Chattisgarh High Court
Bhojraj Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 August, 2025
1
SMT
NIRMALA
RAO
2025:CGHC:39790
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 3784 of 2021
1 - Bhojraj Sahu S/o Shri Bhagat Ram Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o 195
Hatripara, Sargaon, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Janjgir District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh
3 - Divisional Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh
4 - National Council For Teacher Education Through Its Secretary, Hans Bhawan,
Wing, I I, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Shri Aditya Kumar Mishra, Advocate
holding the brief of Shri Ishan Verma,
Advocate.
For Respondent/ State : Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
08.08.2025
2
1 In this petition, the petitioner is aspirant for the post of Teacher
(Mathematics Subject) E Cadre and Teacher (Mathematics) T Cadre, who
belongs to reserved category, has challenged the impugned decision
taken by Joint Director, Education Department whereby candidature of the
petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he has secured lesser
than 55% marks in the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (in short CTET),
otherwise he was found eligible.
2 The short question involved in this petition is that "is it mandatory to
secure 55% or above marks in CTET for reserved category to come within
eligibility criteria for the post of Teacher, whereas State Government has
relaxed the criteria for candidate belonging to same category, who
secured 50% in C.G. Teachers Eligibility Test (in short CGTET)?"
3 The facts, in nutshell, are that the School Education Department issued an
advertisement for recruitment and appointment of teaching staff including
500 posts of Teacher (Mathematics Subject) E Cadre and 1000 posts of
Teacher (Mathematics Subject) T Cadre. The minimum qualification for the
post of Teacher (Mathematics Subject) is graduation with two of the
following subjects Maths/ Physics/ Chemistry Electronics/ Computer
Science/ statistics, Military Science/ Groundnut Science and two year
diploma in elementary Education and also passed the Teacher Eligibility
Test either CTET or CGTET. The petitioner participated in the recruitment
process availing benefits of his category and qualified the written
examination. He was called for document verification by the Department
and found eligible but surprisingly he was informed that his candidature
has been rejected for appointment to the post of Teacher (Mathematics
Subject) as he has secured lesser than 55% marks in CTET.
3
4 Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that petitioner
being eligible and qualified candidate duly applied for the post of Teacher
(Mathematics Subject) E & T Cadre and the respondent authorities after
accepting the application of the petitioner issued admit card for appearing
in written examination. It is next contended that the petitioner appeared in
the written examination and passed it, thereafter the petitioner was called
for document verification. Their next submission is that Joint Director,
Public Instruction Chhattisgarh called a Departmental Scrutiny meeting on
10.02.2021 and on its basis, statement dated 15.02.2021 was issued
whereby at para 4 it has been resolved that qualifying marks in CTET for
General Category would be 60%, whereas for reserved categories i.e
SC/ST/OBC/PH etc. it shall be 55%, at the same time qualifying marks in
CGTET for General Category shall be 60% and for reserved categories i.e
SC/ST/OBC/PH etc. it shall be 50% which is arbitrary and discriminatory
as the policy of NCTE does not discriminate between CTET and State
TET. He would further submit that the petitioner has scored lesser than
55% marks in CTET therefore, he was held ineligible. It is further
contended that on 11.02.2021 the NCTE issued guidelines for conducting
TET examination under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 2009') wherein it has
been laid down that minimum pass marks for TET is 60% and School
managements (Government, local bodies, government aided and
unaided) may consider giving concessions to persons belonging to SC/ST,
OBC, differently abled persons etc., in accordance with their extant
reservation policy. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Vikas Sankhala vs. Vikas
Kumar Agarwal, (2017) 1 SCC 350.
4
5 Per Contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that qualifying
marks of CTET is 60% and same is evident from guidelines issued by the
NCTE and mark sheets issued by the Central Board of Secondary
Education and thus, the petitioner has secured minimum qualifying marks
therefore, his candidature cannot be considered and he is not entitled to
get appointment against the posts advertised for Teachers. The NCTE
issued Guidelines on 11.02.2021 for conducting TET and minimum
passing marks was fixed as 60% with rider that State Governments can
give relaxation to candidates belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently abled
persons etc. He would further submit that State has granted relaxation
upto the extent of 10% to the candidates belonging to
SC/ST/OBC/differently abled persons etc. who participated in CGTET and
it is a policy decision of the State Government therefore the petitioner has
no right to claim equity. It is also submitted that by virtue of Article 162 of
the Constitution of India, the powers of the State executive extend to
those matters upon which the State has the power or the authority to
legislate and the State Government can take such decisions in conformity
with the Articles 162 and 309 of the Constitution of India. He would submit
that the petition preferred by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.
