Reserved Category Candidates – Candidates from reserved categories who availed a 5% concession in TET/CTET to meet the eligibility criteria of 60% marks cannot migrate to the unreserved category based on their performance in the Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test (TAIT). Merit-Based Recruitment – The Bombay High Court held that the TET/CTET is not merely an eligibility test but also a benchmark for maintaining the quality of education, and relaxation in marks for reserved candidates cannot be ignored when considering migration to the unreserved category. Pradeep Kumar Case – The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Govt. of NCT Delhi vs. Pradeep Kumar (AIR Online 2019 SC 2024), which held that reserved category candidates who availed concessions in qualifying exams cannot migrate to the unreserved category. Pavitra Portal – The Maharashtra State Council of Examination (MSCE) conducted the TAIT for teacher recruitment, and the merit list was prepared based on TET/CTET and TAIT scores. The Court upheld the merit list published on 25.02.2024, which barred reserved category candidates from migrating to the unreserved category if they had availed concessions in TET/CTET. Notification of 26.02.2024 – The Court found that the notification reiterating the policy of preventing migration of reserved category candidates who availed concessions was in line with the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) memoranda dated 01.07.1998 and 04.04.2018.

The Bombay High Court dismissed all writ petitions, holding that reserved category candidates who availed concessions in TET/CTET cannot migrate to the unreserved category based on their TAIT scores. The Court upheld the merit list published on 25.02.2024 and the notification dated 26.02.2024, which reiterated the policy of preventing such migration. The Court emphasized that TET/CTET is not merely an eligibility test but also a benchmark for maintaining education standards, and relaxation in marks for reserved candidates cannot be ignored.

Major Acts:

1. Constitution of India (COI) – Articles 15(3), 16(1), and 16(4) – Reservation policies and merit-based recruitment.

2. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) – Section 23 – Qualification and standards for teachers.

3. National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Guidelines – Qualification and relaxation norms for Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) and Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET).

Subjects:

Reserved Category Migration – Barred for candidates who availed concessions in TET/CTET.
TET/CTET – Benchmark for maintaining education standards, not just an eligibility test.
Pavitra Portal – Online platform for teacher recruitment in Maharashtra.
Merit List – Prepared based on TET/CTET and TAIT scores, upheld by the Court.
Pradeep Kumar Case – Supreme Court precedent relied upon by the Bombay High Court.

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation – Multiple writ petitions were filed challenging the merit list published on 25.02.2024 for teacher recruitment in Maharashtra, which barred reserved category candidates who availed concessions in TET/CTET from migrating to the unreserved category based on their TAIT scores.

2. Petitioners – Reserved category candidates who availed a 5% concession in TET/CTET to meet the 60% eligibility criteria sought migration to the unreserved category based on their TAIT scores.

3. Respondents – The State of Maharashtra, Commissioner of Education, and Maharashtra State Council of Examination (MSCE).

4. Reason for Filing – Petitioners argued that the merit list was arbitrary and violated reservation policies, as it prevented them from migrating to the unreserved category despite their high TAIT scores.

5. Previous Decisions – The Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar had held that reserved category candidates who availed concessions in qualifying exams cannot migrate to the unreserved category.

Issues:

1. Whether reserved category candidates who availed concessions in TET/CTET can migrate to the unreserved category based on their TAIT scores?

2. Whether the merit list published on 25.02.2024, which barred such migration, was arbitrary and unconstitutional?

3. Whether the notification dated 26.02.2024, which reiterated the policy of preventing migration, was valid?

Submissions/Arguments:

Petitioners – Argued that TET/CTET is only an eligibility test, and selection should be based solely on TAIT scores. They cited cases like Vikas Sankhala, Saurav Yadav, and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. to support their claim that reserved category candidates should be allowed to migrate to the unreserved category based on merit.
Respondents – Relied on Pradeep Kumar to argue that TET/CTET is not just an eligibility test but also a benchmark for maintaining education standards. They contended that allowing reserved category candidates who availed concessions to migrate to the unreserved category would dilute merit and violate the RTE Act.

Ratio:

1. TET/CTET as a Benchmark – The Court held that TET/CTET is not just an eligibility test but also a benchmark for maintaining the quality of education under Section 23 of the RTE Act.

2. No Migration After Concession – Reserved category candidates who availed concessions in TET/CTET cannot migrate to the unreserved category based on their TAIT scores, as this would dilute merit and violate the RTE Act.

3. Pradeep Kumar Precedent – The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pradeep Kumar, which held that reserved category candidates who availed concessions in qualifying exams cannot migrate to the unreserved category.

4. Notification of 26.02.2024 – The Court found that the notification reiterating the policy of preventing migration was valid and in line with the DOPT memoranda.

Supreme Court Precedent – Govt. of NCT Delhi vs. Pradeep Kumar (AIR Online 2019 SC 2024).