persons who die-in-harness. The State shall clearly inform us whether any fixed percentage of posts has been kept marked for this purpose or not. What is the policy being followed by the State for employment under the die-in-harness scheme? This matter shall also be placed before us. The Apex Court in a number of cases has held that the die-in-harness scheme is only meant to help those families which are placed in financially distressful situations and, therefore, some help has to be provided to such families to tide over the financial difficulties which they face due to the death of a family member who was in government employment. However, the die-in-harness scheme cannot become a source of employment to recruit people who are only the next of kin of the deceased government employees. The State may also clarify this issue. (3) Clause 5 of the policy provides preferential treatment for the wards of retired government servants and retrenched employees. It also provides preferential treatment to orphanages or P.I homes runs by the State Government or local bodies. The State shall inform this Court as to how this reservation/preferential treatment is permissible under the provisions of the Constitution. (3) Clause 5 of the policy provides preferential treatment for the wards of retired government servants and retrenched employees. It also provides preferential treatment to orphanages or P.I homes runs by the State Government or local bodies. The State shall inform this Court as to how this reservation/preferential treatment is permissible under the provisions of the Constitution. (4) Even with regard to Clause 7 relating to minorities it is not clear whether this Clause permits reservation or whether the State by means of this Clause wants to give a fixed percentage by reservation for the minorities. The State may also justify whether such reservation is permissible under law. (5) We are deeply perturbed that the policy gives no clear-cut directions as to how merit has to be assessed. Even if reservations are to be made such reservations cannot exceed 50% and amongst the different categories i.e. the reserved and the unreserved categories merit must prevail. Meritocracy cannot be given a total go by. Article 335 of the Constitution clearly lays down that even while considering the claims of the reservation of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates to service the reservation can only be consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of administration. In the present cases we are dealing with the appointment of 'teachers'. Unfortunately, teachers are not being given the respect they deserve in society. Teachers are the guiding beacons who will guide the future generations and ensure that our country goes into the hands of a generation which is well equipped to deal with all situations. In the case of teachers it is all the more important that merit is taken into consideration while appointing teachers. The second last Clause of the policy states that the appointment shall be made on the basis of seniority and need. It is stated in the policy that 70% of the vacancies shall be filled up on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and 30% on the basis of need. There are no guidelines in the policy as to how the seniority-cum- merit is to be assessed. Therefore, the State may inform us whether there were any executive instructions or guidelines issued to the interviewing authorities as to how the seniority-cum-merit is to be assessed. There are no guidelines in the policy as to how the seniority-cum- merit is to be assessed. Therefore, the State may inform us whether there were any executive instructions or guidelines issued to the interviewing authorities as to how the seniority-cum-merit is to be assessed. (6) As far as the 30% reservation on the basis of need is concerned we are prima facie of the opinion that the State will have to justify whether such reservation only on economic basis is permissible under the Constitution or not. (7) Clause 10 of the policy again gives another facet of reservation. It provides that the appointing authority should take necessary steps to ensure that appointments are not continued to persons of any particular area or areas and persons from all over the State get adequate coverage. The State will justify before us on affidavit as to whether such directions are constitutionally permissible or not. We are widening the scope of these writ petitions because a large number of writ petitions are involved and we are aware of the fact that these appointments are being made to the post of teachers whose importance we have already depicted hereinabove. Mr. A K Bhowmik, learned senior advocate, is requested to give a list of all the cases to the Court Master by Monday (13.01.2014) and thereafter the Court Master shall ensure that those cases are listed in Order Column on Wednesday (15.01.2014). Copies of this order be handed over to Mr. S M Chakraborty, learned counsel for the State. List on 1st March, 2014.” 41. The affidavit in response to the queries raised by us has been filed and we shall deal with these aspects later on. However, it is clear that challenge to the policy was made even in some of the petitions. As far as the petitions filed in the year 2014 in respect of primary school teachers are concerned, in almost all the petitions the revised employment policy has been challenged. In any event, since the Court has itself framed various points as mentioned hereinabove, the State cannot urge that the policy cannot be challenged in Court. LACK OF PLEADINGS WITH REGARD TO MARKS: 42. It is contended by Sri Sankar Deb, learned Sr. Counsel for the State, that there are no adequate pleadings with regard to challenge to the marks. In any event, since the Court has itself framed various points as mentioned hereinabove, the State cannot urge that the policy cannot be challenged in Court. LACK OF PLEADINGS WITH REGARD TO MARKS: 42. It is contended by Sri Sankar Deb, learned Sr. Counsel for the State, that there are no adequate pleadings with regard to challenge to the marks. It is alleged that the marks of the private respondents have not been given and, therefore, there is no material on record to show that the petitioners were more meritorious than the private respondents. It is submitted that in the absence of any clear cut pleadings in this behalf, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. In this behalf, reliance is placed by Sri Deb on the judgments of the Apex Court in AIR 1953 SC 235 , (2010) 11 SCC 557 , (2010) 12 SCC 419 , & (2012) 8 SCC 148 . 43. On the other hand, it is urged on behalf of the petitioners that there are adequate pleadings in most of the cases. On going through the pleadings, we find that the petitioners have in most of the cases set out their own marks in detail. They have also made an averment on affidavit that their marks are higher than those of the private respondents. In a few cases the marks obtained by the respondents have been set out. In a large number of cases, the petitioners have also stated that they applied under the Right to Information Act to get the marks of the private respondents, but the same were not supplied to them. Thereafter, they filed the petition making allegations in which they set out their marks and also stated that the selected candidates had lower marks than them. The private respondents in almost all cases have not filed reply. Even where they have filed reply, no specific reply has been given with regard to this contention. The State has chosen to keep totally silent and has not given the detailed marks of the selected candidates. In each and every case, where challenge in this behalf was made, the State in fairness to the petitioners should have stated the correct facts. The State has chosen to keep totally silent and has not given the detailed marks of the selected candidates. In each and every case, where challenge in this behalf was made, the State in fairness to the petitioners should have stated the correct facts. We are clearly of the opinion that the judgments relied upon by Sri Deb are not at all applicable to the facts of the case and that the petitioners had done the best they could have. No candidate can be expected to know the marks of the candidates who have been selected. The petitioners approached the authorities under the Right to Information Act. The information was denied to them. Some of the petitioners filed appeals and the State Information Commission passed long orders which virtually amounted to denying this information to the petitioners. They had to approach this Court quickly, which they did. The State did not file reply to the specific averment that the petitioners had better marks than the private respondents who did not file any reply. Now the State cannot be heard to urge that the pleadings are lacking in particulars. Non-joinder of parties: 44. Sri S M Chakraborty, learned senior counsel, has urged that since the members of the interview boards have not been made parties, the petitions should be rejected. This is a totally incomprehensible argument. The main challenge is to the lack of guidelines. It is not necessary to make the members of the interview board parties especially when no mala fides have been pleaded against them. Therefore, this argument cannot be accepted. THE REVISED EMPLOYMENT POLICY -- LACK OF GUIDELINES: 45. Before dealing with the specific challenges to each and every Clause of the policy, we may first deal with the question as to whether the employment policy gives adequate guidelines to the officials who are making selections pursuant to the said policy. We have quoted the policy in extenso herein-above. If we go through the policy and analyse it closely, we find that this revised employment policy can be interpreted in any manner whatsoever and vests the selection authority with very wide, unguided and unfettered discretion which amounts to grant of arbitrary powers to the selection committee. No norms have been laid down as to how the merit of a candidate is to be assessed. What is the weightage given to the marks obtained in the qualifying examination? No norms have been laid down as to how the merit of a candidate is to be assessed. What is the weightage given to the marks obtained in the qualifying examination? Is a person who has received only 35% marks in the qualifying examination to be treated equal to a person who may have obtained 90% marks in the qualifying examination? How are the marks to be divided by the interview board? Under what separate heads will the interview board grant marks to the individual candidates? How will the selection committee decide whether the dependents of a person who dies in harness should be given compassionate appointment or not? What is the meaning to be given to the words “due consideration” when dependents of a retired Government servant, retrenched employees and persons who are living in orphanages or P.L. Homes appear before the interview board? In what cases can the relaxation of upper age limit be granted to retrenched persons? How is preference in appointment to be given to the candidates belonging to Other Backward Communities when no reservation is provided for them? What are the guidelines which the selection committee must follow while giving adequate representation to persons belonging to linguistic and religious minorities? How and in what manner is weightage to be given to N.C.C. certificate holders and National Award Winners? Will a person who has represented India in a sport be treated equally to a person who has only represented the State of Tripura? How will the seniority-cum-merit be determined in terms of Clause (9) of the policy? Only seniority has been defined, but there is no definition of merit. Lastly, how are the appointing authorities to ensure that appointments are not confined to persons from particular area or areas and adequate representation is given to persons from all corners of the State? 46. All these questions remain unanswered in the policy. No guidelines have been produced before us to show how the merit is to be determined and, therefore, we are clearly of the view that the entire policy vests too much arbitrary power in the selection committee and the exercise of this power is fraught with subjectivity. No objective tests have been laid down and only on a subjective analysis the selections are to be made. 47. Sri B R Bhattacharjee urged that this Court should refrain from entertaining the petitions. No objective tests have been laid down and only on a subjective analysis the selections are to be made. 47. Sri B R Bhattacharjee urged that this Court should refrain from entertaining the petitions. He submitted that it is a policy matter falling within the domain of the State. We are unable to accept this argument because any policy of the State should also be constitutionally valid and every action of the State has to be tested on the touchstone of the Constitutional provisions especially Article 14 of the Constitution of India and in service matters also Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, the contention of Sri Bhattacharjee that this is a personal contract of service and no public interest is involved is without any force. We fail to understand how the State can even urge this point when the record shows that people who are much lower in merit have been selected. The manner in which the policy has been framed leaves much to be desired. The policy is patently illegal and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. On behalf of the State it has been urged that no prejudice has been pleaded. This argument has been made only to be rejected. The petitioners have in no uncertain terms pleaded that they are more meritorious than the selected candidates but have not been selected for extraneous grounds. This is clear case of prejudice being pleaded. 48. While framing any policy, the State must keep in mind the object which is to engage teachers of the best quality. Coming to the policy in hand, we find that the policy is so ambiguous and nebulous that it can be interpreted in any manner. There is too much discretion left with the interview board. Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The same principle can apply to unfettered and unguided discretion. To put it otherwise, 'discretion corrupts and absolute discretion corrupts absolutely'. There is, therefore, a need to ensure that the guidelines are made more clear-cut and well-defined so that the members of the interview board have some settled guidelines to follow while deciding the merit of the candidates. 49. The same principle can apply to unfettered and unguided discretion. To put it otherwise, 'discretion corrupts and absolute discretion corrupts absolutely'. There is, therefore, a need to ensure that the guidelines are made more clear-cut and well-defined so that the members of the interview board have some settled guidelines to follow while deciding the merit of the candidates. 49. In cases where selections are made only on the basis of an oral test, a heavy responsibility is cast on the examiners to maintain a proper record of the oral test in respect of each and every candidate. Marks must preferably be assigned to each candidate under different heads considered relevant to evaluate the suitability of the candidate for the job. The records should be maintained in such a manner that there is no room for suspicion in the minds of the unsuccessful candidates that the result of the oral viva-voce test is tainted with bias for and against any candidate because even slightest evidence in support of the charge of bias may result in upsetting the entire result of the oral test. In D. V. Bakshi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [ AIR 1993 SC 2374 ], the Apex Court held as follows:- “7............If an oral test is, therefore, a 'must' as in this case, a heavy responsibility is cast on the examiners to maintain a proper record of the oral test in respect of each candidate and marks must preferably be assigned under each head considered relevant to evaluate the candidate.... That is why we have said that a heavy responsibility lies on those examining the candidates at the interview to ensure that proper record is maintain so that there is no room for suspicion in the minds of the unsuccessful candidates that the result of the oral test is tainted with bias for or against any candidate because even light proof in support of the charge may upset the result of the oral test as a whole or qua a candidate, as the case may be.............” 50. In any selection process where interviews are conducted, persons of very high integrity, who are impartial and known to be competent in their field, should be made members of the selection committee. Clear and unambiguous guidelines should be given to them as to how marking is to be done. In any selection process where interviews are conducted, persons of very high integrity, who are impartial and known to be competent in their field, should be made members of the selection committee. Clear and unambiguous guidelines should be given to them as to how marking is to be done. Marks in an interview should be awarded under various heads to make the procedure objective and transparent. 51. We are dealing here with a case where the entire selection is based on an oral interview. Different interview boards comprising of different persons were carrying out interviews at different stations. There were no guidelines by the State as to how the performance of the candidates is to be assessed. What is the value to be given to the marks attained by the candidates in the qualifying examination? What is the value of the marks obtained by the candidate at a higher academic level? What marks should be granted for extracurricular activities and the nature of the extracurricular activities? The State must frame proper, articulate and clear guidelines laying down tangible and objective criteria on which marks are to be awarded under various heads. To give an example, supposing there are two candidates, one having 35% marks and one having 90%. Can the interview board select the person having 35% marks without even assessing the merit of the other candidate? We shall be making reference to the result sheets in detail at a later stage, but on going through the result sheets, we find that the interview boards have not even cared to mark the candidates. The interview boards have only graded the candidates in two different categories. The first category is 'seniority-cummerit' and the second category is 'need'. In these two categories, the candidates have been graded in first priority as 'A' and 'B' respectively and in the second priority as 'C' and 'D'. How is the merit or priority determined has not been explained by the State either in its reply or in the oral submissions? In a selection which is made only on the basis of oral interviews, that too by many different selection boards, the lack of any guidelines in this regard would mean that each interview board could adopt its own separate formula for assessing the worth of the candidates. This is totally subjective and not at all in consonance with law. In a selection which is made only on the basis of oral interviews, that too by many different selection boards, the lack of any guidelines in this regard would mean that each interview board could adopt its own separate formula for assessing the worth of the candidates. This is totally subjective and not at all in consonance with law. The Apex Court in a number of cases has held that clear and unambiguous guidelines should be given to the selection committee as to how marks are to be awarded in an interview. In the present case, there are no guidelines in the policy and, therefore, the policy must be held to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. PREFERENCE/RELAXATION IN FAVOUR OF THE OLDER CANDIDATES: 52. Unfortunately, in the State of Tripura, no primary school teachers were appointed from 1996 till 2013 i.e. 17 long years. Despite advertisements being issued time and again, no selections were made. Clause (1) of the policy provides that those who are 35 years or more in respect of general category and 40 years or more in respect of reserved category will be given preference and minimum 25% vacancies meant for direct recruitment shall be filled in by such candidates. Thus, 25% posts have virtually been reserved for persons who are in the higher age category. The petitioners have challenged this reservation on the ground that it is totally illegal and this classification of age has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. On the other hand, it is urged on behalf of the State by Sri B.C. Das, learned Advocate General, that this is not a reservation, but only an advantage given to those nearing the upper age limit. In the alternative, it is contended that it is a horizontal reservation. At the time of arguments, both the learned Advocate General and Sri B.R. