OMKAR SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS. on 16 July 2019

894

[2019] 10 S.C.R. 894

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 10 S.C.R.

OMKAR SINGH

A

v.

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No.5564 of 2019)

B

JULY 16, 2019

[ARUN MISHRA, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]

Education/Educational Institutions: Eligibility criteria forappearing in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) – NCTE by Notificationdated 23.08.2010 laid down minimum qualification for a person toCbe eligible for appointment as a teacher in class I to VII – One ofthe eligibility criteria stated therein is “passed in the TET to beconducted by appropriate government in accordance with theguidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose” – The eligibilityfor the TET examination is provided in Para 5 of the NCTE GuidelinesD– Para 5 of the guidelines states that the incumbents who haveacquired the qualification academic as well as professional canapply for TET examination – The second category of candidateswho can apply for TET examination is those who are “pursuing”any TTC – Issue involved in these appeals is the meaning andinterpretation of the word “pursuing” as appearing in Para 5(ii) ofEthe NCTE Guidelines – Held: The meaning of “pursuing” is a personwho is undergoing any of TTC – He/she must have been admittedand pursuing TTC which is prescribed as a qualification –Declaration of the result, appearing in the examination or date offilling up of the forms, etc. cannot be the criteria to appear in theFTET examination – Therefore, a candidate who is undergoing i.e.,“pursuing” the requisite TTC shall be eligible to appear in the TETexamination – By impugned order, Division Bench of the High Courtin respect of eligibility held that as on the last date specified forfilling up the online form for TET examination, the candidates musthave appeared in the examination (of TTC) and the result has notGbeen declared – These riders are not proper in view of clear languageused in clause 5(ii) of the NCTE guidelines – Division Bench ofHigh Court read into and/or added something more than what isprovided in clause 5(ii) of the NCTE guidelines – The language H

used in clause 5 (ii) of the NCTE guidelines is simple, clear andunambiguous – In the instant case, admittedly, on the cut-off date,all the candidates were pursuing the concerned TTC – Thereafter,all of them cleared the TET examination as well as cleared theconcerned TTC – At the time when they were appointed as AssistantTeachers, all of them fulfilled the eligibility criteria for appointmentas Assistant Teachers – All of them passed the TET examination andalso passed the TTC as per the requisite eligibility criteria – Thus,ousting certain incumbents by the High Court cannot be sustainedsince they were pursuing TTC and they were clearly eligible toappear in the TET examination and passed it while pursuing therequisite professional qualification for being eligible to be appointedas Assistant Teachers – The respective appellants whoseappointments were challenged were eligible to appear in the TETexamination at the time they were “pursuing” the concerned TTC –Thus, the decision of the High Court, to the aforesaid extent, is notsustainable – The impugned orders of the High Court are accordinglymodified to the aforesaid extent – As regards the submission withregard to persons who have passed Graduation without Science orMathematics as one of the subjects is concerned, the concernedDistrict Education Officers are directed to carry out the exercise tofind out such candidates who are Graduate and have been appointedas Assistant Teachers without having Science or Mathematics asone of the subjects, within a period of three months – Right ofChildren to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2017 – s.23 –Interpretation of statutes – Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972– s.2(1)(b) – Teacher Training – Uttar Pradesh Basic Education(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 – r.8 – NCTE Guidelines.

Interpretation of Statutes: As per the cardinal principle ofthe rule of interpretation, while construing a particular provision,the particular provision is required to be read as it is and nothing isto be added or taken away – Education/Educational Institutions.

Interpretation of Statutes: The expression ‘rule of literalconstruction’ lays down that words of a statute are first understoodin their natural, ordinary or popular sense and phrases, andsentences are construed according to their grammatical meaning –Education/Educational Institutions.

ABCDEF

G

H

AWords and Phrases: Word “pursuing” – Meaning of –Education/Educational Institutions.