6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, considered their
rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the
documents annexed with the petitions with utmost circumspection.
7 It is not in dispute that the petitioner is bonafide resident of the State of
Chhattisgarh, he belongs to reserved categories, he is graduate, he has
passed Diploma in Education and he appeared for CTET examination and
secured lesser than 55% marks in CTET. It is also not in dispute that the
5
State Government has granted 10% relaxation to the candidates
belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently abled persons etc. appearing in
CGTET, meaning thereby a candidate belonging to SC/ST/
OBC/differently abled persons etc., who has secured 50% in CGTET
would be eligible for appointment but at the same time a candidate who
has secured lesser than 55% in CTET belonging to SC/ST, OBC,
differently abled persons etc. would be ineligible.
8 The qualifying mark for CGTET is 60% however relaxation has been
granted to the candidates belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently abled
persons etc., whereas qualifying marks for CTET is also 60% but there is
relaxation of only 5% to the candidates belonging to SC/ST, OBC,
differently abled persons etc. The rules governing the field with regard to
qualifying marks in CTET are as under:-
(i) Vide notification dated 23.08.2010, in exercise of the
powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) of Section 23 of
the Act of 2009 and in pursuance of notification No. S.O.
750(E) dated 31st March, 2010 issued by Department of
School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human
Resources Development, Government of India, The
National Council for Teacher Education (for short
'NCTE') has laid down the following minimum
qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment
as a teacher in class I to VIII in a school referred to in
clause (n) of Section 2 of the Act of 2009.
(a) Clause 1(i) of the said notification lays down the
minimum qualification prescribed for appointment of
a candidate as a teacher for Classes I to V.
6
(b) Clause 1(ii) prescribes minimum qualification for
appointment of a candidate as a teacher for Class VI
to VIII.
(c) The said notification was subsequently amended
vide notification dated 29.07.2011 prescribing the
minimum qualification for teaching Class I to V as
was provided under Clause 1(i) and for Classes VI to
VII under Clause 1(ii).
(d) The said notification was further partially modified
vide notification dated 13.11.2019, whereby Clause
1(ii) was amended.
(ii) (A) Vide notification dated 11.02.2011 the NCTE has
issued wide guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility
test (TET) under the Act of 2009. Regarding qualifying
marks in TET examination it has been laid down as
under-
"Qualifying Marks
9. A person who scores 60% or more in the TET
exam will be considered as TET pass. School
managements (Government, local bodies,
government aided and unaided)
(a) may consider giving concessions to persons
belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently abled persons
etc., in accordance with their extant reservation
policy;
(b) should give weightage to the TET scores in the
recruitment process; however, qualifying the TET
would not confer a right on any person for
recruitment/employment as it is only one of the
eligibility criteria for appointment."
7
(B) Vide notification dated 09.06.2021 the NCTE has
substituted the validity period of TET qualifying
certificate for appointment. Now it would remain valid
for life.
9 The rules governing the qualifying marks in CGTET are as under:-
(a) Annexure appended to the Chhattisgarh Teacher
(Panchayat) Cadre (Recruitment and Conditions of Service)
Rules, 2012 (hereinafter 'rules of 2012') talks of Prescribed
Educational Qualification for Lecturer (Panchayat), Teacher
(Panchayat) and Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) and particular
about Equivalency. Para 3 of it deal with minimum marks
obtained in TET which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready
reference:-
3. Minimum marks obtained in TET :-
(A) Higher Secondary or equivalent the applicants should get
minimum 60% marks to teach classes I to class VI.
(B) Graduate applicants should get minimum 60% marks to
teach class VI to class VIII.
(C) For SC/ST/OBC/PH applicants of Higher Secondary (or
equivalent) and graduate candidate should get minimum 50%
marks
(b) Likewise, annexure appended to the Chhattisgarh
Shikshak (Nagariya Nikay) Samvarg (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 (hereinafter 'rules of 2013')
talks of Prescribed Educational Qualification for Lecturer
(Municipal), Teacher (Municipal) and Assistant Teacher
(Municipal) and particular about Equivalency. Para 3 of it deals
with minimum marks obtained in TET which is reproduced
hereinbelow for ready reference:-
3. Minimum Marks obtained in Teacher Eligibility Test (T.E.T.):-
8
(a) Higher Secondary or equivalent the applicants should get
minimum 60% marks to teach Class I to Class V.