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. Counsel for the State, urged that the fixation of age is a rational classification since those at the upper end of the age band would become ineligible for appointment and this may be their last chance for getting employment. At the time of arguments, both the learned Advocate General and Sri B.R. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. Counsel for the State, urged that the fixation of age is a rational classification since those at the upper end of the age band would become ineligible for appointment and this may be their last chance for getting employment. It was also urged that younger persons would have more opportunities to apply for the posts and get selected in later selections and, therefore, this classification is just and reasonable and the object is to help those who are nearing retirement 53. There can be no doubt that this classification may be deemed to be a reasonable classification. However, the question is whether this classification has any nexus with the final object to be achieved. The object of selecting teachers is to ensure that the most qualified and suitable teachers are selected. We have highlighted the importance of education and also the need to have competent and well qualified teachers. Even if the classification is reasonable, there must be some balance between merit and age. Before us, that balance is sought to be made out by urging that only those persons aged above 35 or 42 years were given preference who were equal in merit. If this was true, there could be no problem in upholding such a classification. If two people are equal in merit, then there is no harm in appointing the one who is senior in age. However, the policy does not say what is now being said by the State Government. Furthermore, the records of the recruitment which have been closely perused by us do not in any manner reflect this situation. What is professed by the State at the time of arguments is totally different to what has been practised at the time of selection. 54. There is nothing on the file to show how seniority and merit have been assessed. In the later part of the judgment, we shall be dealing with the manner in which the interviews were conducted which clearly reflects that candidates who were not only senior since they had passed the qualifying examination earlier, but also had higher merit have been graded lower by the interview board and the candidates who had passed the examination later and also had lesser marks were graded higher. 55. 55. The manner in which the policy has been framed gives unbridled, unguided and arbitrary power to the selection committee. On the one hand, the State alleges that the 25% vacancies in a particular grade post were to be filled up by those who are aged in the higher bracket but on the other hand, it is stated that this was being done on the basis of seniority-cummerit. The State has virtually reserved 25% seats for those who are in the upper age band. It is for the State to prescribe the age limits or criteria for a job. Once the State has prescribed the age limits, it cannot thereafter reserve 25% of the jobs for those in a particular age bracket. That has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Reservation on age basis, even otherwise, has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. To give an example in the category of Post Graduate Teachers. Supposing one candidate has a poor academic record and has passed his Post Graduation at the age of 36 with low marks. Why should such a candidate be given benefit of being appointed in the 25% reservation for those nearing the upper age limit in comparison to a young Teacher who may have attained the same qualification at the age of 22 or 23 years with much higher marks? We have found from the record that there was no scientific assessment of the seniority-cum-merit. No guidelines have been laid down how the seniority-cum-merit is to be determined and, therefore, this clause is held to be totally arbitrary, illegal and void. EMPLOYMENT TO DEPENDENTS OF PERSONS WHO DIE-IN-HARNESS: 56. As far as this part of the policy is concerned, it has been pointed out by the State that the State has a separate scheme for providing employment As far as this issue is concerned, this does not directly arise in the writ petitions since during the course of the impugned selections, no appointments were made under die-in-harness scheme. Therefore, we do not want to say anything further in the matter, but we would like to make it clear that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in a large number of cases, the die-in-harness scheme cannot become a source of recruitment. Therefore, we do not want to say anything further in the matter, but we would like to make it clear that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in a large number of cases, the die-in-harness scheme cannot become a source of recruitment. The die-in-harness schemes are framed only to give financial succour to the dependents of those employees who die leaving behind dependents who are in a financially disadvantageous position. Therefore, there is no need to have such a clause in the employment policy. DEPENDENTS OF RETIRED GOVT. SERVANTS ETC.: 57. Clause (5) of the policy states that due consideration will be given to the dependents of retired Govt. servants, retrenched employees and the persons who have been in orphanages or P.L. Homes run by the Government or local bodies. According to the State, though this clause is there in the policy, no employment was given to any person under this clause. We fail to understand why this clause should be retained in the policy if no selection is to be made under this clause. The State has failed to point out what is the meaning to be given to the words “due consideration will be given”. Does it mean that the dependents of retired Govt. servants etc. will get preference at the time of employment? There can be no preference or reservation for dependents of retired Govt. servants, In fact, the dependents of retired Govt. servants or serving Govt. servants are much better placed than those poor citizens of the State who have no member of the family working in the Government or in organised employment. The policy is totally ambiguous as to how and in what manner such preference is to be given. This is left totally to the discretion of the interview board. 58. Though according to the State no appointments have been made under the clause, in a large number of interview sheets, we have found that the members of the interview board have written in hand that the father/mother of the candidate is employed on a particular post as a Government servant or has retired and such candidates have been appointed though they are lower in merit. 59. If the format of the interview sheet is perused, there is a column in the format “whether any government servant in the family”. 59. If the format of the interview sheet is perused, there is a column in the format “whether any government servant in the family”. What was the idea of putting this column in the format? At many places, entry has been made in hand showing that a relation of the candidate is employed. In some cases, the candidates who are higher in merits, but their parents were government employees have not been graded in the first priority, but in some cases, the wards of government employees have been graded in the first priority even though the marks may not be very high. No system has been followed and we may clearly state that though there can be no preference to the family members of government employees, but at the same time they cannot also be put at a disadvantageous position. 60. The Apex Court in Yogender Pal Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [ (1987) 1 SCC 631 ], dealing with a rule which provided that sons of police officers would be given preferential right of appointment held as follows:- “17. While it may be permissible to appoint person who is the son of a police officer who dies in service or who is incapacitated while rendering service in the Police Department, a provision which confers a preferential right to appointment on the children or wards or other relatives of the police officers either in service or retired merely because they happen to be the children or wards or other relatives of such police officers would be contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution. Opportunity to get into public service should be extended to all the citizens equally and should not be confined to any extent to the descendants or relatives of a person already in the service of the State or who has retired from the service.” 61. In V. Sivamurthy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., [ (2008) 13 SCC 730 ] the Apex Court held as follows: “9. Article 16 of the Constitution bars discrimination in employment on the ground only of descent. In V. Sivamurthy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., [ (2008) 13 SCC 730 ] the Apex Court held as follows: “9. Article 16 of the Constitution bars discrimination in employment on the ground only of descent. If the service rules or any scheme of government provides that whenever a government servant retires from service, one of his dependants should be given employment in his place, or provides that children of government servants will have preference in employment, that would squarely fly in the face of prohibition on the ground of descent. Employment should not be hereditary or by succession.” Therefore, we hold that clause (5) of the policy is totally illegal and liable to be quashed. DEPENDENTS OF DECEASED & DISABLED DEFENCE PERSONNEL: 62. Clause (5)(a) states that dependents of Defence Personnel belonging to Tripura who have died or who have suffered 50% disability in military service shall be given priority in employment. The classification here is reasonable, but again how and in what manner is the priority to be given. Does priority mean that if two people are equal in merit, then the person belonging to this category will get preference? In how many posts will preference be given? Though the classification may be valid, the manner in which the classification is supposed to be implemented is again totally unguided and arbitrary discretion is given to the interview board. OTHER BACKWARD COMMUNITIES: 63. According to the respondents, no reservation is provided for Other Backward Communities in the State of Tripura. However, this clause states that persons belonging to Other Backward Communities shall be given preference as per instructions issued from time to time. We have been told at the Bar that no instructions in this regard have been issued. If no instructions have been issued, why is this clause in the policy? There can be reservation for OBCs, but this is a vertical reservation and the vertical reservation cannot exceed 50%. When there is no reservation for OBCs, the question of giving any preference or consideration at the time of appointment is totally illegal. LINGUISTIC AND RELIGIOUS MINORITIES: 64. The policy lays down that adequate representation shall be given to persons belonging to the linguistic and religious minorities. The words “linguistic and religious minorities” have not been defined. When there is no reservation for OBCs, the question of giving any preference or consideration at the time of appointment is totally illegal. LINGUISTIC AND RELIGIOUS MINORITIES: 64. The policy lays down that adequate representation shall be given to persons belonging to the linguistic and religious minorities. The words “linguistic and religious minorities” have not been defined. The clause also provides that one column should be incorporated in the application form to indicate the community to which the applicant concerned belongs to and also his/her mother tongue. The stand of the State is that no appointments have been made under this category. We are unable to appreciate this stand because then what is the purpose of making such a provision. On behalf of the State, Mr. B.R. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. Counsel, has argued that this provision was only for the purpose of finding out whether the minorities are adequately represented in the services and the particulars were to be given only with a view to find out what are the numbers of candidates belonging to linguistic and religious minorities who apply and how many are appointed. In our view, this submission is totally incorrect and without any basis because the clause reads that adequate representation of persons belonging to linguistic and religious minorities shall be taken into account at the time of selection. The learned counsel for the respondents, during the course of the arguments with a view to justify various clauses of the policy, have actually attempted to re-write the policy in a manner so that it would be consistent with law. This cannot be permitted. While making selections, the interview boards have been directed to ensure that representation is given to the linguistic and religious minorities. This is also the only purpose served by indicating the community and the language of the candidate. 65. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in V.N. Sunanda Reddy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, [(1995) (Suppl.) 2 SCC 235], wherein the Apex Court held that the Government order giving weightage to candidates who had been imparted instructions in the Telegu language did not stand the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and was declared to be invalid. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, [(1995) (Suppl.) 2 SCC 235], wherein the Apex Court held that the Government order giving weightage to candidates who had been imparted instructions in the Telegu language did not stand the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and was declared to be invalid. The Court held that the sub-classification of meritorious candidates into Telegu medium candidates and non-Telegu medium candidates insofar as graduation is concerned did not have any rational nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. 66. In Nair Service Society v. District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors., [ (2003) 12 SCC 10 ], the Apex Court held as follows:- “32. Clause (4) only permits reservation for 'backward classes of citizens' who are not, in the opinion of the State, adequately represented in the services of the State. It does not permit reservation for any person who does not belong to the category of 'backward classes', nor does it enable the State to reserve posts on communal lines.” The Apex Court in the aforesaid case clearly stated that the Constitution does not permit reservation of posts on communal lines. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the clause which permits adequate representation to be given to linguistic and religious minorities is totally unconstitutional and is liable to be struck down. WEIGHTAGE TO NCC CERTIFICATE HOLDERS AND NATIONAL AWARD WINNERS: 67. We are of the view that the classification may be reasonable as preference/weightage can always be given to N.C.C. certificate holders and National Award Winners. However, the policy which governs all departments only states that this preference shall be given especially in Police, Fire Service, Jail and other similar Organizations. It is also mentioned that preference shall be given to winners of National Awards in the field of Education and Sports. Again the policy is totally bereft of any specific guidelines. Does preference mean that if two people are of equal merit, then the N.C.C., 'B' or 'C' certificate holder will be chosen above the other? If a person has represented the National team in sports, what is the extent of preference or weightage to be given to him? How many marks should be added to his score? The policy again does not lay any guidelines and leaves everything to the discretion of the interview board. SENIORITY-CUM-MERIT: 68. If a person has represented the National team in sports, what is the extent of preference or weightage to be given to him? How many marks should be added to his score? The policy again does not lay any guidelines and leaves everything to the discretion of the interview board. SENIORITY-CUM-MERIT: 68. This is the most contentious clause of the policy. This clause provides that 70% of the vacancies shall be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and 30% on the basis of need. The term “Seniority” has been defined to be the length of time for which a person has been waiting for employment with reference to the year he passed the examination for the essential qualifications for that post. We have earlier referred to clause (1) of the policy which provides that 25% seats shall be filled in from persons who are nearing the age of retirement. Now, here there is another clause which lays down that the 70% vacancies shall be filled in on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Therefore, virtually 95% seats will be filled up on the basis of seniority. That cannot be the object of any policy for recruitment of teachers. Keeping in view the need to have good teachers, merit must play an important role. Merit cannot be sacrificed at the alter of seniority alone. We are dealing here with the future of the children of the State of Tripura. They have a fundamental and human right to be taught by well qualified, competent and dedicated teachers. The right of these students cannot be taken away by appointing persons only on the basis of seniority, and not on merit. 69. The policy does not even lay down how the seniority-cum- merit is to be determined. The policy, no doubt, defines the term ' Seniority', but how is merit to be determined. To give an example, supposing an interview is held in the year 2014 for a post for which the minimum qualification is graduation. One candidate may have graduated in the year 2000 with 35% marks and the other candidate may have graduated in the year 2003 with 70% marks. How will the seniority-cum-merit be determined? The policy is totally silent in this regard and again no guidelines have been laid. There is nothing to show what marks are to be allotted for seniority and what percentage for the academic qualifications. How will the seniority-cum-merit be determined? The policy is totally silent in this regard and again no guidelines have been laid. There is nothing to show what marks are to be allotted for seniority and what percentage for the academic qualifications. We have also gone through the records in detail and from the records, we find that in almost all cases there is no systematic approach and persons who had passed the qualifying examination earlier with higher marks have been graded below persons who had passed the qualifying examination later, that too with lower marks. NEED: 70. This is another contentious issue raised in the petitions. According to the petitioners, the Constitution of India does not permit any reservation on economic basis. The stand of the State is that with a view to uplift the people who are below the poverty line it reserved 30% seats for such people. It is argued that this is horizontal reservation and does not amount to vertical reservation, hi support of its contention, the State has also urged that the idea of “creamy layer” in respect of OBC is also based on economic grounds and, therefore, preference could be given to the weaker sections. Therefore, the State has justified the reservation of 30% seats for those who are below the poverty line. 71. In Triloki Nath Tika & Anr. