advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test (TNTET) -2013 Notification/Advertisement No.13/2013 dated 22nd May, 2013 - fixing cut off marks at 60% with out considering communal basis reservations- Writ petition to quash the notification as unconstitutional - High court rejected the writ as it is a matter of policy , court's have no business to interfere - Apex court confirmed the same and dismissed the SLP = Prof. A. Marx. …. Petitioner Verses Government of Tamil Nadu & Anr. …. Respondents = Published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41085

Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility  Test  (TNTET)  -2013 Notification/Advertisement No.13/2013 dated 22nd May,  2013  - fixing cut off marks at 60%  with out considering communal basis reservations- Writ petition to quash the notification as unconstitutional - High court rejected the writ as it is a matter of policy , court's have no business to interfere - Apex court confirmed the same and dismissed the SLP = 

writ  of
certiorari to quash the Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility  Test  (TNTET)  -2013
Notification/Advertisement No.13/2013 dated 22nd May,  2013  issued  by  the
Teachers Recruitment Board and also sought  a  direction  to  the  Board  to
issue  fresh  notification  extending   the   constitutional   benefits   of
reservation to TNTET by assigning minimum qualifying cut off marks for  each
communal category, in accordance with the prevailing  reservation  rule  and
also for the consequential reliefs. =

 Whether the fixing
60% as uniform qualifying marks is  illegal  and  is  violative  of  Article
16(4) of the Constitution of India and the State ought to fulfill the constitutional obligation in  allocating  minimum qualifying marks based on communal reservation. =

The Madras High Court refused to grant the reliefs prayed for  on  the
ground that the question as to whether relaxation/concessional marks  to  be
granted or not to be granted is a policy matter, to be taken  by  the  State
Government and the court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitutional  of
India cannot give a positive direction to the State  so  as  to  reduce  the
minimum marks to any reserved category. =

We find it difficult to accede to the request  of  the  counsel.   The
question as to whether  the  cut  off  marks  stipulated  for  the  reserved
category candidates have to be reduced or not, is entirely a matter for  the
State Government to decide.  The Court exercising writ  jurisdiction  cannot
grant such relaxation/concessional marks, as the same is the decision to  be
taken by the State Government.   Taking  into  consideration  a  variety  of
factors, State/Authorities concerned in their wisdom would fix the  cut  off
marks and court cannot substitute its views to that of the experts.  We,  in
such circumstances, are not inclined to interfere with these  special  leave
petitions and the same are dismissed.
                            

                  NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 Special Leave Petition (C) No.28043 of 2013


Prof. A. Marx.                               …. Petitioner

                                   Verses

Government of Tamil Nadu & Anr.         …. Respondents

                                    WITH

                 Special Leave Petition (C) No.28042 of 2013


                               J U D G M E N T


K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.



1.    The petitioner herein has approached the High Court seeking a writ  of
certiorari to quash the Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility  Test  (TNTET)  -2013
Notification/Advertisement No.13/2013 dated 22nd May,  2013  issued  by  the
Teachers Recruitment Board and also sought  a  direction  to  the  Board  to
issue  fresh  notification  extending   the   constitutional   benefits   of
reservation to TNTET by assigning minimum qualifying cut off marks for  each
communal category, in accordance with the prevailing  reservation  rule  and
also for the consequential reliefs.

2.    The Madras High Court refused to grant the reliefs prayed for  on  the
ground that the question as to whether relaxation/concessional marks  to  be
granted or not to be granted is a policy matter, to be taken  by  the  State
Government and the court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitutional  of
India cannot give a positive direction to the State  so  as  to  reduce  the
minimum marks to any reserved category.

3.    It is noticed that the same question was considered by the High  Court
in a series of cases, reference was made to the judgments  of  the  Division
Bench in Writ Petition No.30426 of 2012 and connected matters  as  well  and
the judgment in Writ Appeal No.819 and 820 of 2013.   The  High  Court  also
made reference to the Judgment of  this  Court  reported  in  Bharatia  Seve
Samaj Trust through President and another v. Yogeshbhai  Ambalal  Patel  and
another (2012) 9 SCC 310.  
Aggrieved  by  the  same,  these  special  leave petitions have been preferred.

4.    Learned counsel appearing for the  petitioner  submitted  that  fixing
60% as uniform qualifying marks is  illegal  and  is  violative  of  Article
16(4) of the Constitution of India.   Learned  counsel  submitted  that  the
State ought to fulfill the constitutional obligation in  allocating  minimum
qualifying marks based on communal reservation.

5.    We find it difficult to accede to the request  of  the  counsel.   The
question as to whether  the  cut  off  marks  stipulated  for  the  reserved
category candidates have to be reduced or not, is entirely a matter for  the
State Government to decide.  The Court exercising writ  jurisdiction  cannot
grant such relaxation/concessional marks, as the same is the decision to  be
taken by the State Government.   Taking  into  consideration  a  variety  of
factors, State/Authorities concerned in their wisdom would fix the  cut  off
marks and court cannot substitute its views to that of the experts.  We,  in
such circumstances, are not inclined to interfere with these  special  leave
petitions and the same are dismissed.


                                                             …………………………………J.
                            (K.S. Radhakrishnan)





                                                           ………………………………...J.
                                (A.K. Sikri)
New Delhi,
December 13, 2013

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.