Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition challenging the rejection of candidature for the post of Middle School Teacher on the ground of securing less than 50% marks in her bachelor’s degree (B.A.), despite clearing the examination, a single-judge bench of Subodh Abhyankar, J., found the petitioner eligible and directed the respondents to issue the appointment order to the petitioner with all consequential benefits, except pecuniary benefits given to similarly situated candidates.
In the instant matter, the petitioner appeared for the Middle School Teacher Eligibility Test-2018, aiming for appointment as a Middle School Teacher. Her candidature, however, was rejected on the grounds that she had secured only 47.5% marks in her B.A., which was below the 50% threshold prescribed in a clarification order dated 17-09-2021. Her name was listed at serial no. 124 in the invalid candidates list.
The petitioner challenged the rejection, relying on the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) notification dated 28-11-2014, which, according to her, allows eligibility if a candidate has 50% marks either in the Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in the relevant subject. The petitioner had secured 50% marks in her Master’s (M.A.), and her B.Ed. degree was duly obtained from a recognized institution.
The petitioner argued that the English version of the NCTE Regulation, 2014 clearly states that “candidates with at least 50% marks either in the Bachelor’s Degree and/or in the Master’s Degree” are eligible for B.Ed. It was contended that the advertisement specified eligibility as “minimum 45% marks in the relevant subject in graduation”, without mandating 50%. It was contended that the petitioner fulfilled these conditions by having 47.5% in B.A., 50% in M.A., and a B.Ed. degree, therefore, is eligible for the appointment.
However, the respondents relied on the Hindi version of the NCTE Regulations, which mentioned only 50% in graduation as the eligibility criterion. It was argued that postgraduate qualifications were not relevant for evaluating eligibility for B.Ed., and thus for appointment as a teacher.
The Court noted the “material discrepancy” between the English and Hindi versions of the NCTE Regulation. The Court noted that the English version of the NCTE Regulations stated that “candidates with at least fifty percent marks either in the Bachelor’s Degree and/or in the Master’s Degree in Sciences/Social Sciences/Humanity…”, whereas, the Hindi version omits any mention of the Master’s Degree.
Referring to Article 348(1)(b)(iii) of the Constitution of India, the Court emphasised that the English version shall prevail, as it is the authoritative text of Central Government regulations. Additionally, the Court found that the advertisement itself prescribed only 45% in graduation for eligibility and no condition mandating 50% in graduation. Hence, the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature was unsustainable in law.
“Since the NCTE Regulation, 2014 are the Central Government regulations, in case of any discrepancy, the regulations which are in English language shall prevail.”
The Court held that the respondents erred in relying solely on the Hindi version of the NCTE Regulation. The Court found the petitioner is indeed eligible, having obtained 50% in her Master’s and possessing a valid B.Ed.
The Court quashed the impugned orders dated 17-09-202 to the extent they concerned the petitioner. The Court directed the respondents to issue an appointment order to the petitioner within three months, along with all consequential benefits, except pecuniary benefits, as extended to similarly situated candidates.
[Sunita Gupta v. State of M.P. School Education Department, W.P. No. 3673 of 2023, Decided on 07-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Anand Singh Bahrawat, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde, Counsel for the Respondent/State
Shri Koustubh Pathak, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2
Buy Constitution of India HERE