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., [ AIR 1969 SC 1 ] the Apex Court held as follows : “4. Article 16 in the first instance by Cl. (2) prohibits discrimination on the ground, inter alia, of religion, race, caste, place of birth, residence and permits an exception to be made in the matter of reservation in favour of backward classes of citizens. The expression “backward class” is not used as synonymous with “backward caste” or “backward community”. The members of an entire caste or community may in the social, economic and educational scale of values at a given time be backward and may on that account be treated as a backward class, but that is not because they are members of a caste or community, but because they form a class. The members of an entire caste or community may in the social, economic and educational scale of values at a given time be backward and may on that account be treated as a backward class, but that is not because they are members of a caste or community, but because they form a class. In its ordinary connotation the expression “class” means a homogenous section of the people grouped together because of certain likenesses or common traits, and who are identifiable by some common attributes such as status, rank, occupation, residence in a locality, race, religion and the like. But for the purpose of Art 16 (4) in determining whether a section forms a class, a test solely based on caste, community, race, religion, sex, descent, place of birth or residence cannot be adopted, because it would directly offend the Constitution.” 72. As far as economic criteria is concerned, the law is very well settled that there can be no reservation only on economic basis. In this behalf, reference may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India & Ors., [1992 (Suppl.) 3 SCC 217]. The Apex Court considered what is the concept of backward classes and whether the definition of backwards classes could bring in its ambit those persons who are the poorest of the poor. The Apex Court held as follows:- “Question 2(b): Whether Article 16(4) is exhaustive of the concept of reservations in favour of backward classes? 743. The question then arises whether Clause (4) of Article 16 is exhaustive of the topic of reservations in favour of backward classes. Before we answer this question it is well to examine the meaning and content of the expression “reservation”. Its meaning has to be ascertained having regard to the context in which it occurs. The relevant words are “any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts.” The question is whether the said words contemplate only one form of provision namely reservation simplicitor, or do they take in other forms of special provisions like preferences, concessions and exemptions. In our opinion, reservation is the highest form of special provision, while preference, concession and exemption are lesser forms. In our opinion, reservation is the highest form of special provision, while preference, concession and exemption are lesser forms. The Constitutional scheme and context of Article 16(4) induces us to take the view that larger concept of reservations takes within its sweep all supplemental and ancillary provisions as also lesser types of special provisions like exemptions, concessions and relaxations, consistent no doubt with the requirement of maintenance of efficiency of administration - the admonition of Article 335. Question 2(c): Whether Article 16(4) is exhaustive of the very concept of reservations? 744. The aspect next to be considered is whether Clause (4) is exhaustive of the very concept of reservations? In other words, the question is whether any reservations can be provided outside Clause (4) i.e., under Clause (1) of Article 16. There are two views on this aspect. On a fuller consideration of the matter, we are of the opinion that Clause (4) is not, and cannot be held to be, exhaustive of the concept of reservations; it is exhaustive of reservations in favour of backward classes alone. Merely because, one form of classification is stated as a specific clause, it does not follow that the very concept and power of classification implicit in Clause (1) is exhausted thereby. To say so would not be correct in principle. But, at the same time, one thing is clear. It is in very exceptional situations, and not for all and sundry reasons - that any further reservations, of whatever kind, should be provided under Clause (1). In such cases, the State has to satisfy, if called upon, that making such a provision was necessary (in public interest) to redress a specific situation. The very presence of Clause (4) should act as a damper upon the propensity to create further classes deserving special treatment. The reason for saying so is very simply. If reservations are made both under Clause (4) as well as under Clause (1), the vacancies available for free competition as well as reserved categories would be correspondingly whittled down and that is not a reasonable thing to do. Whether Clause (1) of Article 16 does not permit any reservations? 745. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs we must reject the argument that Clause (1) of Article 16 permits only extending of preferences, concessions and exemptions, but does not permit reservation of appointments/posts. Whether Clause (1) of Article 16 does not permit any reservations? 745. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs we must reject the argument that Clause (1) of Article 16 permits only extending of preferences, concessions and exemptions, but does not permit reservation of appointments/posts. As pointed out in para (54) the argument that no reservations can be made under Article 16(1) is really inspired by the opinion of Powell, J. in Bakke. But in the very same paragraph we had pointed out that it is not the unanimous opinion of the Court. In principle, we see no basis for acceding to the said contention. What kind of special provision should be made in favour of a particular class is a matter for the State to decide, having regard to the facts and circumstances of a given situation -subject, of course, to the observations in the preceding paragraph.” 73. It would be pertinent to mention here that the expression “backward classes” used in Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India was the subject matter of a number of decisions and finally the nine Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney's case resolved the entire disputes and laid down the law in this regard. Some of the pertinent observations of the Apex Court are as follows :- “779. The above material makes it amply clear that a caste is nothing but a social class - a socially homogeneous class. It is also an occupational grouping, with this difference that its membership is hereditary. One is born into it. Its membership is involuntary. Even if one ceases to follow that occupation, still he remains and continues a member of that group. To repeat, it is a socially and occupationally homogenous class. Endogamy is its main characteristic. Its social status and standing depends upon the nature of the occupation followed by it. Lowlier the occupation, lowlier the social standing of the class in the graded hierarchy. In rural India, occupation-caste nexus is true even today. A few members may have gone to cities or even abroad but when they return -they do, barring a few exceptions they go into the same fold again. It doesn't matter if he has earned money. He may not follow that particular occupation. Still, the label remains. His identity is not changed. A few members may have gone to cities or even abroad but when they return -they do, barring a few exceptions they go into the same fold again. It doesn't matter if he has earned money. He may not follow that particular occupation. Still, the label remains. His identity is not changed. For the purposes of marriage, death and all other social functions, it is his social class - the caste - that is relevant. It is a matter of common knowledge that an overwhelming majority of doctors, engineers and other highly qualified people who go abroad for higher studies or employment, return to India and marry a girl from their own caste. Even those who are settled abroad come to India in search of brides and bridegrooms for their sons and daughters from among their own caste or community. As observed by Dr. Ambedkar, a caste is an enclosed class and it was mainly these classes the Constituent Assembly had in mind though not exclusively - while enacting Article 16(4). Urbanisation has to some extent broken this caste- occupation nexus but not wholly. If one sees around himself, even in towns and cities, a barber by caste continues to do the same job - may be, in a shop (hair dressing saloon). A washerman ordinarily carries on the same job though he may have a laundry of his own. May be some others too carry on the profession of barber or washerman but that does not detract from the fact that in the case of an overwhelming majority, the caste-occupation nexus subsists. In a rural context, of course, a member of barber caste carrying on the occupation of a washerman or vice versa would indeed be a rarity - it is simply not done. There, one is supposed to follow his caste occupation, ordained for him by his birth. There may be exceptions here and there, but we are concerned with generality of the scene and not with exceptions or aberrations. Lowly occupation results not only in low social position but also in poverty; it generates poverty. 'Caste-occupation-poverty' cycle is thus an ever present reality. In rural India, it is strikingly apparent; in urban centers, there may be some dilution. But since rural India and rural population is still the overwhelmingly predominant fact of life in India, the reality remains. Lowly occupation results not only in low social position but also in poverty; it generates poverty. 'Caste-occupation-poverty' cycle is thus an ever present reality. In rural India, it is strikingly apparent; in urban centers, there may be some dilution. But since rural India and rural population is still the overwhelmingly predominant fact of life in India, the reality remains. All the decisions since Balaji speak of this 'caste-occupation-poverty' nexus. The language and emphasis may very but the theme remains the same. This is the stark reality notwithstanding all our protestations and abhorrence and all attempts at weeding out this phenomenon.” 74. Dealing with the issue of identification of backward classes, the Court held as follows:- “782. Coming back to the question of identification, the fact remains that one has to begin somewhere - with some group, class or section. There is no set or recognised method. There is no law or other statutory instrument prescribing the methodology. The ultimate idea is to survey the entire populace. If so, one can well begin with castes, which represent explicit identifiable social classes/groupings, more particularly when Article 16(4) seeks to ameliorate social backwardness. What is unconstitutional with it, more so when caste, occupation, poverty and social backwardness are so closely inter-twined in our society? [Individual survey is out of question, since Article 16(4) speaks of class protection and not individual protection]. This does not mean that one can wind up the process of identification with the castes. Besides castes (whether found among Hindus or others) there may be other communities, groups, classes and denominations which may qualify as backward class of citizens. For example, in a particular State, Muslim community as a whole may be found socially backward. (As a matter of fact, they are so treated in the State of Karnataka as well as in the State of Kerala by their respective State Governments). Similarly, certain sections and denominations among Christians in Kerala who were included among backward communities notified in the former princely State of Travancore as far back as in 1935 may also be surveyed and soon and so forth. Any authority entrusted with the task of identifying backward classes may well start with the castes. It can take caste 'A', apply the criteria of backwardness evolved by it to that caste and determine whether it qualifies as a backward class or not. Any authority entrusted with the task of identifying backward classes may well start with the castes. It can take caste 'A', apply the criteria of backwardness evolved by it to that caste and determine whether it qualifies as a backward class or not. If it does qualify, what emerges is a backward class, for the purposes of Clause (4) of Article 16. The concept of 'caste' in this behalf is not confined to castes among Hindus. It extends to castes, wherever they obtain as a fact, irrespective of religious sanction for such practice. Having exhausted the castes or simultaneously with it, the authority may take up for consideration other occupational groups, communities and classes. For example, it may take up the Muslim community (After excluding those sections, castes and groups, if any, who have already been considered) and find out whether it can be characterised as a backward class in that State or region, as the case may be. The approach may differ from State to State since the conditions in each State may differ. Nay, even within a State, conditions may differ from region to region. Similarly, Christians may also be considered. If in a given place, like Kerala, there are several denominations, sections or divisions, each of these groups may separately be considered. In this manner, all the classes among the populace will be covered and that is the central idea. The effort should be to consider all the available groups, sections and classes of society in whichever order one proceeds. Since caste represents an existing, identifiable, social group spread over an overwhelming majority of the country's population, we say one may well begin with castes, if one so chooses, and then go to other groups, sections and classes. We may say, at this stage, that we broadly commend the approach and methodology adopted by Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy Commission in this respect. xxx xxx xxx xxx 788. Further, if one keeps in mind the context in which Article 16(4) was enacted it would be clear that the accent was upon social backwardness. It goes without saying that in Indian context, social backwardness leads to educational backwardness and both of them together lead to poverty which in turn breeds and perpetuates the social and educational backwardness. They feed upon each other constituting a vicious circle.” 75. It goes without saying that in Indian context, social backwardness leads to educational backwardness and both of them together lead to poverty which in turn breeds and perpetuates the social and educational backwardness. They feed upon each other constituting a vicious circle.” 75. On the issue as to whether backward classes could be identified only and exclusively with reference to the economic criteria, the Apex Court clearly held that this could not be done. Reference may be made to para-799 of the judgment wherein the Apex Court held as foliows:- “Question 4: (a) Whether backward classes can be identified only and exclusively with reference to the economic criterion: 799. It follow from the discussion under Question No. 3 that a backward class cannot be determined only and exclusively with reference to economic criterion. It may be a consideration or basis along with and in addition to social backwardness, but it can never be the sole criterion. This is the view uniformly taken by this Court and we respectfully agree with the same. (b) Whether a backward class can be identified on the basis of occupation-cum-income without reference to caste? 800. In Chitralekha, this Court held that such an identification is permissible. We see no reason to differ with the said view inasmuch as this is but another method to find socially backward classes. Indeed, this test in the Indian context is broadly the same as the one adopted by the Mandal Commission. While answering Question 3(b), we said that identification of backward classes can be done with reference to castes along with other occupational groups, communities and classes. We did not say that that is the only permissible method. Indeed, there may be some groups or classes in whose case caste may not be relevant to all. For example, agricultural labourers, Rickshaw pullers/ drivers, streethawkers etc. may well qualify for being designated as Backward Classes.” 76. It is thus obvious that for a class of citizens to be declared as a backward class, it must be socially backward. Identification of backward classes can be done with reference to caste, their occupation and even income relatable to such castes or occupation. However, there can be no identification of backward classes of citizens only and exclusively with reference to economic criteria. 77. Identification of backward classes can be done with reference to caste, their occupation and even income relatable to such castes or occupation. However, there can be no identification of backward classes of citizens only and exclusively with reference to economic criteria. 77. Reliance has been placed by the learned Advocate General on the judgment of the Apex Court in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Anr., [ (2012) 6 SCC 1 ], wherein reservation of 25% for admission in Class I based on economic or financial backwardness was upheld. We are of the view that this judgment has no applicability to the facts of the present case. The Apex Court was dealing with a matter where private unaided schools had challenged the provisions of the Right to Education Act whereby 25% seats in private schools were reserved for the poor people on the basis of economic or financial backwardness. The Court was dealing with the provisions of Article 15(4), and not 16(4). The Court was also concerned with Article 21A which gives right of education to children up to the age of 14. It is in this context that the Apex Court upheld the validity of the Act. The Apex Court, however, did not in any manner dilute the law with regard to identification of backward classes only on the basis of economic criteria as laid down in Indra Sawhney's case. 78. Faced with this situation, learned Advocate General and Sri B.R. Bhattacharjee submitted that those citizens who are below the poverty line form a class of citizens who are so poor that they can be presumed to be socially backward also. 79. We are afraid that such contention cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court. The State in its reply has given no justification except saying that the idea was to help the poorest of the poor. We are not going into the question as to whether such idea is good or bad. We are only to see whether such reservation is permissible under the Constitution or not. The State in its reply has given no justification except saying that the idea was to help the poorest of the poor. We are not going into the question as to whether such idea is good or bad. We are only to see whether such reservation is permissible under the Constitution or not. As the Constitution stands today and in view of the law laid down in Indra Sawhney's case, there can be no reservation only on economic basis and as such, we have no hesitation in holding that the 30% reservation on need basis is totally unconstitutional and is accordingly set aside. 80. Sri Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioners, has urged that even with regard to the identification of BPL families, the State has not laid down any criteria. He has urged that right from the year 2001 when the BPL scheme was introduced till 2011, no scheme was framed in the State of Tripura for identification of the BPL families. He has drawn our attention to the notification dated 11.10.2001 issued by the Government of Tripura whereby the BPL scheme as notified by the Government of India was published in the gazette and accepted by the State of Tripura. In the scheme as it was originally published on 31.08.2001, “Antyodaya families” were meant to be those poorest families from amongst Below Poverty Line families identified by the State Governments and entitled to receive foodgrain under the Antyodaya Anna Yojana. With regard to the identification of these families living below poverty line, the directions given by the Union of India was that the State Government shall identify families living below poverty line as per para-1 of the annexure to the scheme which reads as follows:- “(1) State Governments shall formulate suitable guidelines for the purpose of identification of families living Below the Poverty Line (BPL), including the Antyodaya families, as per the estimates adopted by the Central Government. Care will be taken to ensure that the families so identified are really the poorest. The exercise of identification of BPL and Antyodaya families, wherever it has not been done already, shall be completed within three months of the issue of this Order.” 