No Evidence of Manipulation, No Fraud in Certificate – Eligibility Unaffected: Supreme Court Upholds Appointment of Assistant Teacher

“TET Category Mismatch Alone Does Not Invalidate Appointment When Merit and Eligibility Are Proven”, - In a judgment Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Jharkhand High Court that had declared the appointment of an assistant teacher as illegal. The High Court had disqualified the appellant due to a discrepancy in his caste category as recorded in his Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) certificate and that declared in his application for the appointment.

“The present is not a case of submission of false certificates of qualifying examination or a false caste certificate,” held the Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra. The Court emphasized that “there is no evidence that the appellant has committed any manipulation in the present recruitment process.”

Appointment Challenged for Mismatch in Caste Declaration

The case arose from a recruitment process initiated in 2015 for the post of Intermediate Trained Assistant Teacher in the district of Palamau, Jharkhand. The appellant, Shyam Nandan Mehta, was declared successful based on his score of 68.125 marks, which was higher than the writ petitioner, who had secured 65.496 marks.

The writ petitioner challenged the appellant’s appointment on the ground that while Mehta had shown his caste as 'Most Backward Class (MBC)' in his TET certificate issued by the Jharkhand Academic Council (JAC), he had applied for the teacher recruitment under the 'Backward Class (BC)' category. This was alleged to be a manipulation aimed at gaining a reserved seat.

The High Court accepted the writ petition, holding that the discrepancy amounted to misrepresentation and directed the appellant’s termination. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld this finding.

“No Undue Advantage Gained – Eligibility Unaffected”: Supreme Court Counters High Court’s View

Reversing the findings of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench, the Supreme Court made it clear that there was no fraudulent intent or material benefit derived from the category confusion.

“The appellant had correctly submitted the TET certificate indicating ‘MBC’ as his category,” noted the Court, acknowledging the confusion arising from the bifurcation of the ‘OBC’ category into ‘BC’ and ‘MBC’ by the State Government.

Importantly, the Court pointed out that: “In the relevant year, the cutoff marks for clearing TET examination were same for ‘BC’ and ‘MBC’ categories... he has not obtained any weightage of marks or relaxation by claiming to be belonging to ‘BC’ category.”

The Court also emphasized the lack of any objection from the authorities:

“It is not the case of the recruiting agency that the appellant has submitted any incorrect information while submitting his application form.”

“Recruiting Agency Never Cancelled Appointment – No Fault Proven”: SC Protects Validly Appointed Candidate

The Supreme Court was unequivocal in stating that the entire foundation of the writ petition was misplaced.

“The present is not a case where there is any allegation against the appellant either by the JAC or by the recruiting agency that the appellant has fraudulently declared his caste status... The genuineness of his caste certificate is also not questioned.”

Referring to Clause 20 of the recruitment advertisement, which mandates submission of correct information, the Court noted that:

“The Division Bench has not gone into the issue of manipulation, but the impugned judgment is founded on Clause 20... yet the recruiting agency has not acted upon it.”

The Court reasoned that unless the recruitment authorities themselves find wrongdoing or irregularity, a third-party writ petitioner cannot unilaterally secure cancellation of appointment based on an error that did not affect eligibility or merit.

Supreme Court Allows Appeal, Restores Appointment

Holding the High Court’s judgment to be legally unsustainable, the Supreme Court concluded:

“Thus, in our considered view, the High Court has wrongly set aside the appellant’s appointment. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.”

No costs were awarded.

Date of Decision: April 29, 2025