(b) Graduate applicants should get minimum 60% marks to
teach Class VI to VIII.
(c) For Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward
Classes/ Physically Disabled applicants of Higher Secondary
(or equivalent) and graduate candidates should get 50%
marks,
(c) Section 2(t) of The Chhattisgarh School Education Services
(Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and
Promotion Rules, 2019 (in short the 'rules of 2019') defines
'Teachers Eligibility Test' as "means the teacher eligibility test
conducted for the post filled up by direct recruitment of
educational cadre."
(d) In the Annexure-I appended to the rules of 2019 'Minimum
Qualification' for Assistant Teacher as well as Teacher amongst
others is "passed in Teachers Eligibility Test (TET), to be
conducted by appropriate government in accordance with the
guidelines framed by the NCTE for this purpose."
10 In Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal, (2017) 1 SCC 350, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para 38, 45, 46, 47, 48, 84 as
relied upon by the counsel for petitioners, thus;-
Issues to be decided
38. The history of events, right up to the decision of the High Court,
gives a clear glimpse of the questions of law that need to be
determined by this Court. At this juncture, we would like to
formulate these issues, as under:
38.1. (i) Whether policy of the State as reflected in its Letter dated
23-3-2011 deciding to give relaxation ranging from 10% to 20% in
9
TET marks to different reserved categories as mentioned therein is
valid in law?
38.2. (ii) Whether NCTE Notification dated 29-7-2011, which
amends Para 3 of its earlier Guidelines/Notification dated 11-2-
2011, provides 5% relaxation to the reserved category for passing
TET? If so, whether it would be applicable to the reserved
categories in the State of Rajasthan as well?
38.3. (iii) Whether reserved category candidates, who secured
better than general category candidates in recruitment examination,
can be denied migration to general seats on the basis that they had
availed relaxation in TET?
45. We find merit in the contention of the appellants and do not
agree with the respondents that the provision for relaxation up to
5% in qualifying marks at all relates to TET. In the first instance, it is
to be noted that insofar as qualifying marks for TET are concerned,
they are prescribed in Para 9 of the Guidelines dated 11-2-2011.
There is no amendment to the said para. Amendment is
incorporated in Para 3 of the principal Notification dated 11-2-2011
which we have already reproduced above. Original Para 3 gives the
rationale for including TET as a minimum qualification. Though, it is
not understood as to why that para is substituted by the aforesaid
amended para vide Notification dated 29-7-2011. Be that as it may,
a reading of amended Para 3 clearly brings out that it incorporates
two aspects. The first aspect touches upon the training to be
undergone by a person and this training can be undergone by those
persons who have certain specified marks in graduation and DEd
(Special Education) or BEd (Special Education). Training is for 6
months' duration i.e. 6 months' Special Programme in Elementary
Education. Insofar as persons having graduation and BEd
qualification are concerned, minimum marks in the graduation or
BEd are also prescribed. It is stipulated that graduation should be
with at least 50% marks and BEd qualification with at least 45%
marks. However, those who have done DEd (Special Education) or
BEd (Special Education), no minimum marks in obtaining those
qualifications are prescribed. What follows is that person who is
graduate with BEd qualification, he/she should have minimum 50%
10
marks in graduation and 45% marks in BEd qualification. It is in this
context the second aspect of the amended provision in sub-para (ii)
of Para 3 mentions about "Reservation Policy" and allows relaxation
up to 5% in qualifying marks. This relaxation is, therefore, clearly
relatable to marks in graduation and BEd qualification, meaning
thereby insofar as reserved category candidates such as
SC/ST/OBC/PH are concerned, they will be treated as qualified to
undergo the training in case they pass graduation with minimum
45% marks and BEd qualification with minimum 40% marks. We
are clear in mind that this relaxation of 5% does not relate to TET at
all. Had it been so, this Notification dated 29-7-2011 would have
amended Para 9 and, particularly, sub-para (i)(a) of Para 9 which
deals with concessions to reserved category candidates that has
not happened and is left intact.