81. Thus, the State was to formulate the guidelines for identification of families living below the poverty line. Sri Arijit Bhowmik has contended that no guidelines were framed by the State till the year 2011. Thus, the State was to formulate the guidelines for identification of families living below the poverty line. Sri Arijit Bhowmik has contended that no guidelines were framed by the State till the year 2011. In the year 2011, the Tripura Public Distribution System (Licensing and Control) Order, 2011 was notified and in Clause 2(g) of the Order, BPL families have been defined as follows:- “2(g). “Below Poverty Line Families” means those families who have been identified by Rural Development or Panchayat Department or Urban Development Department and or any other local Government body and accordingly issued with BPL Cards by the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department for issue of food grains at specially subsidized rates adopting the estimates of Poverty given by the Central Government.” 82. With regard to identification of the BPL families, Clause (3) reads as follows:- “3. Identification of families Living under Poverty Line:- Rural Development or Panchayat Department or Urban Development Department and or any other local Government body or as defined or decided by the Government, as the case may be, shall identify families living below poverty line in rural areas and urban areas respectively.” 83. We are in this case not dealing with the BPL issue, but we find that there is no guideline laid down as to what is the criteria to be followed to declare a family to be below the poverty line. Till 2011, there were no instructions and it has been urged before us that the BPL cards were issued only on the recommendations of the members/Pradhans of the Gram Panchayats, MLAs and other political functionaries. As we have stated above, we are not concerned in this case with distribution of food, but if any economic income criteria has to be taken into consideration while reserving jobs or giving preference to the poorest of the poor, there must be clear-cut guidelines as to how the income of such families has to be determined, hi the absence of any guidelines, it is apparent that these BPL family cards will be issued only to those who have the right “connections”. This cannot be the purpose of any such scheme. This cannot be the purpose of any such scheme. The State must lay down clear-cut objective guidelines stating what shall be the upper income limit for a family to be declared to be living below the poverty line and furthermore, there must be an independent body totally free from political bias which should determine the income of the families. We are in agreement with Sri Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioners that since there is no laid down criteria, even preference to such persons cannot be given. COVERAGE: 84. Clause (10) of the policy provides that the appointing authority should take necessary steps to ensure that appointments are not confined to persons from any particular area or areas and persons from all corners of the State get adequate coverage. This clause, in our view, is totally illegal. All residents of the State are equal and only by virtue of residence of a person at one place or the other, he or she cannot get preferential appointment. ZONE WISE SELECTION: 85. Learned counsel for the petitioners have urged that though the advertisements were issued inviting applications for filling up the posts of teachers throughout the State of Tripura, the selection was done zone wise. The candidates were invited for interviews as per the residence shown in the application. It is further alleged that the results of all the interview boards were never collated together. It is, therefore, urged that the merit could not be properly determined. Learned counsel for the petitioners have urged that when separate interview boards take interviews and award marks or grades, each interview board has its own method or system of grading, especially in view of the fact that there are no proper guidelines laid down. Therefore, people who may be much more meritorious but have appeared before a strict interview board may not be graded as well as less meritorious candidates who may have appeared before a interview board where the members were more liberal. It is also urged that this could result in an inequitable situation where more meritorious candidates who may be competing against each other would be left out because in some remote or rural sub-division only less meritorious candidates may have applied. It is also urged that this could result in an inequitable situation where more meritorious candidates who may be competing against each other would be left out because in some remote or rural sub-division only less meritorious candidates may have applied. The petitioners urge that in order to do true justice, all the result sheets should have been collated and thereafter a common seniority list on the basis of merit should have been prepared. The stand of the State is that the vacant posts were allocated sub-division wise in accordance with a well thought out formula and this was done with a view to have uniform representation from all corners of the State. It is, however, submitted that this does not amount to area wise reservation. 86. Learned counsel for the parties relied upon a number of judgments. In P Rajendran v. State of Madras, [ AIR 1968 SC 1012 ] the Apex Court held as follows: “11...............It is true that Article 14 does not forbid classification, but the classification has to be justified on the basis of the nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved, even assuming that territorial classification may be a reasonable classification. The fact however that the classification by itself is reasonable is not enough to support it unless there is nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved. Therefore, as the object to be achieved in a case of the kind with which we are concerned is to get the best talent for admission to professional colleges the allocation of seats district wise has no reasonable relation with the object to be achieved. If anything, such allocation will result in many cases in the object being destroyed, and if that is so, the classification, even if reasonable, would result in discrimination, inasmuch as better qualified candidates from one district may be rejected while less qualified candidates from other districts may be admitted from either of the two sources. 13.................We are therefore of opinion that allocation of seats on districtwise basis is violative of Article 14. We may add that we do not mean to say that territorial classification is always bad under all circumstances. 13.................We are therefore of opinion that allocation of seats on districtwise basis is violative of Article 14. We may add that we do not mean to say that territorial classification is always bad under all circumstances. But there is no doubt that districtwise classification which is being justified on a territorial basis in these cases is violative of Article 14, for no justification worth the name in support of the classification has been made out. We therefore hold that R. 8 providing for district wise allocation is bad, as it violates Article 14 and we hereby strike it down. “ 87. In Radhey Shyam Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [(1997) 1SCC 60] the Apex Court held as follows: “8. It is needless to emphasis that the purpose and object behind holding a recruitment examination is to select suitable and best candidates out of the lot and such an object can only be achieved by making a common select list of the successful candidates belonging to all the zones. On the other hand if zone wise selection is made then various candidates who appeared in some of the zones and secured more marks that those who are selected from other zones would he deprived of their selection resulting into great injustice and consequent discriminations. Thus there can be said to exist no nexus between the aforesaid process of zone-wise selection and the object to be achieved, that is, the selection of the best candidates. That being so the process of selection as envisaged in paragraph 16 of the advertisement in question and reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment would lead to discriminatory results because by adopting the said process of zone-wise selection would result in the devaluation of merit at the selection examination by selecting a candidate having lesser marks over the meritorious candidate who has secured more marks and consequently the rule of equal chance for equal marks would be violated. Such a process would not only be against the principles enunciated in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution but it would also result in heart burning and frustration amongst the young men of the country. Such a process would not only be against the principles enunciated in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution but it would also result in heart burning and frustration amongst the young men of the country. The rule of equality of opportunity for every individual in the country is an inalienable part of our constitutional guarantee and that being so a candidate who secured more marks than another is definitely entitled to get preference for the job as the merit must be the test when selecting a candidate for recruitment for the posts which are advertised. In the present case admittedly the process of selection as envisaged in paragraph 16 of the advertisement in question is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it has been demonstrated from the marks list of the appellants placed before us at the Bar during the course of arguments that they had secured more marks that those secured by some of the selected candidates.” 88. In V N Sunanda Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors., [(1995) Supp (2) SCC 235] the Apex Court held as follows: “13......................The aforesaid sub-classification of meritorious candidates into Telugu medium candidates and non-Telugu medium candidates insofar as their graduation is concerned, does not have any rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved thereby. If the object is to have proficiency in Telugu language which is the official language of the State, it has to be kept in view that even those candidates who have studied in non- Telugu medium like English or Hindi at graduation level also have, to pass in one compulsory paper of Telugu.” 89. In Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [ (2002)6 SCC 562 ] the Apex Court held as follows: “13................Attempts to prefer candidates of a local area in the state were nipped in the bud by this Court since long past. We would like to reiterate that residence by itself- be it be within a state, region, district or lesser area within a district cannot be a ground to accord preferential treatment or reservation, save as provided in Article 16(3). It is not possible to compartmentalize the state into districts with a view to offer employment to the residents of that district on a preferential basis. At this juncture it is appropriate to undertake a brief analysis of Article 16. It is not possible to compartmentalize the state into districts with a view to offer employment to the residents of that district on a preferential basis. At this juncture it is appropriate to undertake a brief analysis of Article 16. 17. We may, however, advert to one recent decision wherein the view taken in Rajendran's case (supra) was reiterated. In Govind A. Mane v. State of Maharashtra, it was laid down. 'Since it is not disputed by the respondents that for the purpose of admission to B.Ed course, seats were distributed district wise without indicating any material to show the nexus between such distribution and the object sought to be achieved, it would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.' The lack of material to establish nexus between the geographical classification and the object sought to be achieved thereby was thus held to be violative of Article 14. 19.................Prohibition of discrimination on the basis of place of residence in the context of public employment is an additional factor which makes it well nigh impossible to accept the above plea. 27................As far as public employment is concerned, the classification on the basis of residence in a region or locality was broadly held to be constitutionally impermissible. Moreover, the preferential treatment of rural candidates in the instant case is not on the ground that they hail from the backward region. All or most of the villages in the district or the state cannot be presumed to be backward educationally or economically. ........... 34. One more serious infirmity in the impugned circular is that it does not spell out any criteria or indicia for determining whether the applicant is a resident of rural area. Everything is left bald with the potential of giving rise to varying interpretations thereby defeating the apparent objective of the rule. On matters such as duration of residence, place of schooling etc., there are bound to be controversies. The authorities, who are competent to issue residential certificates, are left to apply the criteria according to their thinking, which can by no means be uniform. The decision in the State of Maharashtra v. Raj Kumar is illustrative of the problem created by vague or irrelevant criteria. The authorities, who are competent to issue residential certificates, are left to apply the criteria according to their thinking, which can by no means be uniform. The decision in the State of Maharashtra v. Raj Kumar is illustrative of the problem created by vague or irrelevant criteria. In that case a rule was made by the state of Maharashtra that a candidate will be, considered a rural candidate if he had passed SSC examination held from a village or a town having only 'C type municipality. The object of the rule, as noticed by this Court, was to appoint candidates having full knowledge of rural life so that they would be more suitable for working as officers in rural areas. The rule was struck down on the ground that there was no nexus between classification made and the object sought to be achieved because “as the rule stands, any person who may not have lived in a village at all can appear for SSC examination from a village and yet become eligible for selection”. The rule was held to be violative of Article 14 and 16. When no guidance at all is discernible from the impugned circular as to the identification of the residence of the applicants especially having regard to the indefinite nature of the concept of residence, the provision giving the benefit of bonus marks to the rural residents will fall foul of Article 14. 48. Another parting observation. While we realize the need to generate better employment opportunities to the people of rural backward areas and an affirmative action in this regard is not ruled out, any such action should be within the framework of constitutional provisions relating to equality. Equalising unequals by taking note of their handicaps and limitations is not impermissible under the Constitution provided that it seeks to achieve the goal of promoting overall equality. However, measures taken by the state on considerations of localism are not sanctioned by the constitutional mandate of equality. As indicated in the judgment, any attempt at giving weightage to the rural candidates should be backed up by scientific study and considerations germane to constitutional guarantee of equality.” 90. In Balbir Kaur & Anr. v. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad & Ors., [ (2008) 12 SCC 1 ], the Apex Court held as follows: “45. In our view, the said contention is also not well-founded. In Balbir Kaur & Anr. v. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad & Ors., [ (2008) 12 SCC 1 ], the Apex Court held as follows: “45. In our view, the said contention is also not well-founded. There is no warrant for accepting as a general proposition that a region wise or district wise selection is per se violative of equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It would be discriminatory only when the person, who alleges discrimination, demonstrates certain appreciable disadvantages, qua similarly situated persons, which he would not have faced but for the impugned State action. Therefore, the onus was on the writ petitioners to show by cogent material that by resorting to region wise selection, they were placed in some disadvantageous position as compared to their counterparts or that in this process merit was the casualty. 46. In the present case, neither Section 10 of the Principal Act nor any other statutory provision forbids region wise selection. Besides, no restriction was imposed upon the candidates insofar as their choice for the regions was concerned. An eligible candidate could apply in any of the regions and his application was to be considered in accordance with the Rules. It has neither been pleaded nor can it be held that the right of any eligible candidate to apply in a particular zone was curtailed or that an equal opportunity to compete had been denied to the respondents. It is not even the case of the respondents that a less meritorious candidate has been selected on account of region wise selection. 47. The ratio of the decisions, relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents is not attracted to the facts of the present case. In the aforenoted decisions, zone wise, district wise and unit wise allocation of seats and/or preparation of separate merit list for each zone in respect of candidates who appeared at the centres within the same zone were held to be discriminatory on the ground that by resorting to these procedures, the objective of selecting the best possible candidates was defeated. In all these cases, the petitioners had successfully demonstrated that as a result of zone wise or district wise allocations, more meritorious candidates were denied admissions/ employment and candidates with low merit were selected, which is not the case here.” 91. In all these cases, the petitioners had successfully demonstrated that as a result of zone wise or district wise allocations, more meritorious candidates were denied admissions/ employment and candidates with low merit were selected, which is not the case here.” 91. Much reliance has been placed by the counsel for the State on the judgment in Balbir Kaur's case. However, the facts of that case are totally different. In that case, the posts were divided region wise at the time of advertisement and the candidates were free to apply for any region. We may also note that as far as the present cases are concerned, in the advertisements there was no indication that the selection was to be division wise or region wise and, therefore, this judgment has no applicability to the facts of the case and the earlier judgments prohibiting region wise selection are more apposite. 