JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. S. Dev, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, appearing on behalf of all the respondents. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding, has raised a grievance with regard to the non-consideration of her case for appointment as Post Graduate Teacher in the subject of Political Science(Bengali Medium) against any of the vacancies that were so advertised vide the 2(two) Advertisements, both, dated 28.12.2022, bearing No. GB-EST/Advertisement (GT&PGT)/1/2022/7 and GB-EST/Advertisement (GT& PGT)/1/2022/8. 3. The petitioner has contended that in pursuance of the Advertisements, in question, she had submitted her candidature for being considered against the post of Post Graduate Teacher in the subject of Political Science(Bengali Medium). 4. The petitioner had applied for the said post as available in 3 Districts viz. Cachar, Karimganj, and Hailakandi, as per the provisions made in this connection in the said Advertisements. The petitioner was, thereafter, required to appear in the selection process so involved. The petitioner, herein, appeared in the said selection process. However, on publication of the merit list in the matter; it was found that the name of the petitioner did not find a place therein. On an enquiry, the petitioner was given to understand that her case for appointment against the available vacancies were not so considered on account of the fact that in her TET Examination for the Higher Secondary Level, she had not achieved 60% marks in all the papers involved. The petitioner had undertaken the TET Examination for the Higher Secondary Level in the year 2021 and had scored 64 and 54 marks respectively, in Paper-I and Paper-II of the said TET Examination. Although the petitioner had an aggregate 60 marks in the said TET Examination, however, she did not have the requisite 60% marks in Paper-II. The petitioner belongs to the SC community and accordingly, she having scored 55% marks in the said TET Examination, she was held to have qualified the TET Examination. 5. Although the petitioner had an aggregate 60 marks in the said TET Examination, however, she did not have the requisite 60% marks in Paper-II. The petitioner belongs to the SC community and accordingly, she having scored 55% marks in the said TET Examination, she was held to have qualified the TET Examination. 5. It is contention of the petitioner herein that the reserved community seats as advertised having been filled-up; the case of the petitioner was not further considered against the unreserved vacancies available against the post of Post Graduate Teacher in the subject of Political Science(Bengali Medium) in various provincialized Colleges of the said 3 Districts only on the ground that she did score 60% marks in her TET Examination and had qualified the said Examination, basing on relaxed standards. 6. In view of the said position; an issue arises in the present proceeding as to whether the petitioner having cleared the TET Examination with relaxed standards, can now be denied consideration for appointment against a post which was advertised as an unreserved post although she had scored marks higher than the other candidates participating and now available in the fray for the said post. 7. The said issue need not detain this Court any further in-as-much as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Sankhala & ors. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & ors., reported in (2017) 1 SCC 350 , had concluded that on the basis of the TET marks, a reserved category candidate had not got any advantage while having his case considered against an unreserved post and accordingly, permitted reserved category candidates clearing the TET with relaxed standards to appear in the selection process and to have their cases also considered against the unreserved posts involved. 8. The relevant part of the judgment, referred to above, is extracted hereinbelow for a better understanding of the position: “ISSUES TO BE DECIDED 27. The history of events, right upto the decision of the High Court, gives a clear glimpse of the questions of law that need to be determined by this Court. At this juncture, we would like to formulate these issues, as under: i) Whether policy of the State as reflected in its letter dated March 23, 2011 deciding to give relaxation ranging from 10% to 20% in TET marks to different reserved categories as mentioned therein is valid in law? At this juncture, we would like to formulate these issues, as under: i) Whether policy of the State as reflected in its letter dated March 23, 2011 deciding to give relaxation ranging from 10% to 20% in TET marks to different reserved categories as mentioned therein is valid in law? ii) Whether NCTE notification dated July 29, 2011, which amends paragraph 3 of its earlier guidelines/notification dated February 11, 2011, provides 5% relaxation to the reserved category for passing TET? If so, whether it would be applicable to the reserved categories in the State of Rajasthan as well? iii) Whether reserved category candidates, who secured better than general category candidates in recruitment examination, can be denied migration to general seats on the basis that they had availed relaxation in TET?” **************************************************** “60. Having regard to the respective submission is noted above, first aspect that needs consideration is as to whether relation in TET pass marks would amount to concession in the recruitment process. The High Court has held to be so on the premise that para 