46. We may mention that the High Court in the impugned judgment
has also read the said amended Para 3 in the same manner we
have interpreted. We affirm the view of the High Court on this
specific aspect. We would like to reproduce the following discussion
from the judgment of the High Court wherein additional reasons for
arriving at this particular conclusion are given: (Vikas Kumar
Agarwal case [State of Rajasthan v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal, 2013
SCC OnLine Raj 2043] , SCC OnLine Raj)
"This view is fortified by Letter No. F.No. 61-1/2011/NCTE/N&S
dated 1-4-2011 of NCTE addressed, amongst others, to all
Secretaries and Commissioners of the State Governments/UTs
clarifying that following the issuance of the Notification dated 23-8-
2010, it had received representations from the State Government
and other stakeholders that in respect of SCs/STs, etc. relaxation
up to 5% in the qualifying marks should be allowed, since such
relaxation is permissible by NCTE for admission in various teacher
education courses. Referring to the minimum marks in the
Notification dated 23-8-2010, in senior secondary (or its equivalent)
or in BA/BSc, it was elucidated that following its meeting held on
16-3-2011 it was decided that relaxation up to 5% in such qualifying
marks would be available to SCs/STs, etc., in accordance with the
extant policy of the State Government/UTs and other school
managements. There is no reference of such relaxation to pass
11
marks in TET. This accommodation of NCTE, by way of 48
concession of 5% marks qua the academic qualifications, is also
evident from the provisions of the National Council for Teacher
Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2009
(hereinafter referred to as "the 2009 Regulations") and the norms
and standards for various education courses as specified in the
appendices thereto and referred to in the course of arguments on
its behalf. The explanation of NCTE with regard to the nature of the
relaxation granted under the caption "reservation policy" traceable
to Para 3 of the principal Notification dated 23-8-2010 with
reference amongst others to the 2009 Regulations cannot be
ignored or discarded."
47. Thus, our answer to Question (ii) is that insofar as NCTE is
concerned, it has not provided any provision for relaxation in TET
examination for reserved category candidates but has left it to the
State Governments to do the needful in this behalf, as per Para 9 of
the Guidelines dated 11-2-2011 which remains unaltered.
48. In view of our foregoing discussion pertaining to Question (ii), it
becomes clear that as far as relaxation in passing TET is
concerned, same is governed by Para 9 of Notification dated 11-2-
2011. However, before we deal with the said para in particular, we
need to recapitulate the salient facts and features in brief followed
by submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in this behalf.
84. These appeals are accordingly allowed in the manner indicated
in this judgment, effect whereof would be as under:
84.1. Those reserved category candidates who secured pass
marks on the application of relaxed standards as contained in the
extant policy of the Government in its Communication dated 23-3-
2011 to be treated as having qualified TET examination and, thus,
eligible to participate in the selection undertaken by the State
Government.
11 In Vikas Sankhala (supra) it was further observed that 'Government
may prescribe relaxed standards for such reserved categories, as it is
12
in conformity with the spirit of the constitutional provisions'. It reads
thus:-
60. In fact, it hardly needs to be emphasised that the Government
may prescribe relaxed standards for such reserved categories, as it
is in conformity with the spirit of the constitutional provisions
contained in Articles 15 and 16 read with Articles 38, 39(a) and 46
of the Constitution, which are enabling provisions permitting the
State to make special provisions and provide relaxed standards for
persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
socially and educationally backward classes.
12 In matter of Vikas Sankhla (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
categorically held that relaxation of 5% is clearly relatable to marks in
graduation and B.Ed. qualification meaning thereby insofar as
candidates such as SC/ST, OBC, differently abled persons etc. are
concerned, they will be treated as qualified to undergo the training in
case they pass graduation with minimum 45% marks and B.Ed.
qualification with minimum 40% marks and this relaxation of 5% does
not relate to TET at all. Therefore, the judgment of Vikas Sankhla
(supra) does not support the cause of the petitioners at all.
13 Reverting to the facts of the present case, the petitioner has not
challenged the Recruitment Rules of 2012, 2013 or 2019 pertaining to
relaxation granted to the candidate belonging to SC/ST, OBC,
differently abled persons etc. for the reasons best known to them and
nothing concrete has been brought on record to discern the fact that
something prevented the petitioner from challenging those rules. The
authorities have fixed the criteria on the basis of existing rules of 2012
and 2013. It would be worthy to take note of the fact that the petitioner
participated in the recruitment process knowing very well the
13
recruitment rules and guidelines of NCTE issued by the appropriate
authorities in this regard from time to time, therefore the petitioner
cannot assert that the rules of game have been varied subsequently
and thus he is estopped on this count.