92. In view of the aforesaid law of the Apex Court, it is more than clear that the State has the power to divide the seats in different divisions. However, if it does so, this must be reflected in the advertisement itself so that the candidates are free to apply in the sub-division/division in which they want to work. The rules of the game cannot be changed after the advertisement has been issued. The advertisement invited applications for posts all over the State. Thereafter the State could not have allocated the posts sub-division wise. 93. We are not oblivious to the hard fact that it would be impossible for one interview board to interview lakhs of candidates. Therefore, we feel that it would be better to have a written test. However, when no guidelines have been laid down as to how grading has to be done, each member of the interview board would follow his own method. A candidate who may get a score of 9 out of 10 from one member may score poorly before another. Therefore, to ensure equality amongst candidates, it would be necessary to collate the results of all the interview boards. If after collating the results, it is found that some interview board has awarded excessively high marks consistently or that some have been unduly strict, some moderation can also be done, but this moderation should be done on scientific lines. Therefore, to ensure equality amongst candidates, it would be necessary to collate the results of all the interview boards. If after collating the results, it is found that some interview board has awarded excessively high marks consistently or that some have been unduly strict, some moderation can also be done, but this moderation should be done on scientific lines. Whether moderation is done or not when posts have been advertised for the entire State, then the combined merit list from all the merit lists must be prepared. 94. In Balbir Kaur's case relied upon by the State in the advertisement that was issued, it was clearly stated that the selection would be zone wise. If there is a divisional or district cadre of posts, then they can be filled in by zone wise selection. If the cadre is a State cadre and the State feels that adequate representation should be given, then in the advertisement itself the posts should be clearly earmarked and the candidate should know how many posts fall in which sub-division and then the candidate will have the option of choosing the sub-division of his choice. In the present case, the zone wise selection is totally unscientific and having been not indicated in the advertisement and no option having been given to the candidates, the same is totally illegal and liable to be set aside. UNDER GRADUATE/PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS: 95. As far as primary school teachers are concerned, as per the guidelines issued in 2001, the educational eligibility is Senior Secondary School certificate or Intermediate, i.e. 12th pass with Diploma or Bachelor of Elementary Education. The States were given three years time to amend the rules to bring them in accord with the directions given by the NCTE. Therefore, the Madhyamik pass candidates are not eligible for these posts. Even if benefit of three years is given to the State, all posts which relate to the period 2004 onwards will have to be filled in from candidates whose minimum qualification is Senior Secondary, i.e. 12th pass, and not 10th pass. Therefore, in the advertisements it should be clearly mentioned as to what are the number of posts of undergraduate teachers of the period prior to 2004 and those falling after 2004. Therefore, in the advertisements it should be clearly mentioned as to what are the number of posts of undergraduate teachers of the period prior to 2004 and those falling after 2004. Madhyamik pass candidates can only be considered for appointment for the posts which were vacant prior to the year 2004 and thereafter, only Senior Secondary School certificate pass candidates can be considered. 96. The Union of India while granting relaxation to the State of Tripura had made it clear that there could be no relaxation in academic qualifications. We, therefore, cannot permit any unqualified teachers to be appointed. 97. Another important aspect with regard to primary school teachers is that a number of petitioners before us have, in fact, qualified the Diploma or Certificate in Basic Teachers Training of a duration of not less than two years or Bachelor of Elementary Education. When duly qualified teachers are concerned, the question of giving relaxation does not arise and while making appointment to the posts of undergraduate teachers, the first priority or preference has to be given to the duly qualified teachers. These qualified teachers are best suited to impart education to the students and those candidates who do not have a Diploma or a Degree in Elementary Education should only be considered if professionally qualified teachers are not available. INTERVIEWS: 98. As discussed above, common advertisements were issued. Advertisements were issued inviting applications for filling up the posts of teachers of three different categories throughout the State of Tripura. As we have discussed above, no guidelines were laid down as to how the selection-cum-merit was to be determined. Similarly, no guidelines were laid down as to how need was to be determined. In this regard, we may point out that vide order dated 23.04.2014 we had specifically called upon the State to show the guidelines laid down and an affidavit has been filed by the Chief Secretary of the State and as per this affidavit, the interview boards were given the following guidelines:- “(8) Each of the Interview Board after interviewing the candidates shall award Grade-'A' or 'B' or 'C' or 'D' against each candidate interviewed following the Revised Employment Policy of this State Government. ** 'A' -denotes 1st priority under “Seniority-cum- Merit” category. 'B' -denotes 1st priority under “Need” category. 'C' -denotes 2nd priority under “Seniority-cum-Merit” category. 'D' -denotes 2nd priority under “Need” category. ** 'A' -denotes 1st priority under “Seniority-cum- Merit” category. 'B' -denotes 1st priority under “Need” category. 'C' -denotes 2nd priority under “Seniority-cum-Merit” category. 'D' -denotes 2nd priority under “Need” category. (10) Function of Interview Boards may be as under:- (i) They shall conduct interview. (ii) Award Grade against the interviewed candidates keeping Revised Employment Policy vide No.F.1(4)-GA(P&T)/99 dated 30th August, 2003 of the State Government into account as well as all aspects. Grade may be done in the manner as proposed vide Para -- 8 above. (iii) Prepare List of selected candidates according to the posts available against each subdivision social category wise, :- one based on “Seniority-cum- Merit” and other based on “Need” in reference of the Revised Employment Policy 2003. (iv) The Interview Boards after completion of interview shall select the eligible candidates of each subdivision as per sub-divisional quota of vacancies available in that sub-division. They shall submit 2(two) separate panels to the Director of School Education, Tripura, Agartala:- one based on “Seniority-cum-Merit” and the other based on “Need”. The Interview Boards shall prepare both the panels with 20% more candidates in addition to the subdivisional quota (requirement). Both the panels should be prepared by the Interview Boards in order of merit in seriatim.” 99. We are totally unable to comprehend what is the formula or rational criteria for determining whether a candidate falls in the first priority or in the second priority. There are no guidelines whatsoever in this regard. We have carefully gone through a large number of the result sheets and have found glaring mistakes in the same. Two people of the same seniority, one having very high marks and one having very low marks are considered together and the person with lower marks is given first priority and the person with higher marks is given second priority. On what basis this has been done is not specified. We are also shocked to note that the number of candidates placed in the first priority is exactly equal to the number of posts filled up. Basically what is happened is that all those who have been placed in the first priority whether in seniority-cum-merit or on need category have been offered jobs. No marks have been awarded by the interview board and only grading of 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D', as indicated by us above, has been done. Basically what is happened is that all those who have been placed in the first priority whether in seniority-cum-merit or on need category have been offered jobs. No marks have been awarded by the interview board and only grading of 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D', as indicated by us above, has been done. This grading is also a sham because, in fact, in two separate categories, the interview board has only placed those persons in first category who are to be selected and those persons in second category who are not to be selected. There were a large number of candidates and interviews went on for months. How could the interview boards have decided on day one that a particular candidate is to be selected and, therefore, he is to be placed in first priority? There could have been more meritorious candidates appearing the same day or on subsequent days. We have no doubt in our mind that the method of selection is highly unscientific and illegal. There are only two possibilities; (i) that, the interview board had decided who were the candidates to be selected and only they were put in the first priority, (ii) that, lists have been prepared at a later stage after the names have been decided. Otherwise we cannot fathom how the interview boards could have determined the exact number of candidates to be appointed and place them in the first priority when there were almost ten thousand vacancies and interviews went on for months on end. The interview board has not given any marks, but only accorded priority and this, in our view, is a totally sham selection and a cruel joke on the poor, educated and unemployed youth of Tripura. 100. During the course of arguments we had asked the State as to whether the interview boards took into consideration the higher qualifications of the candidates. Sri Bhattacharjee replied that it is not necessary to refer to the higher qualifications and only the marks in the qualifying examination are required to be seen. This argument cannot be accepted specially in the case of Teachers. In the field of education those who are better qualified and have higher qualifications than the minimum prescribed must be given some benefits. Education is a continuous process of learning and even a teacher has to reeducate himself and advance his learning by attaining higher degrees and qualifications. This argument cannot be accepted specially in the case of Teachers. In the field of education those who are better qualified and have higher qualifications than the minimum prescribed must be given some benefits. Education is a continuous process of learning and even a teacher has to reeducate himself and advance his learning by attaining higher degrees and qualifications. No marks, advantage or benefit has been given to teachers who are better qualified or have successfully completed specialized courses/trainings specially designed for teachers such as B. Ed etc. This shows that the interview boards did not follow any specific method to determine who were the best candidates. 101. We have made a sincere effort to go through as many as the result sheets as possible. We find that there is no systematic approach by the interview committee. Everything is left to the whims and fancy of the member of the interview committee. Candidates who are much better qualified, had higher marks have been rejected and candidates who are much lower in merit and also did not have seniority have been selected. From each division, we have culled out some examples which are set out below:- “Representative sample of the selection process in tabular form” Post Graduate Teacher West Tripura District Sub-Div. Sub. SI. No. of the Candidate with minimum required Qualification, Year of passing & percentage Extra qua­lificationGr.Remarks, if any Sadar English Candidate against Sl.No.2 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 49.2%, HS with 50.9% and B A(H) in 1996 with 55%.Nil A Despite higher qualification with same seniority, lower grad­ing given to SI. No.4. Candidate against SI. No.4 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 49.2%, HS with 50.9% and BA(H) in 1 996 with 56%.MA 60% C EducationCandidate against SI. No.46 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 45.75%, HS with 48.06% and BA(H) in 2005 with 40.16%. MA 55.25% A Despite higher mar­ks, qualifi­cation & seniority, lower grad­ing given to SI. No.49. Candidate against SI. No.49 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 58.8%, HS with 55.3% and BA(H) in 2000 with 54%.MA 59.7%, B.Ed. 63.7% C Teliamura Philosophy Candidate against SI. No.3 (UR)(BPL) passed Madhyamik with 43%, HS with 50% and BA(H) with 51% in 2005. MA 58% A Despite lower marks and seniority, higher grading given to SI. No. 03 and though BPL, no grading on need basis to him. Candidate against SI. 63.7% C Teliamura Philosophy Candidate against SI. No.3 (UR)(BPL) passed Madhyamik with 43%, HS with 50% and BA(H) with 51% in 2005. MA 58% A Despite lower marks and seniority, higher grading given to SI. No. 03 and though BPL, no grading on need basis to him. Candidate against SI. No. 11 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 42%, HS with 48%, BA(H) in 1999 with 60%. MA 60% C Sanskrit Candidate against Sl. No. 14 (UR) obtained 42% in Madhyamik, 49% in HS and 60% in B A (H) in 2006. MA 52% A Despite similar marks with higher seniority, lower grading given to SI. No.7 Candidate against SI. No. 7 (UR) obtained 58% in Madhyamik, 58% in HS and 60% in BA(H) in 2004. MA 49% C SonamuraEducation Candidate against SI. No.2 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 43.12%, HS with 45.2% and BA(H) in the year 2005 with 56.6% (Silver Medal Owner). A Despite similar marks in BA(H) with higher seniority & extra qualification, lower grading given to SI. No.25. Candidate against SI. No.25 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 57.3%, HS with 58.9% and BA(H) in 2004 with 56% (Silver Medal Owner and stood in 2nd place in the exam). MA 44.7% C History Candidate against SI. No.5 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 38.78%, HS with 42. 1% and BA(H) in 1996 with 46.5%. A Despite higher marks and seniority with extra qualification, lower grading given to SI. No. 10. Candidate against SI. NO. 10 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 46.1%, HS with 44% and BA(H) in 1993 with 48%.MA 47.5% C Khowai Political Science Candidate against SI. No.7 (UR) obtained 35% in Madhyamik, 50% in HS and 41% in BA (H) in 1995. A Despite higher marks & qualifications with same seniority, lower Grading given to SI. No.26. Candidate against SI. No.26 (UR) similarly passed Madhyamik with 54%, HS with 59% and BA(H) in 1995 with 59%. MA 59% B.Ed. 65% C EnglishCandidate against SI. No.3 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 54%, HS with 49% and BA(H) in 2000 with 42% . MA 47% B.Ed. 58% A Despite hi­gher marks and seniority, lower grading given to SI. No.2. Candidate against SI. No.2 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 58%, HS with 57% and BA (H) in 1999 with 48%. MA 48%, B.Ed. 57% C Bishalgarh EnglishCandidate against Sl. No. 17 (OBC) obtained 49% in Madhyamik, 49% in HS and 55.7% in B.A.(H) in 2008. MA 47% B.Ed. 58% A Despite hi­gher marks and seniority, lower grading given to SI. No.2. Candidate against SI. No.2 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 58%, HS with 57% and BA (H) in 1999 with 48%. MA 48%, B.Ed. 57% C Bishalgarh EnglishCandidate against Sl. No. 17 (OBC) obtained 49% in Madhyamik, 49% in HS and 55.7% in B.A.(H) in 2008. A Despite hi­gher marks, qualification & seniority, lower grading to Sl. No. 1 Candidate against SI. No. 1 (UR) got 72% in Madhya­mik, 59.4% in HS and 62.25% in B.A.(H) in 2007. M.A. 60% C BengaliCandidate against Sl.No.2 (UR) obtained 36.5% in Madhyamik, 39.5% in HS and 41.1 % in B.A. (H) in 2006. A Despite hi­gher marks & seniority, lower grad­ing to SI. No.32. Candidate against SI. No.32 (OBC) got 57% in Madhyamik, 54.5% in HS and 58.37% in B.A. (H) in 1999. C South Tripura District Santirbazar Chemistry Candidate against Sl.No.3 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 71 .62%, HS with 64.7% and B.Sc.(H) in 2008 with 50.12%. A Despite hi­gher marks, qualificati­on & senio­rity, lower grading to SI. No. 5. Candidate against Sl.No.5 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 84.6%, HS with 61.6% and B.Sc.(H) in 2004 with 50.6%. M.Sc. 64.3% C EducationCandidate against SL. No. 1 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 46.33%, HS with 52.5% and BA(H) in 2002 with 48.5%. A Despite hi­gher marks & qualifica­tion with same seni­ority, lower grading to Sl.No. 19. Candidate against Sl. No. 19 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 55%, HS with 54% and BA(H) with 51% in 2002. B.Ed.58% C UdaipurEnglishCandidate against SI. No. 40 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 47%, HS with 53% and BA (H) in 2005 with 44%. A Despite hi­gher marks qualificati­ons & seniority, lower grading to Sl. No. 47 Candidate against Sl. No.47 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 67%, HS with 68% and BA(H) in 2003 with 45%. MA 51%, B.Ed. 67% C Education Candidate against SI. No. 11(UR) passed Madhyamik with 45%, HS with 53% and BA (H) in 2009 with 40%. A Despite hi­gher marks, qualificati­on & seni­ority, lower grading to SI. No. 10. Candidate against Sl.No. 10 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 46%, HS with 56% and BA(H) in 2006 with 54%. MA 56% C SabroomPolitical Science Candidate against Sl.No.3 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 46.67%, HS with 39.6% and BA(H) with 43 .37% in 1999. A Despite hi­gher marks and senio­rity, lower grading to SI. No. 28. No. 10. Candidate against Sl.No. 10 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 46%, HS with 56% and BA(H) in 2006 with 54%. MA 56% C SabroomPolitical Science Candidate against Sl.No.3 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 46.67%, HS with 39.6% and BA(H) with 43 .37% in 1999. A Despite hi­gher marks and senio­rity, lower grading to SI. No. 28. Candidate against Sl.No.28 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 50. 11%, HS with 42.8% and BA(H) in 1994 with 50.1%. C Philosophy Candidate against Sl.No.50 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 46%, HS with 47% and BA(H) in 2002 with 52%. A Despite hi­gher marks, qualificati­ons & sen­iority, no grading gi­ven to SI. No. 10 on seniority cum merit basis. No indication as BPL, but his grading on need basis. Candidate against Sl.No. 10 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 48.2%, HS with 47.7% and BA(H) in 1997 with 56.2%, MA 53.3% B.Ed 61% D BeloniaHistoryCandidate against SI. No. 13(UR) passed Madhyamik with 42%, HS with 40% and BA(H) in 1998 with 46%. A Despite hi­gher marks, qualificati­ons & sen­iority, lower grading to SI. No. 11. Candidate against SI. No. 11(UR) passed Madhyamik with 52%, HS with 46% and BA(H) in 1995 with 50%. MA 51% C Political ScienceCandidate against Sl.No.28 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 45%, HS with 52% and BA(H) in 1999 with 45%. Candidate against Sl.No.21 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 46%, HS with 50% and BA(H) in 1994 with 53%. MA 53% A C Despite hi­gher marks, qualificati­ons & sen­iority, lower grading to Sl.No.21. AmarpurPolitical scienceCandidate against Sl. No. (SC) passed Madhyamik with 37.4% HS with 40.5% and 40.5% and BA (H) in 1999 with 43%. ADespite higher marks qualification & seniority to Sl. No. 06 on Seniority cum merit basis. Candidate against Sl.No.06 (SC) passed Madhyamik with 41% HS with 45.2% and BA(H) in 1998 with 49.9%MA 51.1%D Dhalai District KamalpurEducationCandidate against Sl.No.9 (UR) (BPL) secured 40.4% in Madhyamik, 48.7% in HS and 49% in BA(H) in 1998. A Except seniority SI. No. 21 is much higher in marks & qualifications, but same are ignored. Candidate against SI. No.21 (UR) obtained 60% in Madhyamik, 52.9% in HS and 54% in BA(H) in 2003. MA 64% B.Ed 64.7%, M.Phil 66.7% C MathsmaticsCandidate against SI. No.9 (UR) secured 62% in Madhyamik, 55.5% in HS and 45% in B.Sc.(H) in 2008. A Despite higher marks with same seniority, lower grading to SI. No. 10. Candidate against SI. Candidate against SI. No.21 (UR) obtained 60% in Madhyamik, 52.9% in HS and 54% in BA(H) in 2003. MA 64% B.Ed 64.7%, M.Phil 66.7% C MathsmaticsCandidate against SI. No.9 (UR) secured 62% in Madhyamik, 55.5% in HS and 45% in B.Sc.