G.P. Singh in ‘Principles of Statutory Interpretation’(14th end.) at p. 91 – referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.5564 ofB2019

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.05.2018 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 506 of 2018

With

CCivil Appeal Nos. 5569, 5566, 5570, 5568, 5565, 5571, 5572, 5567,5573, 5574, 5575, 5576, 5577, 5583, 5582, 5586, 5579, 5578, 5584, 5585,5580, 5588, 5587, 5581, 5590, 5589, 5591, 5592 of 2019.

R. Venkataramani, Dinesh Dwivedi, V. Shekhar, Nidhesh Gupta,Rupender Singh Suri, Rakesh K. Khanna, Shyam Divan, Mrs. V. Mohana,DMrs. Kiran Suri, P. V. Surendranath, Pallav Shishodia, Ajay K. Mishra,Sr. Advs., R. K. Singh, Kumar Gaurav, Robin Khokhar, Yash Raj Bundela,Praveen Vignesh, Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Ms. Japneet Kaur,Ms. Vriti Gujral, Ms. Pallavi Singh, Anzu. K. Varkey, Mrs. Neeraj Singh,Ms. Harshita Raghuvanshi, K. Ramesh, Aditya Giri, Vikas Singh,Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Ms. Roopali Chaturvedi, Prashant Shukla,ESuyash Srivastava, Ms. Nikita Capoor, Ms. Shreya Mishra, RavindraSadanand Chingale, Mrs. Neeraj Singh, Ms. Ritu Reniwal, Rohit Singh,Ms. Resmitha R. Chandran, Ms. Lekha Sudhakaran, Ved Prakash, SanjayRastogi, Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Dr. Vinod Kr. Tewari, Rajesh K.Singh, Krishnanand Pandeya, Ms. Pooja, Ravi S. Jha, Kedar NathFTripathy, Mukesh Verma, Sanjeet Paliwal, Sibo Sankar Mishra, NiranjanSahu, Raj Singh Rana, Ms. Parul Shukla, Gaurav Yadava, VirendraKasana, Vijay Pratap Yadav, Karunakar Mahalik, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi,Prithvi Raj Singh, Ms. Sheetal Rajput, Sushil Kumar, Rajeev KumarGupta, Mrs. Prachi Bhatnagar, Balraj Dewan, Mrigank Prabhakar,Devvrat, Ms. Priyanka Das, Tom Joseph, U. C. Mohanty, Binay KumarGDas, P. Dayal, Rajesh Sharma, Ms. Shalu Sharma, Anand Nandan, RajeshSrivastava, Abbula Kalam, Abdul Qadir, Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, VaibhavManu Srivastava, Manoj K. Mishra, Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay,Shafiq Khan, Ms. Nidhi Singh Dubey, Sanjay Rastogi, Dhruv Gautam,Devashish Chauhan, Ms. Pallavi Mishra, Ms. Neha Agarwal, Ms. CharuHAmbwani, Nishesh Sharma, Durga Dutt, Rohit Priyadarshi, Rahul Kumar Tripathi, Parminder Singh Bhullar, Vivek Singh, Swastik Dalai, A.Lakshminarayanan, Ms. Manju Jetley, Amit Pawan, Ms. GarimaPrashad, Satyajeet Kumar, Rakesh Mishra, Bimlesh Kumar Singh, RajeevK. Gupta, Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Rajesh Srivastava, Puskar Sharma,Susheel Tomar, Sanjeev Malhotra, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Ms. KamakshiS. Mehlwal, Nishit Agrawal, Harsh Mishra, Udayaditya Banerjee,Ms. Khushboo Vinodray Malkan, Alok Singh, Narayan R. Panicker,Dr. Amarendra P. Yadav, Abhishek Singh, Ms. Manju Sharma Jaitley,Advs. for the appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was passed:

O R D E R

1. Leave granted. Applications for impleadment are allowed tothe extent of intervention.

2. All these appeals have been preferred against the impugnedcommon judgment and final order of the Division Bench of the HighCourt of Judicature at Allahabad on 30.05.2018 in Special AppealNO.506/2018 deciding the bunch of the matters.

3. The singular question involved is whether the incumbents whowere pursuing any of the Teachers Training Course (for short ‘TTC’)(recognized by the National Council for Teachers Education (for short‘NCTE’) or the Rehabilitation Council of India (for short ‘RCI’) as thecase may be) could have appeared in the Teachers Eligibility Test (forshort ‘TET’) prescribed by the NCTE?

4. The basic education is defined under Section 2(1)(b) of theUttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 (for short “Act of 1972”) tomean education up to class VIII imparted in schools other than highschools or intermediate colleges. Section 19 of the Act of 1972 providesfor rulemaking power of the State Government and envisages that theState Government by notification may make rules for carrying outpurposes of the Act. The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers)Service Rules, 1981 have been framed in exercise of the powers underSection 19 of the Act of 1972. Rule 8 of the 1981 Rules provides foressential qualification of the candidates for appointment to the post ofAssistant Master of Senior Basic School and Assistant Mistress of SeniorBasic School for teaching Science and Mathematics and require acandidate to have Bachelor Degree with Science and Mathematics and A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Atraining qualification of B.T.C., C.T., B.Ed. and B.Ed. Special Educationor a course recognized by RCI and passed Teacher Eligibility Testconducted by the Uttar Pradesh Government or the Government of India.

4.1. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory EducationAct, 2009 (in short ‘Act of 2009’) was enacted w.e.f. 16.02.2010. TheBCentral Government in exercise of power under sub-Section (1) of Section23 of the Act of 2009 vide notification dated 31.3.2010 authorized theNCTE as an academic authority to lay down the minimum qualificationfor a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. The Constitution(Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 inserting Article 21A relating tothe Right to Education was given effect from 01.04.2010. Article 21ACpostulates that the State shall provide free and compulsory education toall the children of age from 6 to 14 years in such manner as the Statemay determine. The NCTE, the academic authority, laid down minimumqualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher inclass I to class VIII. The dispute in this matter is confined to the Dappointment of Assistant Teacher in Class VI to VIII.

4.2 The NCTE vide notification dated 23.08.2010 laid down thequalifications for minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible forappointment as a teacher in class I to VII as under:

“1. Minimum Qualifications:-E

(I) Classes I-V

(a) Senior Secondary (or it’s equivalent) with at least 50 % marksand a 2-year diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever nameknown)

F

or

Senior Secondary (or it’s equivalent) with at least 45% marks and2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever nameknown), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms andProcedure), Regulations 2002.

G

or

Senior Secondary (or it’s equivalent) with at least 50% marks and4 year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)

or

Senior Secondary (or it’s equivalent) with at least 50% marks and2-year Diploma in Education (Special Education)

AND

(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted bythe appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelineframed by the NCTE for the purpose.

(ii) Classes VI-VIII

(a) B.A./B.Sc and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (bywhatever name known)

or

B.A./B.Sc. With at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor inEducation (B.Ed.)

or

B.A/B.Sc. With at least 45% marks and 1 year Bachelor inEducation (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (RecognitionNorms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time inthis regard.

Or

Senior Secondary (or it’s equivalent) with at least 50% marks and4 year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)

or

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and4 year BA/B.Sc./B.Sc.Ed. Or B.A.Ed./B.Sc.Ed.

Or

B.A./B.Sc. With at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed.(SpecialEducation)

AND

(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to be conducted bythe appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelinesframed by the NCTE for the purpose.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A5. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,2009 has been further amended by inserting a second proviso underSection 23 on 01.04.2015 as under:

“Provided further that every teacher appointed or in position ason the 31[st] March 2015, who does not possess minimumBqualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquiresuch minimum qualifications within a period of four years fromthe date of commencement of the Right of Children to Free andCompulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017.”

5.1 As one of the eligibility criteria for appointment as a teacherCas per the notification issued by the NCTE dated 23.8.2010 is passed inthe TET to be conducted by the appropriate government in accordancewith the guidelines framed by the NCTE for conducting the TET, it hasbeen mentioned that it is necessary to ensure that persons recruited asteachers possess the essential aptitude and ability to meet the challengesof teaching at the primary and upper primary level.D

5.2 As per the guidelines framed by NCTE for conducting theTET, the rationale for including the TET as a minimum qualification fora person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher is given in theGuidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) are extractedhereunder:E

“3 The rationale for including the TET as a minimum qualificationfor a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher is as under:

“i. It would bring national standards and benchmark of teacherquality in the recruitment process; F

ii. It would induce teacher education institutions and students fromthese institutions to further improve their performance standards;

iii. It would send a positive signal to all stakeholders that theGovernment lays special emphasis on teacher quality.”

