Improper To Discriminate Among Homogenous Group : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that there cannot be a discrimination amongst the homogenous class of the candidates based on their date of admission who secured admission to the same course through the same process in the same academic session while determining their eligibility for getting an appointment to a particular position.

The Rajasthan authorities, on 11.09.2017, issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Teacher Grade III Level II in the Scheduled Area (TSP). While the notification prescribed Graduation with minimum 45% marks and One year Bachelor of Education (B.Ed)  as a qualification.

However, candidates who had taken admission in B.Ed course after issuance of notification dated 31.8.09 of the National Council for Teacher Education,had to secure minimum 50 percent at graduation level or equivalent examination.

The appellant had taken B.Ed admission on 23.10.2009 (after the cut-off of 31.08.09). He was denied appointment on the ground of not meeting the 50% requirement.

The appellant contended that since other candidates of the same batch group who got admitted to the B. Ed. Course before the cut-off date were granted appointment without requirement of securing minimum qualifying marks in the B. Ed. Course, therefore his case should be considered at par with those candidates, and there should not be a discrimination amongst the homogenous class based on the cut-off date.

Accepting the Appellant's argument, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan observed that it would be improper to discriminate inter se among a homogenous group of students admitted for the academic session 2009-10.

The Court said that if other candidates who took admission to the B. Ed. Course in the same academic year in earlier rounds of counselling were granted appointment without securing a minimum qualifying mark in the B. Ed. Course, then the appellant who took admission to the Course in the subsequent round of counselling cannot be asked to fulfil the minimum qualifying mark criteria to become for teacher.

“As was pointed out therein, it could not be that those students admitted in the first round of counselling would be eligible, even with less than 50% marks in graduation, while the others admitted in the subsequent rounds of counselling would not be.”, the Court said while placing reliance on Rajasthan High Court's judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Ankul Singhal, which was approved by the Supreme Court.

The Court also took note of the notification issued by the NCTE on 13.11.2019 which stated that the minimum percentage of marks in graduation shall not be applicable to those incumbents who had already taken admission to the Bachelor of Education or equivalent course prior to 29th July, 2011.

The Court noted that in Ankul Singhal, it was held that the admission of the petitioners to the B. Ed. Course would relate back to the first round of counselling, and they cannot be denied the benefit of not securing minimum mark just because their admission was completed in the subsequent round of counselling. It was held in Ankul Singhal (supra) that it will be improper to discriminate inter se among a homogenous group of students admitted for the academic session 2009-10.

The Court also noted that in Rakesh Gaur vs. The State of Rajasthan, the petitioner, who had taken B.Ed admission on n 05.11.2009, after the appellant herein, was granted relief by the Rajasthan High Court.

"Rakesh Gaur (supra) was a case identically situated with the case of the appellant. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander too," the Court held..

Accordingly, the impugned judgment was set aside and direction was issued to the authorities to treat the appointment given to the appellant, pursuant to the interim order of the High Court's Division Bench dated 23.10.2021, as a regular appointment and after reinstating the appellant grant consequential benefits.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nishant Bishnoi, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, AOR Ms. Srishti Prabhakar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Divyank Panwar, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR

Case Title: MANILAL Versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS., C.A. No. 010440 / 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 685

Click here to read/download the judgment