Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

Supreme Court: Experience in Educational Projects Justifies Bonus Marks and Age Relaxation

03 September 2024 3:56 PM

By: sayum


Supreme Court validates Rajasthan's teacher recruitment rules, confirming age relaxation and bonus marks for project-experienced candidates. The Supreme Court of India upheld the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008, which grant age relaxation and bonus marks to candidates with experience in government educational projects. The ruling, delivered by Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, dismissed claims of discrimination and upheld the validity of the rules and the associated guidelines.

The case, Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., involved the challenge of candidates who were denied the benefits provided under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008. The appellants argued that the rules and guidelines were discriminatory as they favored candidates with experience in specific government educational projects, like the Shiksha Karmi Project, by providing age relaxation and additional bonus marks.

The appellants were aggrieved by the selection process for the post of "Prabodhak" (teacher), particularly the criteria for bonus marks and age relaxation for candidates with project experience, which they claimed was unconstitutional and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The Supreme Court emphasized the historical significance and success of educational projects such as the Shiksha Karmi Project, which aimed to improve education in remote rural areas of Rajasthan. These projects involved local youth who were trained to teach children in areas with no or dysfunctional formal schools.

"The Shiksha Karmi Project was instrumental in reaching out to children from disadvantaged communities and improving literacy rates. The experience gained in these projects is invaluable and relevant to the role of Prabodhaks," the court noted.

Addressing the age relaxation provision under Rule 13(v), the court found it justified. The rule states that candidates serving under educational projects would be considered within the age limit if they were initially engaged within the prescribed age limit, even if they had crossed the age limit at the time of direct recruitment.

"The historical background leading to the enactment of the rules itself provides a justification for granting relaxation to persons serving under educational projects," the court observed, emphasizing that the rule was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.

The guidelines issued on May 27, 2008, before the advertisement for Prabodhak recruitment, outlined the criteria for awarding bonus marks. Candidates with project experience were awarded higher marks compared to others, recognizing their valuable experience in government educational projects.

"The executive guidelines only supplemented the rules and did not supplant them. The award of bonus marks is in line with the objective of leveraging the experience gained in educational projects to improve the quality of education," the court stated.

The court extensively discussed the principles of evaluating experience and qualifications in the recruitment process. It reiterated that policy decisions regarding age limits and bonus marks are within the purview of the government and are not arbitrary if they have a rational basis.

Justice Viswanathan remarked, "The experience gathered from project work stands on a higher pedestal because it is in tune with the nature of the work of Prabodhak. There is a valid classification based on intelligible differentia which distinguishes applicants with project experience from those who lack it."

The Supreme Court's dismissal of the appeals underscores the judiciary's recognition of the unique challenges and contributions of educational projects in rural Rajasthan. By affirming the rules and guidelines, the judgment reinforces the importance of relevant experience in the recruitment process and supports the state's efforts to improve education through targeted policies.

Date of Decision: July 8, 2024

Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

 

Latest Legal News