5.3 The eligibility for the TET examination has been provided inGpara 5 of the Guideline as under:

“Eligibility

5 The following persons shall be eligible for appearing in the TET:

i)A person who has acquired the academic and professional quali-fications specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23[rd] August2010; iiA person who is pursuing any of the teacher educationcourses (recognized by the NCTE or the RCI, as the case maybe) specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rdAugust 2010;

iii. The eligibility condition for appearing in TET may be relaxed inrespect of a State/UT which has been granted relaxation undersub-section (2) of section 23 of the RTE Act. The relaxation willbe specified in the notification issued by the Central Governmentunder that sub-section.”

(emphasis supplied)

5.4 It is apparent that the condition No.(i) of para 5 is that aperson who has acquired academic and professional qualifications asper notification dated 23.8.2010 can appear in the TET examination. Asper para 5 (ii), a person who is “pursuing” any of the teacher educationcourses recognized by NCTE or the RCI, as specified in Notificationdated 23.08.2010 shall be eligible for appearing in the TET. As per para5(iii), the eligibility condition for appearing in TET may be relaxed inrespect of State/UT which has been granted relaxation under Section23 (2) of the RTE Act of 2009. The relaxation will be specified in thenotification issued by the Central Government.

6. In the State of U.P., a Government Order dated 7.9.2011 hadbeen issued for conducting TET which provided that a candidate havingB.A, B.Sc, B.Com. and TTC passed are eligible to appear in the TETand subsequently, the State of U.P. issued another Government Orderdated 17.9.2011 in the modification of the earlier Government Orderdated 7.9.2011, whereby the eligibility guidelines came to be amended inpursuance of the NCTE notification dated 29.7.2011 and in place ofB.A., B.Sc., B.Com. the words “Graduate” came to be substituted.Thereafter, the aforesaid Government Orders dated 7.9.2011 and17.9.2011 came to be amended vide G.O. dated 4.10.2011 and for thatexamination, such candidates were authorized to appear who have passedTTC recognized by the NCTE or who were appearing in the last yearexamination of TTC. The last date of submission of the applications for AB

C

D

E

F

G

AUPTET was 18.10.2011. The UPTET examination was held on13.11.2011. On 25.11.2011 UPTET examination result was declared.At this stage, it is required to be noted that similarly CTET examinationwas conducted by the Central Government authorizing such candidatesto appear who were pursuing the TTC but have not passed the TTCexamination. Thereafter on 17.4.2013, the government order was issuedBfor conducting UPTET examination 2013 and the consequential officeorders were issued.

7. The learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3100 of 2013(Vinod Kumar Singh and others vs. State of UP and others) passed anorder dated 13.3.2013 allowing, as an interim measure, the candidatesCpursuing the TTC to appear in the TET examination making the resultsubject to further orders of the Court. Thereafter, the Government Orderdated 17.4.2013 came to be issued for conducting UPTET examination2013 and consequential office orders were issued. Then a bunch of writpetitions came to be filed before the High Court by such candidates whoDwere pursuing TTC or appearing in the last year examination of TTCwith a prayer that they are being deprived to appear in the TET on theground that they have not passed TTC.