14 The State Government has granted relaxation upto 10% to the
candidates belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently abled persons etc. in
CGTET examination. As rightly submitted by learned state counsel that
it is within the exclusive domain of the State by virtue of Article 162 of
the Constitution of India that the powers of the State executive extend
to those matters upon which the State has the power or the authority to
legislate and the State Government can take such decisions in
conformity with the Articles 162 and 309 of the Constitution of India.
One more aspect of the matter is that the candidates, who appeared
and passed CTET, may participate in any of the teacher recruitment
drive conducted by the Central Government, whereas candidates
passing CGTET may participate only in the teacher recruitment
process conducted within the State of Chhattisgarh.
15 The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with similar issue in matter of
V. Lavanya v. State of T.N., (2017) 1 SCC 322, also discussed the
judgment of Vikas Sankhla (supra) and their lordships while agreeing
to law laid down in Vikas Sankhala (supra) observed as under:-
"25. The State of Rajasthan by its Notification dated 29-7-2011 has
granted similar relaxation of 5% marks in the qualifying marks
relatable to TET exams conducted in the State of Rajasthan. The
Rajasthan High Court struck down the relaxation granted by the
14
State of Rajasthan on the ground that such relaxation was in
excess of extant reservation policy. In Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas
Kumar Agarwal [Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal, (2017) 1
SCC 350] , this Court reversed the judgment [State of
Rajasthan v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal, 2013 SCC OnLine Raj 2043] of
the Rajasthan High Court holding that the State has a legitimate
right in granting such relaxation to SC/ST, OBC, etc. After referring
to Nivedita Jain [State of M.P. v. Nivedita Jain, (1981) 4 SCC 296]
and M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 :
(2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] cases, this Court in paras 67, 70 and 71
held as under : (Vikas Sankhala case [Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas
Kumar Agarwal, (2017) 1 SCC 350] , SCC pp. 378 & 381)
"67. Examined in the aforesaid context, when our Constitution
envisages equal respect and concern for each individual in the
society and the attainment of the goal requires special attention to
be paid to some, that ought to be done. Giving of desired
concessions to the reserved category persons, thus, ensures
equality as a levelling process. At the jurisprudential level, whether
reservation policies are defended on compensatory principles,
utilitarian principles or on the principle of distributive justice, fact
remains that the very ethos of such policies is to bring out equality,
by taking affirmative action. The Indian Constitution has made
adequate enabling provisions empowering the State to provide such
concessions.
***
70. It hardly needs to be emphasised that the State has a legitimate
and substantial interest in ameliorating or eliminating where
feasible, the disabling effects of identified discrimination. It is a duty
cast upon the State, by the Constitution, to remedy the effects of
“societal discrimination”. The provision for relaxation in TET pass
marks has to be looked into from this angle which is in tune with the
constitutional philosophy. After all it only ensures that such
candidates belonging to reserved category become eligible for
appointment as primary teachers. On the other hand, when it
comes to selection process such reserved category candidates
have to compete with general category candidates wherein due
regard for merit is given. Therefore, only those candidates
15
belonging to reserved category who are found meritorious in
selection are ultimately appointed. We are of the opinion that in this
manner the two constitutional goals, that of rendering quality
education on the one hand and providing “equality of opportunity” to
the unprivileged class on the other hand, are adequately met and
rightly balanced.
71. We, thus, do not agree with the interpretation that is given by
the High Court and answer Question (i) holding that relaxation
prescribed in letter dated 23-3-2011 in pass marks in TET
examination for different reserved categories mentioned therein is
legal and valid in law.”
We are entirely in agreement with the above judgment in Vikas
Sankhala case [Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal, (2017) 1
SCC 350].”
16 In V. Lavanya (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering
the appointment of Secondary Grade Teachers and BT Assistants in
the State of Tamil Nadu as per the Guidelines prescribed by “NCTE”
observed that it is a matter of State policy to frame and prescribe
selection norms with regard to services and posts connected with the
affairs of the State. Relevant extract of the judgment is quoted herein
below:-
28. …………Considering the representation from various quarters,
it was a policy decision taken by the Government to relax marks for
TET pass for specified and underprivileged communities. It is a
matter of State policy to frame and prescribe selection norms with
regard to services and posts connected with the affairs of the State.