(H) in 2008. A Despite higher marks with same seniority, lower grading to SI. No. 10. Candidate against SI. No.10 (UR) obtained 65.75% in Madhyamik, 64.8% in HS and 59.75% in B.Sc(H) in 2008. C GandacherraPolitical ScienceCandidate against Sl.No. 1 (SC) passed Madhyamik with 45.5%, HS with 54.4% and BA(H) in 2009 with 53.1% C SI. No. 2 having much higher position both in seniority and on merit is put in the same rank like SI. No. 1 ignoring his marvelous extra qualifications. Another Candidate against S1.No.2 (SC) passed Madhyamik with 49.7%, HS with 50. 1% and BA(H) with 54% in 2001.MA 54% B.Ed 59.5%, M.Ed. 73%, M.PhiI. 68% C Ambassa Political Science Candidate against Sl.No.3 (ST) passed Madhyamik with 39%, HS with 45% and BA(H) in 2006 with 46%. MA 45.12% A Despite higher ma­rks and seniority, lower gra­ding to SI. Np.6. Candidate against SL.No.6 (ST) passed Madhyaniik with 47.6%, HS with 44.5% and BA(H) in 2005 with 49%. MA 50.5% C Longtharai Valley Political Science Candidate against SI. No.4 (BPL) (ST) passed Madhy­amik 40.75%, HS with 39.3% and B A(H) in 2008 with 47% A Despite higher ma­rks, qualification & seniority, no grading to SI. No. 25 on seniority cum merit basis. Candidate against SI. No. 25 (BPL) (ST) passed Madh­yamik with 38%, HS with 43% and BA(H) in 1999 with 49%. MA 49.6% D HistoryCandidate against Sl.No.6 (SC) passed Madhyamik with 43.7%, HS with 39.2% and BA(H) in 2003 with 43.5%. A Despite hi­gher marks, qualificati­on & seni­ority, no grading to SI. No. 3 on seniority cum me­rit basis. Candidate against Sl.No.3 (SC) (BPL) has passed Madhyamik with 39%, HS with 42% and BA(H) in 2000 with 46%. MA 54.5% D North Tripura District KailashaharMathsmaticsCandidate against Sl.No.21 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 46%, HS with 39% and B.Sc. in 1996 with 45%. M.SC. 45.62% A Except seniority, Sl. No. 3 as well as SI. No. 16are much higher in marks, which have been ignored. Candidate against Sl.No.3 (UR)(BPL) passed Madhyamik with 75.5%, HS with 59% and B.Sc. in 2003 with 61%. M.Sc. in 1996 with 45%. M.SC. 45.62% A Except seniority, Sl. No. 3 as well as SI. No. 16are much higher in marks, which have been ignored. Candidate against Sl.No.3 (UR)(BPL) passed Madhyamik with 75.5%, HS with 59% and B.Sc. in 2003 with 61%. M.Sc. 73% from much reputed Jamia Millia lslamia University, New Delhi D Candidate against Sl.No. 16 (UR) got 73% in Madhyamik, 66 % in HS and 63% in B.Sc.(H) in 2005. M.Sc. 61% C BotonyCandidate against SI. No.7 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 68.3%, HS with 48% and B.Sc.(H) in 2006 with 48.25% ADespite higher marks qualification & seniority, no grading givan to Sl. No. 8 on seniority cum merit basis, though no indication as BPL and Sl. No. 9 was graded as C Candidate against SI. No.8 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 48%, HS with 54% and B.Sc.(H) in 2005 with 50.75%M.Sc. 68.56% M.PhiI. 66% D Candidate against SI. No.9 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 75%, HS with 54.9% and B.Sc.(H) in 2001 with 62%M.Sc 66% B.Ed 58%, M.Ed. 59%, C DharmanagarMathsmaticsCandidate against SI. No.3 (UR) Secured 76.5% in Madhyamik 64.5% in HS and 48% in B.Sc.(H) in 2004 ADespite higher marks qualification & seniority, no grading to Sl. No. 5. Candidate against SI. No.5 (UR) Secured 80.44% in Madhyamik 68.6% in HS and 58.62% in B.Sc.(H) in 2000M.Sc. 71.93%M.PhiI. 55.6% NIL PhysicsCandidate against SI. No.6 (UR) Obtained 61% in Madhyamik 54% in HS and 48.9% in B.Sc.(H) in 2007 ADespite higher marks qualification, Sl. No. 7 was not evaluated on seniority cum merit basis rather graded on need basis rather graded on need basis without having any indication of his BPL status Candidate against SI. No.7 (UR) Obtained 67.25% in Madhyamik 61.3% in HS and 59.4% in B.Sc.(H) in 2006M.Sc. 66.6%D KanchanpurPolitical ScienceCandidate against SI. No. 20(ST) obtained 34.5% in Madhyamik, 34.6% in HS and 45.2% in B.A.(H) in 2008. A Despite higher marks with same seniority, Sl.No.23 was not evaluated on seniority cum merit basis, rather graded on need basis with- out having any indication of his BPL status. Candidate against SI. No. 23(ST) got 61.8% in Madhyamik, 69.8% in HS and 54% in B.A.(H) in 2008. D EnglishCandidate against Sl.No.l (UR) obtained 40% in Madhyamik, 41.1 % in HS and 41.75% in B.A.(H) in 1996. MA 43.5% A Despite higher marks & qualifications, lower grading given to SI. No. 2. Graduate Teacher West Tripura District Sub-Div. Candidate against SI. No. 23(ST) got 61.8% in Madhyamik, 69.8% in HS and 54% in B.A.(H) in 2008. D EnglishCandidate against Sl.No.l (UR) obtained 40% in Madhyamik, 41.1 % in HS and 41.75% in B.A.(H) in 1996. MA 43.5% A Despite higher marks & qualifications, lower grading given to SI. No. 2. Graduate Teacher West Tripura District Sub-Div. Stream SI. No. of the Candidate with minimum required Qualification, Year of passing & percentage Extra qualifi­cation Gr. Remarks, if any SadarBA Candidate against SI. No. 398 1 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 39.66%, HS with 35.7% and BA in 1999 with 32.66. A Despite hi­gher marks with same seniority, lower grading given to SI. No. 3951. Candidate against SI. No.395 1 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 4 1 .3%, HS with 40.8% and BA in 1 999 with 44.4%. C B.Sc. (Pure) Candidate against SI. No. 24 (UR) obtained 56% in Madhyamik, 53.5% in HS and 46% in B.Sc.(P) in 1995. A Despite hi­gher marks with same seniority, lower gra­ding given to Sl.No.19. Candidate against SI. No. 1 9 (UR) obtained 69. 1 % in Madhyamik, 61.9% in HS and 57.4% in B.Sc. (P) in 1995. C Teliamura BACandidate against SI. No. 290A (OBC) passed Madhyamik with 37%, HS with 35% and BA in 2005 with 35.93%. A Despite higher marks & seniority, lower grading given to SI. No. 300. Candidate against SI. No. 300 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 60% marks, HS with 40% marks and BA in 2000 with 49% marks. C Sonamura B.Sc (Pure)Candidate against SI. No. 19 (UR) passed B.Sc.(P) in 1996 with 40.3%, no indication what percentage of marks he obtained in Madhyamik and HS exams. A Despite hi­gher marks in B.Sc.(P) with same seniority, lower grading given to SI. No. 18. Candidate against SI. No. 18 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 64.11%, HS with 55.7% and B.Sc. in 1996 with 47.8%. C KhowaiBA/B.ComCandidate against SI. No.22 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 37%, HS with 32.9% and BA with 34% in 1987. A Despite higher marks with same seniority, lower gra­ding given to both Sl.No.17. Candidate against SI. No. 17 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 36.4%, HS with 34.3% and BA in 1987 with 42.6% marks. C Bishalgarh B.Sc (Pure)Candidate against SI. No.43 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 60%, HS with 46% and B.Sc.(P) in 1997 with 38.8%. A Despite higher marks with same seniority, low gradi­ng given to SI. No.45. Candidate against SI. No. 17 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 36.4%, HS with 34.3% and BA in 1987 with 42.6% marks. C Bishalgarh B.Sc (Pure)Candidate against SI. No.43 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 60%, HS with 46% and B.Sc.(P) in 1997 with 38.8%. A Despite higher marks with same seniority, low gradi­ng given to SI. No.45. Candidate against SI. No.45 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 65.86%, HS with 55.5% and B.Sc.(P) in 1997 with 48.2%. C South Tripura District Santirbazar B.Sc.(Pure)Candidate against SI. No. 14 (UR) secured 46% in Madhyamik, 41 .2% in HS and 36.9% in B.Sc. in 2004 A Despite hi­gher marks & seniority, lower gradi­ng to SI. No. 5. Candidate against SI. No.5 (UR) got 60% in Madhya­mik, 52.4% in HS and 52.33% in B.Sc. in 2003 C B.Sc.(Bio) Candidate against SI. No. 13.(UR) secured 52% in Madhyamik, 43% in HS and 44% in B.Sc. in 2003. A Despite hi­gher marks & seniority, lower grad­ing to SI. No.27. Candidate against SI. No.27 (UR) got 82.13% in Madh­yamik, 48% in HS and 73% in B.Sc. in 1997. C UdaipurBACandidate against Sl.No.42 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 4 1 .77 %, HS with 37.6% and BA in 1988 with 39%. ADespite higher marks & seniority, lower grading to SI. No.22. Candidate against SI. No.22 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 48.11%, HS with 39.6%, BA in 1987 with 45.5% C B.Sc.(Pure)Candidate against Sl.No. 12 (UR) secured 52% in Madhyamik, 45% in HS and 35.77% in B.Sc. (P) in 1995. Candidate against SI. No. 18 (UR) got 64.66% in Madhyamik, 56.5% in HS and 44. 11% in B.Sc. (P) in 1995. A C Despite higher marks with same seniority, lower grading to SI. No. 18. SabroomBACandidate against Sl.No. 16 (ST) passed Madhyamik with 37.75%, HS with 35.4% and BA in 2006 with 34.75%. A Despite higher qualification, marks and seniority, lower grading to SI. No. 44. Note- In the gradation sheets the marking of 'A' in many cases are written in completely different ink and in some cases, the initial marking were done by wood pencil which seem to have been erased later on. Candidate against Sl.No. 44 (ST) passed Madhyamik with 36.37%, HS with 36.8% and BA in 2005 with 40.5%.B.ED with 64%C BA Candidate against Sl.No.93 (SC) passed Madhyamik with 39%, HS with 34.4% and BA in 1995 with 38.2%. A Despite higher marks and seniority, lower grading to SI. No.5. Candidate against Sl.No. 44 (ST) passed Madhyamik with 36.37%, HS with 36.8% and BA in 2005 with 40.5%.B.ED with 64%C BA Candidate against Sl.No.93 (SC) passed Madhyamik with 39%, HS with 34.4% and BA in 1995 with 38.2%. A Despite higher marks and seniority, lower grading to SI. No.5. Candidate against Sl.No.5 (SC) passed Madhyamik with 40.6%, HS with 40%, BA in 1992 with 39%. C BeloniaB.Sc (Pure)Candidate against SI. No. 11 (UR) (OBC) passed Madhyamik with 44.2%, HS with 43.3% and B.Sc. (P) in 1995 with 44.7%. A Despite higher marks with same seniority, lower grading to Sl. No. 18. Candidate against SI. No. 18 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 62.22%, HS with 52.5% and B.Sc. (P) in 1 995 with 62.3%. C BACandidate against SI. No. 58 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 38. 1%, HS with 32.4%, BA in 1996 with 37.3%. A Despite higher marks & seniority, lower grading to SI. No. 2. Note - In the grading sheet of BA/ B. Com(UR) in many cases grading of 'A', 'A-', 'B' & 'B-' are found to have initially been done by wood pencil and thereafter pen was used. Candidate against SI. No. 2 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 54.8%, HS with 46.5% and BA in 1990 with 45.3%. C Amarpur BACandidate against Sl.No.33 (SC) passed Madhyamik with 37%, HS with 36.4% and BA in 2004 with 44.2%. A Despite similar marks with higher- qualification & seniority, no grading to SI. No. 12 on seniority cum merit basis, rather graded on need basis, though no indication as BPL. Candidate against Sl.No. 12 (SC) (PH-25%) passed Madhyamik with 45%, HS with 49.6% and BA(H) in 2001 with43.66%. D BACandidate against Sl.No.35 (ST) passed Madhyamik with 37.8%, HS with 32.9% and BA in 2005 with 38.6%. A Despite higher marks & seniority, lower grading to SI. No. 31. Candidate against Sl.No.31 (ST) passed Madhyamik with 43%, HS with 39% and BA in 2004 with 44.3%. C Dhalai District kamalpurB.Sc (BIO)Candidate against SI. No.54 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 38.04%, HS with 39.04% and B.Sc.(Bio) in 1993 with 40.01%. A Despite hi­gher marks with same seniority, lower grad­ing to SI. No. 55 Candidate against SI. No.55 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 49% marks, HS with 46% and B.Sc.(Bio) with 55% in 1993. C GandacherraBACandidate against SI. No.72 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 43.37%, HS with 38.17% and BA with 32.73% in 2005. A Despite hi­gher marks with same seniority, lower grad­ing to SI. No. 55 Candidate against SI. No.55 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 49% marks, HS with 46% and B.Sc.(Bio) with 55% in 1993. C GandacherraBACandidate against SI. No.72 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 43.37%, HS with 38.17% and BA with 32.73% in 2005. A Despite hi­gher marks & qualifica­tion with same senio­rity, lower grading to SI. No. 71. Candidate against SI. No.71 (OBC) passed Madhyamik with 47.75%, HS with 45% and BA(H) with 42.2% in 2005. C AmbassaBA/B.Com/B.ScCandidate against SI. No.81 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 35.5%, HS with 35.9% and B.Com. in 1989 with 38.4%. A Despite hi­gher marks with same seniority, lower grad­ing to SI. No. 84. (N.B.-Gradation ofallBA/ B.Com/B.Sc. was done in a common sheet.) Candidate against SI. No. 84 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 53 .7%, HS with 43 .8% and B.Sc.(BIO) with 49.5% in 1989. C Longtharai ValleyBACandidate against SI. No.40 (UR) (BPL) passed Mad­hyamik with 39.8%, HS with 34.7% and BA in 2002 with 36.6%. A Despite higher marks with same seniority, lower grad­ing to SI. No. 2. Moreover, Sl.No.40, despite hav­ing BPL status, no grading of him on need basis. Candidate against SI. No .41 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 42.9%, HS with 40.8% and B A with 40.2% in 2002. C North Tripura District Kailashahar BA Candidate against SI. No. 1165 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 43%, HS with 43% and BA in 2009 with 36.5% marks. A Despite hi­gher marks & seniority, no grading to SI. No. 1164 on seniority cum merit basis, rather graded on need basis, though no indication of her BPL status Candidate against SI. No. 1164 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 63.2% marks, HS with 44% and BA in 2007 with 50.4%. D Dharmanagar B.Sc(Pure) Candidate against SI. No.25 (UR) obtained 45% in Madhyamik, 38.7% in HS and 37.1% marks in B.Sc. in 1996 A Despite hi­gher marks & seniority, lower grading to SI. No.22. Candidate against SI. No.22 (UR) obtained 62.3% in Madhyamik, 56.6% in HS and 53.7% in B.Sc. in 1995. C Kanchanpur B.Sc.(BIO) Candidate against SI. No.4 (ST) obtained 47% in Mad­hyamik, HS with 39% and 36% in B.Sc. (Bio) in 2009. A Despite higher marks with same seniority, lower grading to SI. No. 5. Candidate against SI. No.5 (ST) passed Madhyamik with 51%, HS with 41% and B.Sc. (Bio) with 44% in 2009. in 1995. C Kanchanpur B.Sc.(BIO) Candidate against SI. No.4 (ST) obtained 47% in Mad­hyamik, HS with 39% and 36% in B.Sc. (Bio) in 2009. A Despite higher marks with same seniority, lower grading to SI. No. 5. Candidate against SI. No.5 (ST) passed Madhyamik with 51%, HS with 41% and B.Sc. (Bio) with 44% in 2009. C Under Graduate Teacher West Tripura District Sub-Div. SI. No. of the Candidate with minimum required Qualification, Year of passing & percentage Extra qualification Gr. Remarks, if any SadarCandidate against Sl.No.7601 (ST) passed Madhyamik in 2006 with 34%. A Despite higher ma­rks & qualification with same seniority, lower grading given to Sl.No.7547A. Candidate against Sl.No.7547A (ST) passed Madhyamik in 2006 with 40%. 39.6% in HS C Candidate against Sl.No.9175 (UR) passed Madhyamik in 1991 with 37.4%. A Despite higher marks & qualifica­tion with same seniority, lower grading given to Sl.No.9144. Candidate against Sl.No.9144 (UR) passed Madhyamik in 1991 with 43.6%. 38.9% in HS C TeliamuraCandidate against Sl.No.379 (SC) secured 36% in Madhyamik in 2005. 35.6% in HS A Despite much higher marks in Madhyamik with same seniority, lower grading given to SI. No.391. No grading on seniority cum merit to SI. No. 396, though higher marks in HS in com­parison with SI. No. 379. Candidate against SI. No.391 (SC) secured 60. 12% in Madhyamik in 2005 . C Candidate against Sl.No.396 (SC) (BPL) passed Madhyamik in 2005 with 36%. 49.2% in HS D Candidate against SI. No. 176 (UR) passed Madhyamik in 2000 with 30.5%. A Despite higher marks with same seniority, lower grading given to SI. No. 187. Candidate against SI. No. 187 (UR) passed Madhyamik in 2000 with 50.37%. C SonamuraCandidate against Sl. No. 12 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 37% in 1988. A Despite higher marks & qualification with same seniority, lower grading given to SI. No.7 and no grading on need basis to him, though having BPL status. Candidate against SI. No.7 (UR)(BPL) passed Madhyamik in 1988 with 45.2%. 43.1% in HS C Candidate against Sl.No.5149 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 38. 12% in 2002. A Despite higher marks qualification & seni­ority, lower grading given to SI. No.5148. Candidate against SI. No.5148 (UR) passed Madhyamik in 1992 with 40.62%. 34.6% in HS C KhowaiCandidate against Sl.No.77 (SC) (BPL) passed Madhyamik in 1989 with 38%. A Despite higher marks & qualification with same seniority, low­er grading given to SI. No. 83. 12% in 2002. A Despite higher marks qualification & seni­ority, lower grading given to SI. No.5148. Candidate against SI. No.5148 (UR) passed Madhyamik in 1992 with 40.62%. 34.6% in HS C KhowaiCandidate against Sl.No.77 (SC) (BPL) passed Madhyamik in 1989 with 38%. A Despite higher marks & qualification with same seniority, low­er grading given to SI. No. 83. Candidate against Sl. No. 83 (SC) passed Madhyamik in 1989 with 45.8%. 47.3% in HS C Candidate against Sl. No. 163 (UR) (OBC) passed Madhyamik with 34% in 1992. A Despite higher marks, qualification & seni­ority, lower grading given to SI. No. 86. Candidate against SI. No. 86 (UR) passed Madhyamik in 1991 with 42.2%. 40.8% in HS C BishalgarhCandidate against SI. No. 5151 (UR) obtained 53.75% in Madhyamik in 1998. 36.5% in HS A Despite higher marks with same seniority, no grading on senio­rity cum merit basis to SI. No. 5143. Candidate against SI. No. 5143 (OBC) (BPL) passed Madhyamik in 1998 with 56.12%. 44.9% in HS D Candidate against Sl.No.3598 (SC) (BPL) passed Madhyamik with 38.77% in 1995. 34% in HS A Despite higher marks & seniority, lower grading given to SI. No.3596. Candidate against SI. No.3596 (SC) passed Madhyamik with 46.6% in 1992. 47.4% in HS C South Tripura District Santirbazar Candidate against Sl.No.354 (ST) passed Madhyamik in 2005 with 36.25%. A Despite higher marks with same seniority, lower grading given to Sl.No.444. Candidate against Sl. No.444 (ST) passed Madhyamik in 2005 with 60%. C Candidate against Sl.No.305 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 37.5% in 2001. 40.2 in HS A Despite higher marks & seniority, lower grading given to SI. No. 196. Candidate against SI. No. 196 (UR) passed Madhyamik with 51.25% in 1999. 48.6% in HS C UdaipurCandidate against SI. No. 1024 (UR) obtained 37% in Madhyamik in 1995. A Despite higher marks with same seniority, lower grading given to SI. No. 1020 and no grading on need basis to him, though having BPL status. Candidate against SI. No. 1020 (UR) (BPL) pas­sed Madhyamik in 1995 with 48.88%. C Candidate against Sl.No.46 (SC) (BPL) passed Madhyamik with 36.5% in 1987. A Despite higher marks & qualification with same seniority, no grading to SI. No. 44 on seniority cum merit basis. Candidate against SI. No.44 (SC) (BPL) passed Madhyamik with 49.77% in 1987. 46.1% in HS D Sabroom Candidate against Sl.No.45 (SC) (BPL) secured 36.33% in Madhyamik in 1 989. A Despite higher marks & qualification with same seniority, no grading to SI. No. 44 on seniority cum merit basis. Candidate against SI. No.44 (SC) (BPL) passed Madhyamik with 49.77% in 1987. 46.1% in HS D Sabroom Candidate against Sl.No.45 (SC) (BPL) secured 36.33% in Madhyamik in 1 989. A Despite higher marks & qualification with same seniority, lower grading given to SI. No. 51. Candidate against SI. No.5 1 (SC) (BPL) secur­ed 42.44% in Madhyamik in 1 989. 40.5% in HS C Candidate against Sl.No.396 (OBC) (UR) pas­sed Madhyamik with 37% in 1995. A Despite higher marks & seniority, lower grading given to SI. No.93. Candidate against SI. No.93 (OBC) (UR) pas­sed Madhyamik with 55% in 1 988. C BeloniaCandidate against Sl.No.265 (UR) passed Madhyamik in 1999 with 39.6%. 39.5% in HS A Despite higher marks with same seniority, lower grading given to SI. No. 264. Candidate against SI. No.264 (UR) passed Madhyamik in 1999 with 68.25%. 53% in HS C Candidate against Sl.No.94 (SC) passed Madhyamik with 34% in 2002. A Despite higher marks, qualification & seni­ority, lower grading given to SI. No.60. Candidate against SI. No.60 (SC) passed Madhyamik with 46.2% in 200 1 . 5 1.5% in HS C AmarpurCandidate against SI. No.241 (SC) passed Madhyamikin 1991 with 46.33%. 