7.1 The High Court disposed of the aforesaid bunch of writ petitionsdirecting the State Government to take notice of the guidelines of NCTEEfor eligibility and issue appropriate instructions or government order inthe event it is found that the writ petitioners are also entitled to appear inthe examination. In compliance of the aforesaid order passed by theHigh Court dated 13.5.2013, a Government Order dated 15.05.2013 cameto be issued by the State Government modifying the Government Orderdated 17.4.2013 and the office orders providing therein that suchFcandidates may also be entitled to appear in the TET examination whoare appearing in TTC examination. It also provided that such candidateswill be allowed provisionally to appear in the TET examination with acondition that TET examination passed certificate will be valid only afterpassing the TTC examination. The UPTET examination was held onG27/28.6.2013 and the result of the UPTET 2013 was declared on13.11.2013. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the respectiveappellants – original respondents before the High Court are the candidateswho have passed UPTET examination, however, at the relevant timewhen they appeared in the TET examination, all of them were pursuing H

their TTC course. It appears that thereafter a Government Order dated11.7.2013 was issued for filling up 14667 posts of Assistant Teachers ofScience and 14667 posts of Assistant Teachers of Maths, total 29334posts of Assistant Teacher of Senior Basic Schools (Class VI to VIII).The Government Order further provided eligibility educational qualificationas B.Sc. and TTC recognized by the NCTE and TET passed. Theacademic qualification was modified in place of B.Sc. and it was madegraduation with a subject of Science or Maths, as the case may be. Asagainst the aforesaid vacancies, the candidates who have passed UPTETexamination 2011, CTET examination 2012, UPTET examination 2013and CTET examination 2013 were eligible to apply. The last date forsubmission of the applications was 30.09.2013, which was furtherextended to 10.10.2013. All the appellants applied pursuant to theaforesaid advertisement. All of them were appointed and all of themare working as Assistant Teachers in the respective subjects since 2015.

7.2 After a period of two years – in the year 2017, a bunch ofpetitions came to be filed before the High Court challenging theappointments/appointment process initiated by the State Government byG.O. dated 11.7.2013. Twofold submissions/grievances were made, firstly,that the appointments have been offered to persons who are ineligible interms of the qualifications specified, inasmuch as they do not haveScience or Mathematics as one of the subjects in the Graduation Degree,and secondly, the persons who had not passed an examination or werenot in the final year of their TTC had also appeared in the TETexamination, which was impermissible, and that, such persons have alsobeen appointed. The learned Single Bench of the High Court disposedof the aforesaid petitions vide judgment and order dated 8.5.2018. Thelearned Single Judge observed and held as under:

“In view of the notification issued by the NCTE dated 11[th] ofFebruary, 2011, as well as the Government Order issued on 15[th]of May, 2013, the inescapable conclusion culled out from theprovision is that only those persons are eligible to appear in theTET examination who have acquired academic and professionalqualification and have either obtained training qualification or arepursuing any of the teacher education courses.

In view of the interpretation given to the word “pursuing” by thisCourt, which stands implemented vide Government Order dated A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

15[th] of May, 2013, it is clear that only those persons, who are inthe final year of their teacher training courses, alone, would beentitled to appear in the TET examination.

The appointing authority, therefore, is directed to ensure that beforeappointment letters are issued to the candidate, he/she must havepassed TET after completing a training course or such personswere in the final year of their training examination. A person,who does not come in either of the two categories, would not beissued any appointment order. The State Government shallimplement its Government Order of 15[th] of May, 2013 and circularswould be issued for its strict compliance by the appointingauthorities. The appointing authorities shall also clearly statesuch fact in the appointment letter issued to the candidatesappointed as Assistant Teachers.

This takes the Court to the last limb of petitioners’ grievance,regarding those who have been appointed as Assistant Teachers,even while they had not even completed the first year of theirteacher training course. By way of illustration, some of thepetitioners have annexed materials to show that appointmentorders have been issued to persons who have passed TET evenbefore completing the first year of their training course. Suchappointment orders would be inconsistent with the GovernmentOrders, already issued by the State Government, dated 15[th] ofMay, 2013 as well as NCTE circular dated 11[th] of February, 2011.

Liberty, therefore, is reserved to the petitioners to challenge suchspecific appointments before the appointing authorities, i.e., theDistrict Basic Education Officer concerned, at the first instance,who shall examine such individual grievances on facts afteraffording the opportunity of hearing to the selected candidates.

The process, in that regard, would be concluded within a periodof six months from the date of raising such grievance, along witha certified copy of this order, before the appointing authority.”