It is well settled that courts cannot interfere with the policy decisions
of the State especially when the policy decision is taken in public
interest to further the advancement of reserved categories. A policy
decision taken by the State in exercise of its jurisdiction under
16
Article 162 of the Constitution of India is subservient only to the
mandate of the constitutional provisions and the recruitment rules
framed by the State itself, either in terms of a legislative act or an
executive order. The relaxation provided by the State Government
and criteria of selection laid down vide impugned government
orders are in exercise of the powers provided under the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India and being a policy decision in
terms of its extant reservation policy cannot be impeached on the
ground that the relaxation has been given to suit some specific
class of individuals.
29. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions that there can be
no question of estoppels against the Government in the exercise of
its legislative, sovereign or executive powers (vide Excise
Commr. v. Ram Kumar [Excise Commr. v. Ram Kumar, (1976) 3
SCC 540 : 1976 SCC (Tax) 360] and M. Ramanatha Pillai v. State
of Kerala [M. Ramanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, (1973) 2 SCC
650 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 560] ). The view taken by the Madurai Bench
as regards the stand of the Government to relax the norms
allegedly in contradiction to its earlier stand is not sustainable in
law.
17 In Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain, (2007) 4
SCC 737, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with scope of
judicial review of government policy observed that “Legality of the
policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of
judicial review”, it reads thus:-
16. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well
defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities
17examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a
policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy
which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial
review when examining a policy of the Government is to check
whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is
opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any
statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere
with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground
that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the
policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject
of judicial review (vide Asif Hameed v. State of J&K [1989 Supp (2)
SCC 364] , Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [(1990) 3 SCC
223] , Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(1996) 10
SCC 304] , BALCO Employees’ Union v. Union of India [(2002) 2
SCC 333] , State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash [(2005) 13 SCC 495 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 1225] and Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh
(3) v. State of A.P. [(2006) 4 SCC 162] )
18 In State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, (1998) 4 SCC 117, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with validity of governmental
policy observed that the court would dissuade itself from entering into
this realm which belongs to the executive. It reads thus:-
25. …………… So far as questioning the validity of governmental
policy is concerned in our view it is not normally within the domain
of any court, to weigh the pros and cons of the policy or to
scrutinize it and test the degree of its beneficial or equitable
disposition for the purpose of varying, modifying or annulling it,
based on howsoever sound and good reasoning, except where it is
arbitrary or violative of any constitutional, statutory or any other
provision of law. When Government forms its policy, it is based on a
number of circumstances on facts, law including constraints based
on its resources. It is also based on expert opinion. It would be
dangerous if court is asked to test the utility, beneficial effect of the
policy or its appraisal based on facts set out on affidavits. The court
would dissuade itself from entering into this realm which belongs to
the executive. It is within this matrix that it is to be seen whether the
new policy violates Article 21 ……….”
18
19 The State Government has taken a policy decision to relax marks for
CGTET for specified class of candidates belonging to SC/ST, OBC,
differently abled persons etc. It is well settled that the Courts in
exercise of their power of judicial review do not ordinarily interfere with
the policy decisions of the State, unless the policy can be faulted on
the ground of malafide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness.
There exists a very thin line between the exercise of ‘judicial review’
and at the same time ‘judicial restraint’ and the Courts ordinarily should
exercise later especially when dealing with the policy decisions. The
Courts cannot guide the executive to frame its policies in a particular
manner rather it is left to the wisdom of the executive. It is the
prerogative of the State to lay down norms and procedure for posts
connected with the affairs of the State. The policy decision in the case
at hand has been taken on the basis of existing Recruitment Rules,
therefore it cannot be said that State Government has acted in arbitrary
manner. The relaxation provided by the State Government and criteria
of selection laid down vide impugned government orders as observed
above are in exercise of the powers provided under the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India and being a policy decision in
terms of its extant reservation policy cannot be impeached on the
ground that the relaxation has been given to suit some specific class of
individuals. It is trite law that the Courts would be slow in interfering in
the policy matters unless the policy is found to be palpably
discriminatory and arbitrary.
19
20 With the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of considered view that the
State taking policy decision has made a reasonable classification
between the CTET and CGTET and relaxed the passing marks upto
10% in CGTET whereas, 5% in CTET for candidates belonging to
SC/ST, OBC, differently abled persons etc., which cannot be termed as
discriminatory. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere
with the decision taken by the authorities; consequently, this petition is
liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi