Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 803 (MP)

Reena Bhelave v. State of M. P.

2020-08-13

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.P.GUPTA

body2020
ORDER 1. The petitioner by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for a direction to the respondents to provide the benefit of reservation/relaxation of 5% in academic qualification to the candidates of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and to allow her to participate in the counselling process. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the Clause 6(1) of the impugned advertisement (Annexure P-1). 2. The facts of the present case, in short, are that an advertisement (Annexure P-1) was issued for appointment on the posts of High School Teacher to be selected through High School Teacher Eligibility Test 2018. Clause 6(1) of the said advertisement prescribes the educational qualification as “Postgraduate degree in concerned subject with second division along with B.Ed. or equivalent”. The petitioner holds the postgraduate degree with 46% marks and B.Ed. She belongs to Scheduled Caste. The petitioner submitted her candidature for the post and passed the Teacher Eligibility Test but her candidature has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Clause 12 of the said advertisement provides that the provisions of M.P. Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Janjatiyon Aur Anya Pichhde Varg Ke Liye Aarakshan) Adhiniyam 1994 (for short “the Adhiniyam”) and the Rules of 1998 framed thereunder, the Notification dated 19.9.2002 issued by the General Administration Department as also the orders issued by the State Government from time to time will be applicable in respect of appointment to the posts of High School Teacher but despite that the benefit of reservation/relaxation of 5% in academic qualification has not been extended to the petitioner, who is a member of Scheduled Caste. Learned counsel invited our attention to an advertisement (Annexure P-4) issued in respect of Primary Teacher Eligibility Test 2020 wherein as per Clause 4, which deals with the prescribed educational qualification, the minimum 50% marks in Higher Secondary Examination or Graduation and Two Years’ Diploma in Education are required, the benefit of relaxation upto 5% in qualifying marks has been provided to the reserved category and differently abled candidates. He further submitted that similar benefit of 5% in the qualifying marks has been extended to the reserved category candidates in the advertisement (Annexure P-5) issued for filling the posts of Middle Teachers. He further submitted that similar benefit of 5% in the qualifying marks has been extended to the reserved category candidates in the advertisement (Annexure P-5) issued for filling the posts of Middle Teachers. Learned counsel argued that once in these two other Teachers Eligibility Tests the respondents have made provision for relaxation in the qualifying marks upto 5% then the said provision should also have been made in the advertisement for the posts of High School Teacher and thus, the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary besides being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. A perusal of the impugned advertisement (Annexure P-1) shows that no criteria for grant of relaxation or extra 5% marks in the qualifying examination has been fixed for the post of High School Teacher. The petitioner has no right to claim fixation of certain criteria for grant of relaxation in the educational qualification. As is vivid from the Chapter-1 of the advertisements Annexure P-1 and P-5, the eligibility test for the posts of High School Teacher and Middle Teacher is conducted in terms of Madhya Pradesh Rajya School Shiksha Seva (Shaikshanik Samvarg) Seva Sharte Evam Bharti Niyam, 2018 whereas the eligibility test for the posts of Primary Teacher is under the different rules i.e. the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. That apart, the post of High School Teacher is shown to be a Class-II (Gazetted) post while the post of Middle Teacher is a Class-III (Non-gazetted) post. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out as to how the criteria for the posts of High School Teacher and Middle Teacher are the same. Even otherwise, merely because for other posts of teachers the aforesaid exemption in the qualifying marks has been granted which are lower posts, no parity can be claimed on the basis of similarity. In the matter of recruitment, it is within the domain of the respondents to fix the eligibility criteria as per their policy decision and no writ of mandamus can be issued for providing 5% extra marks in the case of High School Teachers particularly when it is not provided in the advertisement itself. 5. In the matter of recruitment, it is within the domain of the respondents to fix the eligibility criteria as per their policy decision and no writ of mandamus can be issued for providing 5% extra marks in the case of High School Teachers particularly when it is not provided in the advertisement itself. 5. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to applicability of the provisions of the Adhiniyam, the Rules framed thereunder, the Notification of the General Administration Department and the orders issued by the State Government as enumerated in Clause 12 of the impugned advertisement is also not tenable. These provisions are only in respect of providing reservation for the posts of High School Teachers as per the Roster prescribed for the State. There is nothing to indicate that the said provisions shall also be applicable for grant of relaxation in the qualifying marks prescribed for the posts. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any substance in the writ petition warranting interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.