JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though she had qualified in the Teachers Eligibility Test (in short TET) examination but she has not been given appointment for the post of Assistant Teacher in spite of the fact that her marks were more than the last selected candidate. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards the advertisement which was published in the year 2015 for the post of appointment of Teachers and submits that by going through the advertisement it would transpire that that the qualification for being appointed as Teacher, the candidates must have passed TET. However, though the petitioner is having more merit points than the last selected candidate but the appointment has been denied to her. 4. Learned counsel further draws attention of this Court towards the counter affidavit wherein stand has been taken by the respondents that as per Jharkhand Primary School Teachers’ Appointment Rules, 2012 (hereinafter to be referred as Appointment Rules); the petitioner had to secure 60% marks in TET examination for appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Assistant Teacher; as PH category are to be treated as unreserved category. Since the petitioner had applied under unreserved/PH category she must secure 60% marks in TET examination for appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Assistant Teacher. Further the candidate having the minimum 60% qualifying marks in TET examination has been given appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Assistant Teacher. Since the petitioner has secured less marks in TET examination, therefore, she has not been given appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Assistant Teacher. She contended that the stand of the respondents that since the petitioner was qualified in TET examination as a reserved candidates and secured less than 60 percent and thus not entitled for appointment; is not tenable in the eye of law, in as much as, Clause-4 ¼[k½ (II) ¼c½ of Appointment Rules clearly stipulates that passing of TET examination is only for the purpose of qualification. Relying upon Clause-4 ¼[k½ (II) ¼c½ of the Appointment Rules, she submits that the action of the respondents is not legal and fit to be rejected. Relying upon Clause-4 ¼[k½ (II) ¼c½ of the Appointment Rules, she submits that the action of the respondents is not legal and fit to be rejected. Since the petitioner had secured more merit points than the last selected candidate; thus, her case as Trained Graduate Assistant Teacher may be considered in the light of the Clause-4 ¼[k½ (II) ¼c½ which categorically states that the marks of TET examination will be only for qualifying purpose. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State reiterated the statement made in the counter affidavit and submits that since the petitioner had secured 57.33% marks in the TET examination which is less than 60% which is required for consideration of appointment under unreserved category; whereas the selected candidate Mr. Jha had secured 60.7% in the TET examination comes under the general category. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is having eligibility criteria to be considered under BC category only; whereas there is no vacancy under the BC category. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be appointed as a teacher under the general category as in the TET examination, she has not secured 60% marks and therefore her candidature has been rejected. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the averments made therein; it appears that the admitted fact of the case is that the petitioner qualified in the TET examination being a reserved category candidate and she duly applied for the post Trained Graduate Assistant Teacher pursuant to the advertisement No.03/2015 for the District of Deoghar. 7. From bare perusal of the said advertisement, it appears that as per Clause-4 ¼[k½ (II) ¼c½ the only qualification which was required that the candidates should be TET pass. It further transpires that pursuant to this advertisement, though the petitioner passed the TET examination under reserved category but since for the District of Deoghar, there was only one vacancy under PH category, as such the petitioner applied under the PH category being visually handicapped which was to be treated as unreserved category. In the advertisement there is no averment that reserved candidates shall not apply for the unreserved post. In the advertisement there is no averment that reserved candidates shall not apply for the unreserved post. From the advertisement, it also appears that proper procedure is given how much marks is to be taken for the purpose of selection with regard to TET examination but the facts remains that the examination of TET is only for the purpose of qualification which entitles a candidate for the purpose of appointment as Assistant Teacher. 8. It is categorical statement of the petitioner that as per the procedure laid down for adding the marks of TET examination as well as main examination; petitioner had secured more merit points than the last selected candidate but only due to fact that she secured 57.33 % in TET examination; she was denied appointment. 9. In the above factual scenario; the only issue which is to be decided by this Court is that “when there was no seat under BC reserved category and the petitioner had duly applied under the PH/general category and as per the procedure of marks, she had secured more marks than the last appointed candidate; then whether the 60% minimum marks in passing the TET examination for general category will be taken into consideration for the purpose of appointment of this petitioner as Assistant Teacher.” 10. In this regard reference may be in the case of Vikas Sankhala & Ors. Vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors., reported in (2017) 1 SCC 350 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically dealt this issue at paragraph 80 to 83 which is as under:- “80. Having regard to the respective submissions noted above, first aspect that needs consideration is as to whether relaxation 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 the Guidelines/Notification dated 11-2-2011. These Guidelines pertain to conducting of TET; basic features whereof have already been pointed out above. 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 the Guidelines/Notification dated 11-2-2011. 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. Therefore, those reserved category candidates who secured lesser marks in TET would naturally get less marks under this head. We would 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 person securing 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. 