7.3 The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Benchdated 8.5.2018 was the subject matter of appeals before the DivisionBench of the High Court. By the impugned common judgment andorder, the Division Bench has opined differently as under:

“A perusal of Clause 5(ii) of the notification dated 11[th] February2011 issued by the NCTE indicates that a person who is pursuingany of the teachers’ training courses specified in the NCTENoti23.8.2010 dated 23[rd] August 2010 would also be eligible. Itappears to us that this benefit was considered to be given to suchcandidates whose teacher training course result had not beendeclared by the last date specified for filling the online form forTET examination. That is why such persons who were pursuingthe teacher training course could appear at the TET examination.

In our opinion “pursuing any of the teacher training course” shouldnot be restricted only to such persons who were appearing in theexamination of the teacher training course. It should also includesuch persons who have studying in the course but examinationhad not been held. But what is important is that such personsshould have been declared successful in the teachers trainingcourse before the date on which the examination result of TET isdeclared. If such interpretation is not given then even if a candidatedoes not pass the teachers’ training course, the TET Certificatewould be issued to him and this would enable him to seekappointment as an Assistant Teacher even though he has notpassed the qualifying examination. This clause merely facilitatessuch person to appear at the TET examination even if the resultof the teacher training course has not been declared. Thisinterpretation would subserve the purpose for which such personswere considered eligible. To give any other interpretation woulddefeat the purpose of the facility that has been provided to suchpersons.

In support of this interpretation, it would be appropriate to refer tothe schedule that was placed before the Court for the 2011examination. The last date for applying was 18 October 2011.The examination was held on 13 November 2011 and the resultwas declared on 25 November 2011. The case of the appellantsis that persons whose result of the teacher training course has notbeen declared by 25 November 2011 were issued certificates andbased on the certificates they were appointed. According to themthe result of the teacher training course was declared in March2012.”

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A7.4 The impugned common judgment and order passed by theDivision Bench of the High Court is the subject matter of the presentappeals.

8. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the respectiveparties at length.

B

8.1 The issue involved in the present appeals is the meaning andinterpretation of the word “pursuing” as appearing in Clause 5(ii) of theNCTE guidelines. The question for consideration is the eligibility criteriato appear in the TET examination. It is apparent from the reading of theguidelines framed by the NCTE – para 5 that the incumbents who haveCacquired the qualification academic as well as professional can applyfor TET examination. The second category of candidates who canapply for TET examination is those who are “pursuing” any teachertraining course (TTC). The meaning of “pursuing” is a person who isundergoing any of the teacher training course (TTC). He/she musthave been admitted and pursuing the teacher training course which isDprescribed as a qualification. Declaration of the result, appearing in theexamination or date of filling up of the forms, etc. cannot be the criteriato appear in the TET examination. Therefore, a candidate who isundergoing i.e., “pursuing” the requisite teacher training course (TTC)shall be eligible to appear in the TET examination.

E

E

8.2. The learned Single Judge of the High Court held and concludedthat “only those persons who are in the final year of the teacher trainingcourse (TTC) alone would be entitled to appear in the TET examination”.The Division Bench of the High Court has gone further and has observedthat “only such candidates, whose teacher training course result has notFbeen declared by the last date specified for filling up the online form forTET examination can be said to be “pursuing” the teacher training courseas mentioned in clause 5(ii) of the NCTE guidelines and could appear inthe TET examination. Therefore, according to the Division Bench of theHigh Court, as on the last date specified for filling up the online form forTET examination, the candidates must have appeared in the examinationG(of TTC) and the result has not been declared. These riders are notproper given the clear language used in clause 5(ii) of the NCTEguidelines. The Division Bench of the High Court has read into and/oradded something more than what is provided in clause 5(ii) of the NCTEguidelines. The language used in clause 5 (ii) of the NCTE guidelines is H

simple, clear and unambiguous. As per the cardinal principle of the ruleof interpretation, while construing a particular provision, the particularprovision is required to be read as it is and nothing is to be added ortaken away.