3 1.4% in HS A Candidate against SI. No.238 (SC) passed Madhyamikin 1991 with 54.2%. Diploma in Mach. with 65%, C Candidate against SI. No.250 (ST) passed Madhyamik with 38% in 2004 ADespite higher marks with same seniority, lower grading given to SI. No. 105. Candidate against SI. No.105 (ST) passed Madhyamik with 42.37% in 2001. C Dhalai District Kamalpur Against Candidate against SI. No.301 (ST) passed Madhyamik in 1997 with 36%. A Despite higher marks qualifications & se­niority, lower grading given to SI. No. 300. Much higher marks of SI. No. 305 was not considered. Candidate against SI. No.300 (ST) passed Madhyamik in 1996 with 44.1%. 4 1.3% in HS C Candidate against Sl.No.305 (ST) passed Madhyamik in 1998 with 60.6 % marks. C Candidate against SI. No.2327 (UR) (BPL) passed Madhyamik in 2006 with 34%. A Despite higher marks with same seniority, lower grading given to SI. No. 2355. Candidate against SI. No.2355 (OBC) passed Madhyamik in 2006 with 49%. C GandacherraCandidate against SI. No.36 (UR)(BPL) passed Madhyamik in 1995 with 37%. A Despite higher marks with same seniority, lower grading given to SI. No.2327 (UR) (BPL) passed Madhyamik in 2006 with 34%. A Despite higher marks with same seniority, lower grading given to SI. No. 2355. Candidate against SI. No.2355 (OBC) passed Madhyamik in 2006 with 49%. C GandacherraCandidate against SI. No.36 (UR)(BPL) passed Madhyamik in 1995 with 37%. A Despite higher marks with same seniority, lower grading given to SI. No. 33. Candidate against Sl.No.33 (UR) passed Madhyamik in 1995 with 46.1 %. C Candidate against Sl.No.81 (SC) passed Madhyamik with 36% in 2000. A Despite higher marks, qualification & seniority, lower grading given to SI. No.49. Candidate against SI. No.49 (SC) passed Madhyamik with 55. 1% in 1999. 45% in HS C Ambassa Candidate against SI. No.82 (UR) passed Madhyamik in 1993 with 37%. A Despite higher marks & seniority, lower grading to SI. No. 19. Candidate against SI. No. 19 (UR) passed Madhyamik in 1987 with 41%. C Candidate against Sl.No.190 (SC) passed Madhyamik with 34.75% in 2002. A Despite higher marks qualification & sen­iority, lower grading given to SI. No. 46. Though BPL, no grading of her on need basis. Candidate against SI. No.46 (SC) (BPL) passed Madhyamik with 52% in 1996. 37% in HS C Longtharai ValleyCandidate against SI. No. 58 (UR) (BPL) passed Madhyamik in 1992 with 34.8%. A Despite higher marks and seniority, lower grading given to SI. No. 1. Candidate against SI. No.l (UR) (Antodoya) passed Madhyamik in 1984 with 46%. C Candidate against Sl.No.73 (SC) (BPL) passed Madhyamik with 36% in 2002. A Despite higher marks & seniority, lower Candidate against SI. No.64 (SC) passed Madhyamik with 62% in 2001. CGrading given to Sl. No. 64 No grading given to Sl. No. 64 No grading on need basis to Sl. No. 73, thought having BPL status North Tripura District Kailashahar Candidate against SI. No.260 (ST) (BPL) obtained 34.8% in Madhyamik in 2004. A Despite higher marks, qualification and seniority, lower gra­ding given to SI. No. 351. Candidate against SI. No. 299 (ST) passed out Madhyamik in 2004 with 38% A Candidate against SI. No. 35 1 (ST) passed Madhyamik in 1998 with 56%. 32.7% in HS C Candidate against SI. No. 1830 (OBC) (BPL) passed Madhyamik in 2001 with 34%. A Despite higher marks & seniority, lower grading given to both SI. No. 1854 & 5283, especially to SI. No.5283, having higher qualification. Against SI. No. 35 1 (ST) passed Madhyamik in 1998 with 56%. 32.7% in HS C Candidate against SI. No. 1830 (OBC) (BPL) passed Madhyamik in 2001 with 34%. A Despite higher marks & seniority, lower grading given to both SI. No. 1854 & 5283, especially to SI. No.5283, having higher qualification. Against SI. No. 1854 in the column of 'need' white correct­ion fluid is found to have been used for erasing his grading there. Candidate against SI. No. 1854 (UR) (BPL) obtauied 37.5% in Madhyamik in 2000. C Candidate against SI. No. 5283 (OBC) passed Madhyamik in 2000 with 60.5%. 43% in HS C Dharmanagar Candidate against SI. No. 2867 (UR) passed Madhyamik in 1996 with 37%. A Despite higher marks & qualification with same seniority, lower grading given to SI. No.2888. Candidate against SI. No. 2888 (UR) passed Madhyamik in 1996 with 45.4%. 47.6% in HS C Candidate against Sl.No.52 (ST) passed Madhyamik with 35.5% in 2002. A Despite higher marks & seniority, lower grading given to SI. No. 17. Candidate against SI. No. 17 (ST) passed Madhyamik with 43% in 1997. C Kanchanpur Candidate against Sl.No.223 (ST) passed Madhyamik in 1999 with 38%. A Despite higher marks & seniority, lower grading given to SI. No.209. Candidate against Sl.No. 209 (ST) passed Madhyamik in 1998 with 46.6%. C Candidate against Sl.No. 184 (SC) passed Madhyamik with 34% in 2004. A Despite higher marks, qualification & seniority, lower grading given to SI. No. 168. Candidate against SI. No. 168 (SC) passed Madhyamik with 40.37% in 2003. 33.6% in HS C We have only culled out some of the examples from each division and category and they can be multiplied 100's of times. 102. On a perusal of these sample representations which we have given above, it is more than obvious that the selections have been totally unfair. The manner in which the interviews were held can be gauged from the fact that on certain days as many as 300 candidates were called for interview. Assuming that after breaks the interview board sat for 10 hours i.e. 600 minutes. This would give barely two minutes per candidate. In two minutes one candidate has to leave, the other has to step into the room, wish the members of the interview board and be asked to take a seat. Assuming that after breaks the interview board sat for 10 hours i.e. 600 minutes. This would give barely two minutes per candidate. In two minutes one candidate has to leave, the other has to step into the room, wish the members of the interview board and be asked to take a seat. Two minutes will be over during this process only and it is obvious that the interviews were a total sham. 103. Sri A K Bhowmik, learned senior counsel, has urged that there was a hidden agenda while making the selections and the same have been made only on the diktats of apolitical party. We are not entering into this aspect of the matter. 104. We have not dealt with the individual cases on merits in view of the decision we have taken but in some of the matters there is clear-cut material on record to show that the petitioners were much better qualified than the respondents. Ex-servicemen and physically disabled person with higher marks and qualifications have been rejected but normal persons have been selected even though the persons who are supposed to get preference under the policy had higher marks. This clearly shows that there was no method in the madness of the interview boards. 105. To be fair to Mr. B.C. Das, learned Advocate General, we may point that after the matter was heard for some time, the learned Advocate General himself submitted that the State itself was of the view that the interviews may not have been properly conducted and it may be given six months time to inquire into the matter. As far as postgraduate and graduate teachers are concerned, more than four years have elapsed since the first petitions were filed. When a learned Single Judge of the Court directed the State to constitute a committee, it chose to file appeals and challenge the said judgment. Now it does not lie in the mouth of the State to urge that it may be given time to reconsider the matter. Furthermore, as far as the constitutional validity of the revised employment policy is concerned, that can only be decided in these proceedings. “ORAL INTERVIEW AS THE SOLE METHOD OF SELECTION” 106. As we have already held above that in this case the petitioners cannot challenge the selection on the ground that they were based on the ground of interview. Furthermore, as far as the constitutional validity of the revised employment policy is concerned, that can only be decided in these proceedings. “ORAL INTERVIEW AS THE SOLE METHOD OF SELECTION” 106. As we have already held above that in this case the petitioners cannot challenge the selection on the ground that they were based on the ground of interview. Since, we are quashing the entire selections on various grounds, we are also considering the question whether in the future selections should be made only on the basis of interviews or not. Whether the method of oral interview is an appropriate method to be followed for selecting candidates for jobs has been the subject matter of number of decisions by the Apex Court. 107. In Dr. J. P. Kulshrestha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University, [ AIR 1980 SC 2141 ], the Apex Court was dealing with a case relating to the selection of Readers by the Allahabad University. In this case while dealing with the question whether the method of interview is a proper method for selecting persons for the post of Readers, the Court observed as follows: “10........Certainly, cases arise where the art of interviewing candidates deteriorates from strategy to stratagem and undetectable manipulation of results is achieved by remote control tactics masked as viva voce tests. This, if allowed, is surely a sabotage of the purity of proceedings, a subterfuge whereby legal means to reach illegal ends is achieved. So it is that Courts insist, as the learned single Judge has, in this very case, suggested on recording of marks at interviews and other fair checks like guidelines for marks and remarks about candidates and the like. If the Court is skeptical, the record of the selection proceedings, including the notes regarding the interviews may have to be made available. Interviews, as such, are not bad but polluting it to attain illegitimate ends is bad………….” 108. In Ajay Hasia Etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, [(l981) 1 SCC 722], a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court while considering the question of suitability of interview for admission of candidates to the Regional Engineering College, quoted with approval the following observations from the book on “Public Administration in Theory and Practice” by M.P. Sharma [para 18 of AIR]: “The oral test of the interview has been much criticized on the grounds of its subjectivity and uncertainty. Different interviewers have their own notions of good personality for some, it consists more in attractive physical appearance and dress rather than anything else, and with them the breezy and shiny type of candidate scores highly while the rough uncut diamonds may go unappreciated. The atmosphere of the interview is artificial and prevents some candidates from appearing at their best. Its duration is short, the few questions of the hit or miss type, which are put, may fall to reveal the real worth of the candidate. It has been said that God takes a whole lifetime to Judge a man's worthwhile interviewers have to do it in a quarter of an hour............” The Apex Court then referred to Ol Glenn Stahl: 'Ol Glenn Stahl points out in his book on “Public Personnel Administration” that there are three disadvantages from which the oral Lest method suffers, namely, “(1) the difficulty of developing valid and reliable oral tests, (2) the difficulty of securing a reviewable record on an oral tests, and (3) public suspicion of the oral test as a channel for the exertion of political influence” and we may add, other corrupt, nepotistic or extraneous consideration. The learned author then proceeds to add in a highly perceptive and critical passage: The oral examination has failed in the past in direct proportion to the extent of its misuse. It is a delicate instrument and in inexpert hands, a dangerous one. The first condition of its successful use is the full recognition of its limitations. One of the most prolific sources of error in the oral test has been the failure on the part of examiners to understand the nature of evidence and to discriminate between that which was relevant, material and reliable and that which was not. It also must be remembered that the best oral interview provides opportunity for analysis of only a very small part of a person's total behaviour, Generalizations from a single interview regarding an individual's total personality pattern have been proved repeatedly to be wrong.” 109. In Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, [ (1985)4 SCC 417 ], the Apex Court considered in detail the question as to how many marks should be allotted for interviews. In this case the Court was concerned with selections made by the Haryana Public Service Commission to the cadre of Haryana Civil and Allied Services. In Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, [ (1985)4 SCC 417 ], the Apex Court considered in detail the question as to how many marks should be allotted for interviews. In this case the Court was concerned with selections made by the Haryana Public Service Commission to the cadre of Haryana Civil and Allied Services. It was held that the allocation of 22.2% marks for the viva voce test in the case of Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services were unreasonable. The Court directed as follows: “29.............We would, therefore, direct that hereafter in case of selections to be made to the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services, where the competitive examination consists of a written examination followed by a viva voce test, the marks allocated for the viva voce test shall not exceed 12.2% of the total marks taken into account for the purpose of selection. We would suggest that this percentage should also be adopted by the Public Service Commissions in other States, because it is desirable that there should be uniformity in the selection process throughout the country and the practice followed by the Union Public Service Commission should be taken as a guide for the State Public Service Commissions to adopt and follow..............” 110. In Ashok @ Somanna Gowda v. State of Karnataka, [ (1992) 1 SCC 28 ], the Apex Court was considering the validity of marks allotted in the interview in case of selection to the posts of Assistant Engineers, it was held as under: “2.... However, the Rules are clearly in violation of the dictum laid down by this Court in the above-referred cases and in case the marks for viva voce would have been kept say at 15 per cent of the total marks, the appellants before us were bound to be selected on the basis of marks secured by them in interview, calculated on the basis of converting the same to 15 per cent of the total marks.” 111. In Indian Airlines Corporation v. Capt. In Indian Airlines Corporation v. Capt. K.C. Shukla, [1992(5) SC 565] where the Apex Court was considering the case of promotions to the post of Deputy Operations Manager and in Madan Lal v. State of J. & K., [1995(2) SC 291] where selections to the post of Munsifs in the State of Jammu and Kashmir were being made the Court upheld the viva voce examination in addition to the written test. 112. In D. V. Bakshi v. Union of India, [ (1993) 3 SCC 663 ] the Apex Court was dealing with a case where the examination was for grant of licence to Customs House Agents. The Supreme Court held that in such circumstances the allocation of 50% marks was justified where the nature of the job was such that it required a well developed personality. The Court held that the test which is valid for competitive examination or admission to educational institutions may not be relevant in that case. With regard to the method of conducting the interview the Court held as follows: “7.......If an oral test is, therefore, a 'must' as in this case, a heavy responsibility is cast on the examiners to maintain a proper record of the oral test in respect of each candidate and marks must preferably be assigned under each head considered relevant to evaluate the candidate.... That is why we have said that a heavy responsibility lies on those examining the candidates at the interview to ensure that proper record is maintain so that there is no room for suspicion in the minds of the unsuccessful candidates that the result of the oral test is tainted with bias for or against any candidate because even light proof in support of the charge may upset the result of the oral test as a whole or qua a candidate, as the case may be..............” 113. In Jasvinder Singh v. State of J. & K., [ (2003)2 SCC 132 ] the Court was concerned with a case relating to the selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and upheld the allocation of 20% marks for the interview. 114. The Apex Court has also drawn up a clear-cut distinction between the weightage of marks to be given for interviews when admission to educational courses is to be made and the weightage, when the interviews are conducted for recruitment to services. 114. The Apex Court has also drawn up a clear-cut distinction between the weightage of marks to be given for interviews when admission to educational courses is to be made and the weightage, when the interviews are conducted for recruitment to services. In the latter case, the nature of the service shall also be very relevant. This would also be a relevant factor to determine what should be the weightage of marks to be given for the interview. In case the interview is of persons who are of mature age and the requirement of the job is that person's personality is well developed then obviously higher marks can be kept for the interview. There can be no hard and fast rule in this regard. 115. In Kiran Gupta & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [ (2000) 7 SCC 719 ], the Apex Court held that in selections based only on interview were not per se illegal. It also held that there can be no universal application with regard to allotment of marks in an interview. In that case, the question was whether 15% marks for interview is arbitrary or not. The Apex Court held as follows:- “22. It is difficult to accept the omnibus contention that selection on the basis of viva voce only is arbitrary and illegal and that since allocation of 15% marks for interview was held to be arbitrary by this Court, selections solely based on interview is a fortiori illegal. It will be useful to bear in mind that there is no rule of thumb with regard to allotment of percentage of marks for interview.” We may also add that in that case the appointments were for the posts of Principals/ Headmasters, i.e. people who are already in service. 116. We live in a country which is governed by the rule of law. The action of each and every official or Government functionary has to be in accordance with the Constitution. The rule of law is the golden thread which runs through our Constitution. The two most important facets of the rule of law are fairness and equality. Every citizen has a right to equal opportunity of employment and equal treatment at the time of selection. The rule of law is the golden thread which runs through our Constitution. The two most important facets of the rule of law are fairness and equality. Every citizen has a right to equal opportunity of employment and equal treatment at the time of selection. Nobody can deny this right to any citizen of the country and if such right is denied, then this Court shall step in to ensure that justice is done. 117. Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India clearly provide that there should be equality to all, especially in terms of matters of employments. Reservations or preferences by whatsoever name called can be granted only in terms of the Constitution and not at the whims and fancies of the Government. The selection process in all cases should be transparent and above board. There should be clear cut guidelines laid down as to how the interview boards are to award marks to the candidates. This cannot be left to the discretion of the members of the interview board. Even in those cases where the Apex Court has upheld the selection of candidates on interviews, the Court has insisted that proper record should be maintained so that it can be determined how the selection has been made. In the present case, the less said about the selection process the better. We with regard to every category of teachers and with every sub-division/division have given examples which clearly show that there was no method followed by the Stale in making appointments and it is more than apparent to us that the appointments have been made on totally extraneous basis without considering the future of the poor students or the aspirations of the unemployed youth. The whole selection process was a cruel joke on the youth of Tripura. 