//
you're reading...
legal issues

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

English: Emblem of the State Government of Tam...

English: Emblem of the State Government of Tamil Nadu used by the state government for public notices in the press and for publicity purposes. The emblem of India is the image used on the India Wikipedia article. தமிழ்: தமிழ் நாடு அரசின் சின்னம். (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

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

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,853,148 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,868 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com