8.3 Looking to the clear wordings in clause 5(ii) of the NCTEguidelines and the phrase used is “pursuing”, the High Court is not justifiedin adding the additional riders, such as, that to become eligible forappearing in the TET examination, a candidate must have appeared inthe TTC examination and the result have not been declared by the lastdate specified for filling up the online form for TET examination. As perthe dictionary meaning, the word “pursuing” means undergoing and/orproceeding further. Therefore, a candidate who has been admitted inany of the TTC and undergoing the teacher training course (TTC) canbe said to be “pursuing” such teacher training course and shall be eligibleto appear in the TET examination, irrespective of the fact that whether,by the last date specified for filling up the online form for TETexamination, he has, in fact, appeared in the examination of the concernedteacher training course and the result is awaited. “Pursuing” the requisiteteacher training course is sufficient to make such a candidate eligible toappear in the TET examination. Therefore, on a fair reading of clause5(ii) of the NCTE guidelines, a person who has been admitted in TTC

and is pursuing, he/she can appear in the TET examination. In the presentcase, admittedly, on the cut-off date, all the candidates were pursuingthe concerned teacher training course. Thereafter, all of them havecleared the TET examination as well as have cleared the concernedteacher training course. At the time when they were appointed asAssistant Teachers, all of them fulfilled the eligibility criteria forappointment as Assistant Teachers. All of them have passed the TETexamination and have also passed the TTC as per the requisite eligibilitycriteria. Thus, in our view, ousting certain incumbents by the High Courtcannot be sustained since they were pursuing TTC and they were clearlyeligible to appear in the TET examination and have passed it while pursuingthe requisite professional qualification for being eligible to be appointedas Assistant Teachers.

8.4 It is not permissible to add riders as done by the High Court.The phrase “pursuing” is to be given literal meaning. The expression‘rule of literal construction’ lays down that words of a statute are first A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Aunderstood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and phrases, andsentences are construed according to their grammatical meaning. Thelearned author G.P. Singh in ‘Principles of Statutory Interpretation’(14[th] end.) at p. 91, has observed:

“… Natural and grammatical meaning.—The words of a statuteare first understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense andphrases and sentences are construed according to theirgrammatical meaning, unless that leads to some absurdity or unlessthere is something in the context, or in the object of the statute tosuggest the contrary. “The true way”, according to LordBrougham [Crawford v. Spooner, 1846 SCC Online PC 7] is, B

C

‘to take the words as the legislature have given them,and to take the meaning which the words given naturally imply,unless where the construction of those words is, either by thePreamble or by the context of the words in question, controlled oraltered;: [Crawford case (supra)]

D

and in the words of Viscount Haldane [Attorney General v. Milne,1914 AC 765 (HL)],L.C. if the language used “has a naturalmeaning we cannot depart from that meaning unless reading thestatute as a whole, the context directs us to do so. In an oft-quoted passage, Lord Wensleydale stated [Grey v. Pearson,E(1857) 6 HL Cas 61] the rule thus:

‘… in construing wills and indeed statutes, and all writteninstruments, the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words isto be adhered to, unless that would lead to some absurdity, orsome repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument,Fin which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the wordsmay be modified, so as to avoid that absurdity, and inconsistency,but no further.’”

Therefore, it is clear that the respective appellants herein whoseappointments were challenged were eligible to appear in the TETGexamination at the time they were “pursuing” the concerned TTC. Thus,we hold that the decision of the High Court, to the aforesaid extent, isnot sustainable. The impugned orders of the High Court are accordinglymodified to the aforesaid extent.

9. Now so far as the submission on behalf of some of the appellantsherein – original writ petitioners with regard to persons who have passedGraduation without Science or Mathematics as one of the subjects isconcerned, the concerned District Education Officers are directed tocarry out the exercise to find out such candidates who are Graduate andhave been appointed as Assistant Teachers without having Science orMathematics as one of the subjects, within a period of three monthsfrom today. Let the exercise be completed duly considering the secondproviso to Section 23 added by the Right of Children to Free andCompulsory Education Act, 2017.

10. The present appeals are allowed accordingly. No costs.

Devika Gujral

Appeals allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H