Marks In Vocational Subjects Relevant For Eligibility Under Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules: Supreme Court Reinstates Terminated Teachers

The Apex Court was hearing appeals filed by the aggrieved teachers, seeking reinstatement, contending that they had scored more than the required qualifying marks after taking into account the marks secured by them in the respective vocational subjects.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, while adjudicating the matter, observed: “In the present case, we find no reason as to why the method of calculation of the percentage, as provided on the reverse of the marksheet, should not be applied for the purpose of calculation of marks of the appellants. Marks secured in the vocational subject is a way for a candidate to improve his/her overall percentage of marks. The reasoning behind this method, is clear to us. A vocational subject, though optional, would place an additional burden on an examinee which he/she shoulders in the fervent hope of improving his/her overall percentage.”

Advocate Sangeeta Singh appeared on behalf of the appellants, while Advocate Shantanu Sagar represented the respondents.

Background

The appellants had been appointed as Intermediate Trained Teachers after undergoing the selection process conducted by the District Education Superintendent. Following their appointments, show cause notices were issued alleging that they did not fulfil the minimum qualification requirement of securing 45% marks in the intermediate examination.

In their responses, the appellants explained that they belonged to the Scheduled Tribe category and, therefore, were entitled to a 5% relaxation under the applicable rules, making 40% the qualifying threshold. They also submitted that the marks obtained in vocational subjects were part of their aggregate marks as per the instructions printed on their marksheets.

However, the Department rejected their explanation and recalculated their scores by excluding vocational subject marks, concluding that their total fell below 40%. On this basis, their appointments were terminated.

A Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court allowed their petitions and set aside the termination orders, holding that the calculation was erroneous and violative of natural justice. The Division Bench, however, reversed this finding, ruling that vocational subject marks could not be included under Rule 21 of the 2012 Rules, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, upon hearing the matter, examined the marksheets and noted that the reverse side contained specific instructions regarding the inclusion of vocational subject marks for the computation of the overall percentage. The Court held that this prescribed method of calculation was binding unless contradicted by a statutory rule or notification.

The Bench emphasised that the calculation method printed on the marksheet was not in conflict with any statutory provision and that “in the absence of a bar or an alternate method provided by any law, the method provided on the marksheet has to be followed”, while stating that, “the onus of proof shifted to the respondents to show that calculation as per the marksheet is not warranted.”

The Bench also examined the interpretation of Rule 21 of the Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012, which the State had relied upon. It clarified that “that the eligibility of a candidate for appearing in the Teacher Eligibility Test is to be decided in accordance with Rule 4 and Merit list (for the purposes of appointment) is to be prepared in accordance with Rule 21”, therefore holding that “the respondents erred in applying Rule 21 for the purpose of deciding whether the appellants fulfilled the eligibility criteria” and that “the Division Bench also committed the same error.”

The Supreme Court further found that the show cause notices issued to the appellants alleged non-fulfilment of the 45% marks criterion, but did not mention the exclusion of vocational subject marks as a ground. The appellants, the Court held, had successfully demonstrated that they met the eligibility standard when vocational marks were taken into account. Nevertheless, their services were terminated on entirely new grounds that such marks could not be considered.

The Bench held that this change in reasoning without prior notice “specifically requiring the appellants to explain why the marks secured in the vocational subject should not be taken into account for determining their overall percentage” had led to the appellants being denied “a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing.” The Bench accordingly held that “the termination orders are wholly unsustainable and stand vitiated being in violation of the principles of natural justice.”

Conclusion

Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and restored the order of the Single Judge, holding that the inclusion of marks obtained in vocational subjects was proper and that the exclusion of such marks without any statutory basis was erroneous.

The Bench further directed that the appellants be treated as having been in continuous service from the date of their initial appointment, with full arrears of pay, seniority, and all consequential benefits

Cause Title: Ravi Oraon v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1212)

Appearances

Appellants: Advocate Sangeeta Singh, AOR.

Respondents: Advocates Shantanu Sagar, AOR, Jayesh Gaurav, Diksha Ojha, Ishwar Chandra Roy, and Farrukh Rasheed, AOR

Click here to read/download Judgment