Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-011748-011748 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 20309/2022 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms that Rule 4 governs eligibility and Rule 21 applies only to merit‐list preparation; sets aside Division Bench orders applying Rule 21 to eligibility |
| Questions of Law | Whether terminating services on grounds of invalid graduation certificates and exclusion of vocational marks (under Rule 21) was lawful, and what relief survives given fresh appointments and posthumous claims. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | Escorts Farms Ltd. v. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, V.P. & others, (2004) 4 SCC 281 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Appellants joined as Intermediate Trained Teachers in December 2015; show-cause notices issued in September 2016 questioned their 40% eligibility and graduation certificates; services terminated in October 2016 after Department excluded vocational marks; Single Judge quashed terminations, Division Bench restored them; Supreme Court allowed appeals. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarification that Rule 4 (eligibility for Teacher Eligibility Test) governs minimum qualifying marks and must include vocational subject bonus marks as per marksheet guidelines.
- Confirmation that Rule 21 (merit-list preparation) cannot be used to deny statutory eligibility under Rule 4.
- Reinforcement that changing the factual basis for termination (excluding vocational marks) without a fresh show-cause notice breaches natural justice.
- Service-termination orders founded on undisclosed factual charges are vitiated even if the ultimate decision may be predictable.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Domain of Rules
- Rule 4 (Chapter 2) sets minimum qualifications to appear in the Teacher Eligibility Test; it allows a 5% relaxation for SC/ST and does not exclude vocational marks.
- Rule 21 (Chapter 3) prescribes how to prepare the merit list post-eligibility and expressly excludes “additional subject” marks only for that purpose.
- These rules operate in distinct spheres—eligibility vs. ranking.
-
Application to Appellants
- Appellants’ marksheets include a guideline to add bonus vocational marks above pass marks to the overall percentage. Fact-based calculations showed each scored over 40% when these marks were included.
- The Department’s exclusion of vocational marks relied incorrectly on Rule 21 in an eligibility context, contrary to Rule 4.
-
Natural Justice
- Show-cause notices alleged only non-fulfilment of 45% minimum and invalid graduation certificates. Appellants replied, demonstrating they met the 40% threshold.
- By terminating on a different ground (excluding vocational marks) without fresh notice or hearing, the Department prevented appellants from addressing that specific charge—violating audi alteram partem.
-
Relief and Compensation
- Division Bench orders reinstating terminations were set aside.
- Appellants (and heirs, where applicable) deemed continuously in service; full arrears of pay and seniority granted, subject to practical experience limitations for promotion; compassionate-employment claims permitted.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Appellants)
- The marksheet’s own guidelines entitle candidates to add bonus vocational marks to improve overall percentage, satisfying the 40% eligibility threshold.
- Rule 21 applies only to merit-list preparation and cannot curtail substantive eligibility under Rule 4.
- Termination on a new factual basis (exclusion of vocational marks) without fresh notice violated principles of natural justice.
Respondents (State / Department)
- Rule 21 A(ii)(A) of the 2012 Rules excludes “additional subject” marks when calculating educational merit points, thus vocational marks could not count.
- No fresh show-cause notice was required because facts were “not in dispute” (relying on Escorts Farms Ltd.).
- Participation in TET under Rule 4 did not confer a substantive right to appointment; termination was lawful.
Factual Background
Between August and December 2015, the Dhanbad District Education Superintendent advertised and filled posts of Intermediate Trained Teachers for Classes I–V. The appellants, belonging to the ST category, joined in December 2015. In September 2016, show-cause notices alleged they failed to secure 45% in their intermediate exams and questioned graduation certificates. In October 2016, their services were terminated after the Department excluded vocational marks from percentage calculations. They filed writ petitions: Single Judges quashed terminations, but a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court reinstated them. The Supreme Court granted special leave to hear these appeals.
Statutory Analysis
- Rule 4 (Chapter 2) defines minimum qualifications to appear for the Teacher Eligibility Test: Higher Secondary with 50% (45% for science or specific diploma holders), with 5% relaxation for SC/ST, and qualification through TET; no exclusion of vocational or additional subject marks for establishing eligibility.
- Rule 21 (Chapter 3) prescribes district-level merit-list preparation by combining educational merit points (average of matric, intermediate, and teacher-training percentages) and TET merit points. It explicitly states that marks in “additional subject” shall not be included only for calculating the educational merit point used in the merit list.
- The Court held Rule 21 is confined to post-eligibility ranking and cannot override Rule 4’s substantive eligibility requirement.
This decision is binding on all recruitment authorities and courts in India and serves as a roadmap for interpreting overlapping provisions in recruitment rules and upholding natural justice in service-termination matters.