Supreme Court of India
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The Official Law Report Fortnightly ISSN: 3048-4839 (Online)
Home
Full Text

RAM SHARAN MAURYA AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

SCR Citation: [2020] 12 S.C.R. 466
Year/Volume: 2020/ Volume 12
Date of Judgment: 18 November 2020
Petitioner: RAM SHARAN MAURYA AND OTHERS
Disposal Nature: Others
Neutral Citation: 2020 INSC 646
Judgment Delivered by: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Respondent: STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
Case Type: CIVIL APPEAL /3707/2020
Order/Judgment: Judgment
1. Headnote

Service Law:Recruitment – To the post of Assistant Teacher of Junior BasicSchool – By judgment in *Anand Kumar Yadav case ‘Shiksha Mitras’were given opportunity to be considered for next two recruitmentsto the post of Assistant Teacher – State amended U.P. Basic Education(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 making ‘Shiksha Mitras’ eligiblefor appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers of Junior BasicSchools – Qualification for the same included passing of TeachersEligibility Test (TET) and Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination(ATRE) – For ATRE-2018, minimum qualifying marks for General& OBC candidates was 45% and for SC/ST was 40% – Candidateswere selected for appointment – National Council for TeachersEducation by Notification dated 28.6.2018 laid down thatcandidates holding B.Ed. degree could be entitled to be appointedas teacher for classes I to V provided they undergo six months bridgecourse – Rules 1981 were subsequently amended in terms of theNCTE Notification dated 28.6.2018 with retrospective effect –Thereafter ATRE-2019 was notified for filling up 69000 vacanciesfor Assistant Teachers – The same was conducted without notifyingminimum qualifying marks – After conducting the exam, Stateprescribed minimum qualifying marks i.e. 65% for General categoryand 60% for all other reserved categories – Writ petitions filed by‘Shiksha Mitras’ assailing fixation of minimum qualifying marks –Single Judge of High Court allowed the wirt petition filed by ‘ShikshaMitras’ – In appeal, Division Bench of High Court reversed theorder of Single Judge – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: NCTE isentitled to lay down the norms for appointment of teachers for classesI to V – Such prescription is binding on the State – Amendment of1981 Rules has to be read in confirmity with the NCTE Notificationdated 28.6.2018 – The eligibility norms having already beenconferred by Notification dated 28.6.2018, amendments to 1981Rules with retrospective effect cannot be said to have conferredeligibility norms for the first time – Therefore, B.Ed. candidates wererightly allowed to participate in the selection process – Cut-off marksfor ATRE-2019 at 65-60% cannot be termed as exclusionary orillegal as the same was designed to garner the best talent which isin consistence with the objectives of RTE Act – Government isempowered to lay down minimum marks from time to time – Suchpower can be exercised even after the examination is over, providedsuch exercise is not actuated by any malice or ill-will – NationalCouncil for Teachers Education Act, 1993 – Right to EducationAct, 2005 – Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) ServiceRules, 1981 – Rules 2(1)(x), 8 and 14.

2. Case referred
3. Act
  • Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009)
  • NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION ACT, 1993 (73 of 1993)
4. Keyword
  • Service Law
  • Recruitment
  • To the post of Assistant Teacher of Junior Basic School
  • Anand Kumar Yadav case
  • ‘Shiksha Mitras’
  • passing of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET)
5. Equivalent citation
    Citation(s) 2021 AIR 954 = 2020 (11) JT 140 = 2020 (11) Suppl. JT 140 = 2020 (13) SCALE 198