JURISDICTION I.A.Nos.3-4/2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL
Nos.9204-9205 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil)
No.3860-3861/2014) The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by
its .. Appellant(s) Secretary & Ors. Versus T.S.
Anbarasu & Ors. .
.Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted. The Teacher
Recruitment Board Tamil Nadu issued an advertisement
on 29th June, 2009 for filling up of two categories of
posts, namely, (i) Basic Training Teachers (BTC) and
(ii) Secondary Grade Teachers (SGT). It is the
contention of the appellants that the advertisement
reflected 6565 number of posts in both the categories
whereas the stand of the
respondent is that the advertisement was absolutely
silent as regards the number of vacancies or the
number of posts to be filled up.
It is not in dispute that the posts in question were to
be filled up in accordance with the National Council for
Teacher Signature Not Verified Education
(Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Digitally
signed by Usha Rani Bhardwaj Date: 2014.09.24
17:01:45 IST Reason: Recruitment of Teachers in
Schools), Regulation, 2001 framed under the NCTE Act,
1993, by the National Council 2 for Teacher Education
(NCTE). We need not advert to what the Regulation
2001 prescribed. Suffice it to say, the respondents
along with many others applied for the posts in
question and as put forth by the State, all the posts
mentioned in the advertisement were filled up.
There is no cavil over the fact that the respondents
had filed the requisite documents and had gone through
the selection procedure but they were not selected and
no appointment was ever offered to them. At this
juncture, it is apposite to mention that the N.C.T.E.
issued a Notification on 23rd August, 2010 in exercise
of power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section (23) of
the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education
Act, 2009 (for brevity "the 2009 Act"), providing certain
eligibility criteria for appointment as a teacher in class I
to VIII in a school referred to in Clause (n) of Section 2
of the 2009 Act.
The conditions mentioned in the said notification relate
to various aspects but in the present case we are
singularly concerned with paragraph-5 of the
notification. The said paragraph reads as under: "5.
Teacher appointed after the date of this Notification in
certain cases:- Where an appropriate Government, or
local authority or a school has issued an advertisement
to initiate the 3 process of appointment of teachers
prior to the date of this notification, such appointments
may be made in accordance with the NCTE
(Determination of Minimum qualifications for
Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations 2001
(as amended from time to time)." From the aforesaid
paragraph it is clear as crystal that the eligibility
criteria stipulated in the notification dated 23rd August,
2010 issued by the NCTE would not apply to the post
that had already been advertised by the competent
authority of the State.
Therefore, the advertisement issued on 29th June, 2009
remained undisturbed. In view of the aforesaid, the
questions that really remain to be adjudicated are
whether (i) the advertisement mentioned specific
number of posts; (ii) whether the posts mentioned have
already been filled up; (iii) whether the procedure of
merit has been appositely followed; (iv) whether the
respondents despite being more meritorious have been
left out and less meritorious candidates have been
appointed; and (v) whether assuming the advertisement
did not mention the number of posts, the respondents
still could claim a right in perpetualty to have the
appointment. At this juncture, we painfully note that
these aspects have not been addressed to by the High
Court either by the learned Single Judge while deciding
the writ petition or by the Division Bench while
adjudicating 4 the writ appeal or by the subsequent
Division Bench in dealing with the review.
We restrain ourselves from adverting to the width of
jurisdiction exercised by the subsequent Division Bench
in exercise of power of review. As the pertinent issues
have not been addressed to by the High Court we set
aside all the judgments and orders of the learned Single
Judge as well of the Division Bench and remit the
matter to the High Court to focus on the aforesaid five
aspects and decide the matter as expeditiously as
possible. We may repeat at the cost of repetition that
we request the High Court to dispose it of as
expeditiously as possible as the matter has been
pending since long.
In the result, the appeals are allowed. The orders
passed by the High Court in writ appeals, writ petitions
and in the review petitions are set aside and the two
writ petitions are remitted to the High Court with the
stipulation that the matter shall be adjudicated by a
Division Bench in the backdrop of issues formulated by
us so that the controversy is put to rest at the High
Court level. We hereby hasten to add, if eventually the
respondents succeed, they shall be offered appointment
with 5 retrospective effect.
There shall be no order as to costs. ....................J.
[ DIPAK MISRA ] ...................J. [ VIKRAMAJIT SEN ]
NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 23, 2014. 6 ITEM NO.1
COURT NO.8 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O
F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. Nos.
3-4/2014 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No(s). 3860-3861/2014 (Arising out of impugned final
judgment and order dated 09/07/2013 in RA No.
139/2012,09/07/2013 in WA No. 1201/2012,09/07/2013
in WA No. 2121/2012 passed by the High Court Of
Madras) THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP.
BY SEC.& ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUS T.S ANBARASU &
ORS Respondent(s) (for vacating stay and office report)
Date : 23/09/2014 These applications were called on
for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.P. Rao, Sr.Adv. Mr.
Subramonium Prasad, AAG Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Nagendra Rai, Sr.Adv. Mr. A.
Radhakrishnan,Adv. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar,Adv. Ms. Nalini
Chidambaram, Sr.Adv. Mr. V. Balaji, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K.
Sharma,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made
the following O R D E R Leave granted. The appeals are
allowed with no order as to costs in terms of the signed
order. (USHA BHARDWAJ) (RENUKA SADANA) AR-
CUM-PS (COURT MASTER) Signed order is placed on
the file.
No comments:
Post a Comment