81. 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. 81. 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 the Circular dated 11-5-2011, 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. 82. In Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. [Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 119 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 772] , this Court has very categorically held that relaxations given in educational qualifications, etc. making a person eligible to participate in selection process would not be treated as availing benefits in the recruitment/employment and the benefits envisaged have to be those which have direct relation to recruitment/employment and are relatable to the jovial relationship of employer and employee. It is also clarified that such benefits must occur from and should be post “level-playing field”. We would like to reproduce the following discussion from the said judgment touching upon the aforesaid aspects: (SCC pp. 138 & 146-47, paras 48-49 & 75) "48. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered opinion that the submissions of the appellants that relaxation in fee or age would deprive the candidates belonging to the reserved category of an opportunity to compete against the general category candidates is without any foundation. It is to be noticed that the reserved category candidates have not been given any advantage in the selection process. All the candidates had to appear in the same written test and face the same interview. It is to be noticed that the reserved category candidates have not been given any advantage in the selection process. All the candidates had to appear in the same written test and face the same interview. It is therefore quite apparent that the concession in fee and age relaxation only enabled certain candidates belonging to the reserved category to fall within the zone of consideration. The concession in age did not in any manner tilt the balance in favour of the reserved category candidates, in the preparation of final merit/select list. 49. It is permissible for the State in view of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 38 of the Constitution of India to make suitable provisions in law to eradicate the disadvantages of candidates belonging to socially and educationally backward classes. Reservations are a mode to achieve the equality of opportunity guaranteed under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Concessions and relaxations in fee or age provided to the reserved category candidates to enable them to compete and seek benefit of reservation, is merely an aid to reservation. The concessions and relaxations place the candidates on a par with general category candidates. It is only thereafter the merit of the candidates is to be determined without any further concessions in favour of the reserved category candidates. 75. In our opinion, the relaxation in age does not in any manner upset the “level-playing field”. It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that relaxation in age or the concession in fee would in any manner be infringement of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. These concessions are provisions pertaining to the eligibility of a candidate to appear in the competitive examination. At the time when the concessions are availed, the open competition has not commenced. It commences when all the candidates who fulfil the eligibility conditions, namely, qualifications, age, preliminary written test and physical test are permitted to sit in the main written examination. With age relaxation and the fee concession, the reserved candidates are merely brought within the zone of consideration, so that they can participate in the open competition on merit. Once the candidate participates in the written examination, it is immaterial as to which category, the candidate belongs. All the candidates to be declared eligible had participated in the preliminary test as also in the physical test. Once the candidate participates in the written examination, it is immaterial as to which category, the candidate belongs. All the candidates to be declared eligible had participated in the preliminary test as also in the physical test. It is only thereafter that successful candidates have been permitted to participate in the open competition.” 83. It is stated at the cost of repetition that provision of giving 20% marks of TET score was applied to all candidates irrespective of the category to which he/she belongs and, therefore, no concession or relaxation or advantage or benefit was given in this behalf which could disturb the level-playing field and tilt advantage in respect of reserved category candidate. On the contrary, the reserved category candidates who had secured less marks in TET examination are given lesser marks in the recruitment process on the application of the formula of allocating 20% marks of TET score. Question (iii) is answered accordingly.” Emphasis Supplied 11. After going through the aforesaid judgment, it clearly transpires that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the above referred judgment in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that 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 when it comes to the recruitment of teachers, the method for appointment of teachers is altogether different. 12. In crux, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that 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; as such the stand of the respondents that since the petitioner passed the TET examination as a reserved candidates and secured less than 60 percent and the advertisement was for the PH category which were to be treated as unreserved category and she was not having 60 percent in TET examination, as such she will not be appointed; has no legs to stand in the eye of law. 13. 13. In this view of the matter, interest of justice would be sufficed by remitting this case back to the respondent No.4, who is directed to verify the record of the case and consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in the light of the aforesaid findings and the judgment referred hereinabove and if the petitioner had secured more marks and she is qualified and eligible in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court for the appointment; then necessary order shall be passed with regard to her appointment. It goes without saying that since the matter is old the order shall be passed within a period of Eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending applications if any also stands disposed of.