N THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE 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.
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.