9(a) dealing with such relaxation in TET marks forms part of the document which relates to the recruitment procedure. It is difficult to accept this rationale or analogy. Passing of TET examination is a condition of eligibility for appointment as a teacher. It is a necessary qualification without which a candidate is not eligible to be considered for appointment. This was clearly mentioned in guidelines/notification dated February 11, 2011 These guidelines pertain to conducting of TET. Basic features whereof have already been pointed out above. Even para 9 which provides for concessions that can be given to certain reserved categories deals with 'qualifying marks’ that is to be obtained in TET examination. Thus, a person who passes TET examination becomes eligible to participate in the selection process as and when such selection process for filling up of the posts of primary teachers is to be undertaken by the State. On the other hand, when it comes to recruitment of teachers, the method for appointment of teachers is altogether different. Here, merit list of successful candidates is to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained under different heads. One of the heads is marks in TET So far as this head is concerned, 20% of the marks obtained in TET are to be assigned to each candidate. Here, merit list of successful candidates is to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained under different heads. One of the heads is marks in TET So far as this head is concerned, 20% of the marks obtained in TET are to be assigned to each candidate. Therefore, those reserved category candidates who secured lesser marks in TET would naturally get less marks under this head. We like to demonstrate it with an example Suppose a reserved category candidate obtains 53 marks in TET, he is treated as having qualified TET. However, when he is considered for selection to the post of primary teacher, in respect of allocation of marks he will get 20% marks for TET. As against him, a general candidate who secures 70 marks in TET shall be awarded 14 marks in recruitment process. Thus, on the basis of TET marks reserved category candidate has not got any advantage while considering his candidature for the post. On the contrary, "level playing field" is maintained whereby a personsecuring higher marks in TET, whether belonging to general category or reserved category, is allocated higher marks in respect of 20% of TET marks. Thus, in recruitment process no weightage or concession is given and allocation of 20% of TET marks is applied across the board. Therefore, the High Court is not correct in observing that concession was given in the recruitment process on the basis of relaxation in TET. 61. Once this vital differentiation is understood, it would lead to the conclusion that no concession becomes available to the reserved category candidate by giving relaxation in pass marks in TET insofar as recruitment process is concerned. It only enables them to compete with others by allowing them to participate in the selection process. In this backdrop, irrespective of circular dated May 11, 2011, the reserved category candidates who secured more marks than marks obtained by the last candidate selected in general category, would be entitled to be considered against unreserved category vacancies. However, it would be subject to the condition that these candidates have not availed any other concession in terms of number of attempts, etc., except on fee and age.” 9. However, it would be subject to the condition that these candidates have not availed any other concession in terms of number of attempts, etc., except on fee and age.” 9. Applying the conclusions as reached by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Sankhala(supra) to the facts involved in the present proceeding; it is the considered view of this Court that the petitioner, herein, could not have been denied a due consideration only on the ground that she did not score 60% marks in all the Papers involved in her TET Examination and the petitioner having cleared the said TET Examination albeit with relaxed standards, she could not have been denied a due consideration against the unreserved post as available in the matter and advertised vide the said Advertisements. 10. In view of the above conclusion as reached in the matter as well as applying the ratio available in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Vikas Sankhala(supra); it is hereby directed that the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent No. 2 shall now consider the case of the petitioner against any of the advertised posts of Post Graduate Teacher in the subject of Political Science(Bengali Medium) in any of the 3 Districts i.e. Cachar, Karimganj and Hailakandi, and thereafter, reckoning the merit position as obtained by the petitioner in the selection process involved and if it is found that the petitioner, in view of the marks scored by her; is entitled to be so appointed in any of the vacant posts including unreserved post of Post Graduate Teacher in the subject of Political Science(Bengali Medium) available in any of the 3 Districts, referred to above; the respondent No. 2 shall proceed to appoint the petitioner, herein, against any one of such posts basing on her merit position as obtained in the connected selection process. 11. The above exercise as now required to be carried-out along with the issuance of the order of appointment to the petitioner, herein, shall be so carried-out and concluded by the respondent No. 2 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.