Manifest Arbitrariness By State: Madhya Pradesh High Court Allows Plea Challenging Minimum Qualification Required For High School Teacher
The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed a batch of Writ Petitions challenging the minimum qualification required for a High School Teacher i.e., Masters Degree in the relevant subject with Second division and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) or its equivalent.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has allowed a batch of Writ Petitions which challenged the minimum qualification required for a High School Teacher i.e., Masters Degree in the relevant subject with Second division and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) or its equivalent.
The Petitions were filed before the Jabalpur Bench against the vires of Column No.5 to Entry-1 to Schedule III of M.P. State School Education Service (Educational Branch) Service Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018 on the ground that Column No.5 captioned as “educational qualification” is ambiguous and contrary to National Council for Teachers Education Regulations (NCTE Regulations) and that the Regulations framed by the NCTE should prevail to the extent they are repugnant to the Rules framed by the State Government.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain held, “Even the Schedule-III laid down by the State Government has not recognized the provisions carved out by NCTE for those Teachers, who have acquired the qualifications earlier and the earlier regulations of NCTE were in force, i.e. Regulations of 2002 and 2007. By not doing so the State has shown nothing, but manifest arbitrariness, which is not backed by intelligent care, deliberation and due application of mind which is expected from the authority, nor any valid objectives sought to be achieved by the State Government and we have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that Column-5 of Entry-1 of Schedule III Rules of 2018 impugned in the present petitions suffers from manifest arbitrariness for the above reasons and also being violative of Regulations framed by the NCTE in a matter relating to concurrent list.”
The Bench added that the Regulations framed by the NCTE would take primacy over the statutory rules framed by the State Government for a matter, which falls in the concurrent list.
Senior Advocate Rameshwar Singh Thakur represented the Petitioners while Dy. Advocate General (DAG) B.D. Singh represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioners were the aspirants for appointment to the post of High School Teacher in the School Education Department of the Madhya Pradesh State. For appointment to the said post, the requisite qualification was laid down in Schedule III which was framed under the enabling provision of Rule 8 of the 2018 Rules. The challenge was made to Column 5 of Entry 1 of Schedule III providing requisite minimum qualification for High School Teacher which was - “Masters Degree in the relevant subject with Second division and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) or its equivalent.” The Petitioners were aggrieved by such a requirement in the eligibility criteria to the extent that the entry in the Schedule III of the Rules 2018 mentioning the ‘Second Division’ in Masters degree is ambiguous and non-specific and suffers from manifest arbitrariness.
It was the Petitioners’ case that there is no uniformity amongst various universities in India and even in the Madhya Pradesh State, different State universities established under the M.P. Vishwavidhyala Adhiniyam, 1973 are treating Second Division differently. They claimed that there has been a total chaos in the selection to the High School Teacher by mentioning ‘Second Division’ which is a very ambiguous term in place of specific percentage so that uniformity in the selection could be maintained and any arbitrariness in selection process could have been avoided by the State. It was further submitted that the NCTE Regulations do not provide for the ambiguous term like “Second Class or Second Division”.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the submissions made by the Petitioners, observed, “… we have no option but to hold that the requirement of class/division in place of specific percentage of marks suffers from manifest arbitrariness. It deserves to be and thereby declared arbitrary and liable to be struck down.”
The Court further noted that the NCTE has laid down specific percentage of marks, which has not been followed by the State Government and no reason has been shown and moreover, requirement of division is leading to ambiguities and arbitrariness in the selection process, because different universities are treating different divisions differently.
“The position would have been different if there was an uniformity in all universities in awarding Second or Third division marks at the same percentage basis. However, it is not so and it is leading to all sorts of arbitrariness, whereby candidates having 46% marks in PG Degree are getting selected and candidates having 49% marks in PG Degree are being declared disqualified”, it said.
The Court held that the impugned Entry-I of Schedule-III is liable to be struck down as ultra vires on the ground of it being manifestly arbitrary so also contrary to the NCTE Regulations, which have primacy over the State Rules.
“… we hereby strike down Column 5 of Entry-I of Schedule-III of Rules of 2018 as quoted in para -2 of this order and hold that the minimum qualifications as laid down by the NCTE would govern the field in place of the impugned entry that we have struck down. As the High School Teachers of Madhya Pradesh teach classes IXth to XIIth, we clarify that the qualifications etc. prescribed by the NCTE for Senior Secondary classes will be applicable for High School Teachers in Madhya Pradesh”, it remarked.
The Court further held that being contrary to Rule 4-A of Rules of 1998, the non-provision of relaxation to SC and ST candidates in the matter of qualifying marks was also ultra vires the Adhiniyam 1994 and Rules 1998, which are framed by deriving authority under Articles 16(1) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India.
“As there is no such provision for OBC and PWD (Persons with Disability) candidates in Rule 4-A of Rules 1998 but only for SC/ST candidates, therefore, we hold that SC and ST candidates shall be entitled to 5% relaxation in minimum qualifying marks in Masters/Post Graduate Degree and their selection shall be made on the basis of merit of selection list of SC/ST candidates in accordance with Rule 4-A as quoted above”, it added.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that those candidates, who have acquired requisite qualification at the time when earlier Regulations of NCTE, i.e. Regulations of 2002 and 2007 were in force, they will be entitled to be considered as per the then prevailing qualifications as already recognized by the NCTE in the Regulations of 2014.
“We further make it clear and order that the State would be under obligation to carve out a provision for the relaxation of 5% qualifying marks for OBC as well as PWD candidates, as already accepted by its expert committee, for all future recruitments. However, 2023 recruitment will not be re-opened for that purpose”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petitions and directed that the recruitment process be initiated within 2 months and completed within 6 months.
Cause Title- Avnish Tripathi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 12985 of 2021)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Rameshwar Singh Thakur, Advocates Shivanshu Kol, Ramesh Prajapati, Satyendra Jyotishi, Rajmani Singraul, Ruby Haldkar, Brindavan Tiwari, and Kanchan Tiwari.
Respondents: DAG B.D. Singh