118. This country, if it has to develop, needs great teachers. Teachers are “Gurus”, teachers are the guides. Teachers are mentors, teachers are the philosophers and it is these teachers who will hold the finger of each child, teach the child and then lead the child towards hopefully a bright future. If the selection of teachers is unfair, then we are headed for a society which will be an unfair society. 119. In M. Nagaraj & Ors. Teachers are mentors, teachers are the philosophers and it is these teachers who will hold the finger of each child, teach the child and then lead the child towards hopefully a bright future. If the selection of teachers is unfair, then we are headed for a society which will be an unfair society. 119. In M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [ (2006) 8 SCC 212 ], the Apex Court dealing with public employment and reservation for backward classes held that the third variable, efficiency in service or merit must also be taken into consideration. The Apex Court held as follows:- “44. The above three concepts are independent variable concepts. The application of these concepts in public employment depends upon quantifiable data in each case. Equality in law is different from equality in fact. When we construe Article 16(4), it is equality in fact which plays the dominant role. Backward classes seek justice. General class in public employment seeks equity. The difficulty comes in when the third variable comes in, namely, efficiency in service. In the issue of reservation, we are being asked to find a stable equilibrium between justice to the backwards, equity for the forwards and efficiency for the entire system. Equity and justice in the above context are hard-concepts. However, if you add efficiency to equity and justice, the problem arises in the context of the reservation. This problem has to be examined, therefore, on the facts of each case. Therefore, Article 16(4) has to be construed in the light of Article 335 of the Constitution. Inadequacy in representation and backwardness of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes are circumstances which enable the State Government to act under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. However, as held by this Court the limitations on the discretion of the government in the matter of reservation under Article 16(4) as well as Article 16(4 A) come in the form of Article 335 of the Constitution. 45. Merit is not a fixed absolute concept. Amartya Sen, in a book, Meritocracy and Economic Inequality, edited by Kenneth Arrow, points out that merit is a dependent idea and its meaning depends on how a society defines a desirable act. An act of merit in one society may not be the same in another. The difficulty is that there is no natural order of 'merit' independent of our value system. An act of merit in one society may not be the same in another. The difficulty is that there is no natural order of 'merit' independent of our value system. The content of merit is context-specific. It derives its meaning from particular conditions and purposes. The impact of any affirmative action policy on 'merit' depends on how that policy is designed. Unfortunately, in the present case, the debate before us on this point has taken place in an empirical vacuum. The basic presumption, however, remains that it is the State who is in the best position to define and measure merit in whatever ways they consider it to be relevant to public employment because ultimately it has to bear the costs arising from errors in defining and measuring merit. Similarly, the concept of “extent of reservation” is not an absolute concept and like merit it is context-specific. 58. However, in Indra Sawhney the majority held that the rule of 50% laid down in Balaji was a binding rule and not a mere rule of prudence. 120. At this stage, one aspect needs to be mentioned. Social justice is concerned with the distribution of benefits and burdens. The basis of distribution is the area of conflict between rights, needs and means. These three criteria can be put under two concepts of equality, namely, “formal equality” and “proportional equality”. Formal equality means that law treats everyone equal. Concept of egalitarian equality is the concept of proportional equality and it expects the States to take affirmative action in favour of disadvantaged sections of society within the framework of democratic polity. In Indra Sawhney all the judges except Pandian, J. held that the “means test” should be adopted to exclude the creamy layer from the protected group earmarked for reservation. In Indra Sawhney this Court has, therefore, accepted caste as determinant of backwardness and yet it has struck a balance with the principle of secularism which is the basic feature of the Constitution by bringing hi the concept of creamy layer. Views have often been expressed in this Court that caste should not be the determinant of backwardness and that the economic criteria alone should be the determinant of backwardness. As stated above, we are bound by the decision in Indra Sawhney. The question as to the “determinant” of backwardness cannot be gone into by us in view of the binding decision. As stated above, we are bound by the decision in Indra Sawhney. The question as to the “determinant” of backwardness cannot be gone into by us in view of the binding decision. In addition to the above requirements this Court in Indra Sawhney has evolved numerical benchmarks like ceiling-limit of 50% based on post-specific roster coupled with the concept of replacement to provide immunity against the charge of discrimination. 122. We reiterate that the ceiling-limit of 50%, the concept of creamy layer and the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency are all constitutional requirements without which the structure of equality of opportunity in Article 16 would collapse.” 120. Therefore, any scheme framed by the Government of Tripura in future must make a balance between reservation and preferences on the one hand and merit on the other. We are clearly of the opinion that at least 50% of the posts across the board should be filled solely on the basis of merit without any preference for seniority. Therefore, if there are 1000 posts and 310 are reserved for Scheduled Tribe, 170 for Scheduled Caste and 520 in the open category, 165 amongst Scheduled Tribe candidates should be selected on the basis of merit amongst Scheduled Tribe candidates., 85 posts should be filled up from the Scheduled Caste candidates on merit in this category and 260 out of the general category candidates must be selected only on merit irrespective of any other consideration of seniority, place of residence, economic preference etc. In 50% of the remaining posts across the board, the State may give weightage for seniority etc., but strict guidelines in this behalf should be laid down. RELIEF: 121. It has been urged that even if we set aside the selections, our judgment should be prospective in nature. It has also been urged by Mr. Sankar Deb, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners, that those portions of the policy which are bad may be severed and those portions which can be upheld may be retained, but the appointments already made need not be disturbed. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in A.P. Public Service Commission v. K. Sudharshan Reddy & Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 505 , AIR 1957 SC 628 , (2000) 7 SCC 719 . Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in A.P. Public Service Commission v. K. Sudharshan Reddy & Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 505 , AIR 1957 SC 628 , (2000) 7 SCC 719 . These judgments have no applicability to the cases in hand and we are not all in agreement with this submission. The selections have been totally unfair. The selections have not been made in a transparent manner. The citizens of this country have not been treated equally. Most of the clauses of the policy are illegal and unconstitutional. The entire policy is bad because it gives no guidelines and, therefore, the entire selection will have to be, must be and is accordingly set aside. 122. Though we have set aside the selections, we are concerned with the education of the small children who are innocent and have no concern with the illegalities of the selection. We, therefore, direct that the teachers whose selections have been set aside shall continue to function in their present place of postings till 31.12.2014, i.e. the end of the academic session of this year. THE FUTURE: 123. The State on or before 31.12.2014 must complete a fresh process of selection of teachers in all categories. In view of the discussions held above, we direct that the State should frame anew Employment Policy within two months from today and shall carry out selections in accordance with the fresh policy as early as possible and not later than 31.12.2014. 124. It is not for this Court to frame guidelines but if the State does not frame any guidelines, then the State shall follow the following directions while making selections. If the State frames its own guidelines, it must ensure that they are in tune with the law laid down by the Apex Court as discussed by us above and in light of the directions given hereinafter. If the State frames its own guidelines, it must ensure that they are in tune with the law laid down by the Apex Court as discussed by us above and in light of the directions given hereinafter. (i) Fresh applications shall be invited for all the posts; (ii) Even those who have applied earlier will have to apply again though they may be given relaxation in age and no fees may be charged from them; (iii) The State shall clearly set out the number of posts in each category of teachers; (iv) In case of undergraduate teachers, the State if it is so advised may divide the posts sub-division wise so that the primary school teachers are local people as far as possible; (v) In respect of graduate teachers, the State may divide the posts district wise; (vi) In case of postgraduate teachers, there will be no zone wise division of posts; (vii) In case the State decides to make division of posts region wise, as indicate hereinabove, then the candidates must be asked to apply only for one region of their choice. It should also be specified in the advertisements that once a candidate applies under any category then he shall not be permitted to change his category and the roll number should be allocated in such a fashion that the category and region of each candidate is clearly depicted in the roll number itself. (viii) For each category of teachers, a written test preferably an objective (MCQ) test must be held; (ix) This test should be conducted by an independent body like the Tripura Public Service Commission or the Tripura Central University; (x) The test should be multiple choice question and the answer sheet should be checked through a computer keeping in view the large number of candidates involved; (xi) At least 50% of the total marks shall be awarded on the basis of the performance in the written test, i.e. in case a candidate obtains 70 marks out of 100 in a written test, 35 marks out of 50 shall be awarded to him towards the total assessment; (xii). In the case of Post Graduate Teachers another 20 marks shall be awarded for the marks received in the qualifying course, i.e. B.A./B.Sc./B.Com (Honours) or post-graduation, i.e. M.A./ M.Sc./M.Com. In the case of Post Graduate Teachers another 20 marks shall be awarded for the marks received in the qualifying course, i.e. B.A./B.Sc./B.Com (Honours) or post-graduation, i.e. M.A./ M.Sc./M.Com. Therefore, if a candidate has obtained 50% marks in the qualifying course, he would get 10 out of 20 under this head. A candidate, who has higher qualifications, for example he is an Hons. Graduate and has also done his post-graduation or has done his post-graduation in 2(two) subjects, then he may be awarded 5 more. Similarly 5 more marks shall be awarded to those candidates who have obtained Ph. D. or similar qualifications. Since consistency has an important role, 5 marks each i.e. 10 marks shall be awarded for the marks obtained in Madhyamik and Higher Secondary examination respectively. Therefore, if a candidate has 40% marks in Madhyamik he will get 2 out of 5 and if he has 60% marks in Higher Secondary he will get 3 marks. Out of the remaining 10 marks which shall be awarded at the time of interview 5 marks shall be earmarked for extra-curricular activities i.e. sports, music, drama or NCC etc. but the State must lay down clear-cut guidelines as to how these marks have to be allotted. Therefore, the interview board will have the liberty to award 5 marks on the basis of oral interview. (xiii). In case of Graduate Teachers, 50% marks shall be allocated for the performance in the written test, 20% marks for the marks obtained in the qualifying course i.e. Graduation, 5 marks on the basis of marks obtained in Higher Secondary and 5 marks for the marks obtained in Madhyamik and 10 marks shall be awarded on the basis of percentage of marks for candidates when done post graduate. Similarly, Out of the remaining 10 marks which shall be awarded at the time of interview 5 marks shall be earmarked for extra-curricular activities i.e. sports, music, drama or NCC etc. and 5 for performance in interview. (xiv). For Under Graduate Teachers 50% shall be allocated for performance in the written test, 10 marks for the marks obtained in Madhyamik, 10 marks for the marks obtained in Higher Secondary and 15 marks shall be awarded to those candidates who are qualified as per the NET guidelines i.e. they have passed TET or B. Ed or 2(two) years Diploma in Teaching. 5 Marks for higher qualifications. 5 Marks for higher qualifications. Out of the remaining 10 marks which shall be awarded at the time of interview 5 marks shall be earmarked for extra-curricular activities i.e. sports, music, drama or NCC etc. and 5 for performance in interview. (xv). We may make it clear that 50% seats shall be filled in only on the basis of merit. In the State of Tripura the reservation is as follows: Scheduled Tribe-31% Scheduled Caste -17% General Category - 52% Therefore, if there are 1000 posts in a particular category of 'Teachers' at least 165 Scheduled Tribe candidates should be selected on the basis of merit amongst Scheduled Tribes, 85 candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes be selected on the basis of merit drawn out amongst the Scheduled Caste category and 260 out of the unreserved/general category shall be appointed strictly on the basis of merit drawn out as above. (xvi). The State must also ensure that in accordance with the Persons with Disability Act and the law laid down by the Apex Court in a number of cases including Union of India & Anr. v. National Federation of the Blind & Ors., [ (2013)10 SCC 772 ] adequate numbers of posts are reserved for persons with disabilities. (xvii). In case the States so desires, it may reserve a small percentage of posts for Ex-servicemen or wards of those who have died fighting for the Country or have been severely disabled. However, the reservation under this head shall be horizontal and not above 5%. The number of posts in this category should also be clearly defined. (xviii). The State may, if it so desires, also out of this 50% give some weightage to persons who have been waiting for the appointment for a long time. Therefore, there can be additional 20 marks to be awarded for seniority i.e. 1 mark for each year of seniority subject to a maximum of 20 marks. Similarly, the State may also give some weightage to members of the needy families out of these 50% posts and may allot 10 marks for those persons who belonged to the needy category. Therefore, the remaining 50% of posts the marking may be out of 130 i.e. 20 marks for seniority and 10 marks for need. (xix). Similarly, the State may also give some weightage to members of the needy families out of these 50% posts and may allot 10 marks for those persons who belonged to the needy category. Therefore, the remaining 50% of posts the marking may be out of 130 i.e. 20 marks for seniority and 10 marks for need. (xix). Effectively, those selected only on the basis of the merit shall be graded out of a maximum of 100 marks but for those who are given benefit of seniority and/or belonging to a poor family the marking will be out of 130 marks. It is, however, made clear that the State at the time of framing of the policy shall also lay down clear-cut guidelines how the needy families are to be identified, (i) The identification must be done on clearly set out criteria i.e. to say the upper income limit should be clearly defined, (ii) It should be clearly stated that no member of the family should be in government/organized employment, (iii) It should be clearly stated that the land of the family should be below a certain area. We also make it clear that any certificate given to a person said to be needy can be challenged by the unsuccessful candidates if they feel that this certificate has been wrongly given. 125. We would also like to make it clear that other than the benefits indicated by us above there can be no reservation/preference on the basis of age. There shall be no preference to dependent government servants or retired government employee or retrenched employees etc. There can be no reservation for linguistic or religious minorities or on area wise basis. It is further made clear that if the persons who are selected in the previous selection are again selected then the service rendered by them earlier shall be counted for the purpose of seniority, pension and all other purposes. 126. We may make it clear that the benefit to the candidates on the ground of being needy shall not be granted on the basis of the BPL certificates since we have found that there are no guidelines for issuing the BPL certificates. Other guidelines can also be laid down so that the needy can be identified properly. 127. 126. We may make it clear that the benefit to the candidates on the ground of being needy shall not be granted on the basis of the BPL certificates since we have found that there are no guidelines for issuing the BPL certificates. Other guidelines can also be laid down so that the needy can be identified properly. 127. Since we have set aside the revised employment policy which applies to a large category of posts and not merely to teachers, we would like to make it clear that our judgment shall be prospective in nature and shall not affect the appointments already made unless the said appointments are already under challenge before the Court on the ground that the employment policy is illegal. 128. We are also of the considered view that in future the State should not wait for years on end to make the recruitments. In each year before 31st July the State shall identify the number of posts which shall fall vacant in every category of teachers on account of retirements, creation of new posts etc. in the next calendar year. To this 10 to 20% may be added as the posts for anticipated and unforeseen vacancies which may occur due to resignation or death of serving teachers. The test for these posts should be held every year and Select List should be prepared by 31st December of every year so that when the new academic year starts in January these teachers are selected and no school is without a teacher at any given time. While issuing this direction we are taking support from the judgment of the Apex Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. v. U.P Public Service Commission & Ors., [ 2008 (17) SCC 703 ] wherein the Apex Court passed time bound directions for recruitment of civil judges. In our opinion, the requirement of adequate number of teachers is even more important than that of Judges and no post of teacher shall remain vacant. The 'Select List' shall be valid for a period of 1 or 2 years but before the validity of the 'Select List' comes to an end the State must ensure that fresh test is carried out and fresh selection is made. 129. All the writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.