Bombay High Court Upholds Domicile Requirement for Teacher Eligibility Test in Maharashtra. Clause 7 of Schedule 'B' of GR dated 25.02.2019 requiring candidates to have passed SSC/HSC from Maharashtra State Boards is held valid and not violative of Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g) of Constitution.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 86
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, who are graduates from various universities but did not pass SSC and HSC from Maharashtra State Boards, challenged Clause 7 of Schedule 'B' of the Government Resolution dated 25.02.2019 issued by the State of Maharashtra. This clause required candidates for the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to have passed SSC and HSC from Maharashtra State Boards. The petitioners argued that this condition was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. They contended that the condition was a domicile requirement in disguise and that it prevented them from applying for teaching positions in Maharashtra despite being qualified graduates. The State defended the condition, arguing that it was a reasonable classification aimed at ensuring that teachers are familiar with the local language, culture, and curriculum, which is essential for effective teaching at the primary and secondary levels. The court analyzed the nature of the condition and held that it was not a domicile requirement but an educational qualification requirement. The court noted that the State has the power to prescribe eligibility criteria for public employment and that the condition was based on an intelligible differentia (education from Maharashtra Boards) which had a rational nexus with the object of providing quality education. The court further held that the condition did not violate Article 16(2) as it was not based on place of birth but on educational qualifications. The court also rejected the argument under Article 19(1)(g), holding that the right to practice any profession is subject to reasonable restrictions. The petitions were dismissed, and the condition was upheld as valid.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Reasonable Classification - Domicile Requirement for Public Employment - Article 14, 16, 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India - The court examined whether the condition requiring candidates to have passed SSC and HSC from Maharashtra State Boards for appearing in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is discriminatory. Held that the condition is a reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia and has rational nexus with the object of ensuring quality teachers familiar with local language and curriculum. The condition does not violate Articles 14, 16, or 19(1)(g). (Paras 1-30)

B) Education Law - Teacher Eligibility Test - Eligibility Criteria - Domicile Requirement - Government Resolution dated 25.02.2019 - Clause 7 of Schedule 'B' - The petitioners challenged the requirement of passing SSC and HSC from Maharashtra Boards as arbitrary. The court upheld the requirement, noting that the State has power to prescribe eligibility criteria for public employment and the condition is aimed at ensuring teachers are acquainted with local language and syllabus. (Paras 1-30)

C) Service Law - Public Employment - Eligibility Criteria - Domicile - Article 16(2) of Constitution of India - The court considered whether the condition amounts to discrimination on ground of place of birth. Held that the condition is not based on place of birth but on educational qualification from Maharashtra Boards, which is permissible. The condition does not violate Article 16(2). (Paras 1-30)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether Clause 7 of Schedule 'B' of the Government Resolution dated 25.02.2019, requiring candidates for Teacher Eligibility Test to have passed SSC and HSC from Maharashtra State Boards, is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the constitutional validity of Clause 7 of Schedule 'B' of the Government Resolution dated 25.02.2019. The condition requiring candidates for Teacher Eligibility Test to have passed SSC and HSC from Maharashtra State Boards was held to be valid and not violative of Articles 14, 16, or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Law Points

  • Domicile requirement for public employment
  • Reasonable classification
  • Article 14
  • Article 16
  • Article 19(1)(g)
  • Teacher Eligibility Test
  • Maharashtra State Council of Educational Research and Training
  • Government Resolution 25.02.2019
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (BOM) (10) 14

Writ Petition No.7790 of 2019 with Writ Petition No.10388 of 2019

2022-10-07

Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep V. Marne

Mr. Abasaheb D. Shinde for Petitioners, Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, AGP for Respondents

Abhijit Madhavrao Patil and others

The State of Maharashtra and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Clause 7 of Schedule 'B' of Government Resolution dated 25.02.2019 requiring candidates for Teacher Eligibility Test to have passed SSC and HSC from Maharashtra State Boards.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought quashing of Clause 7 of Schedule 'B' of the Government Resolution dated 25.02.2019 and the advertisements issued thereunder, and a direction to allow them to appear for the Teacher Eligibility Test without the condition.

Filing Reason

Petitioners, who are graduates from universities outside Maharashtra but did not pass SSC and HSC from Maharashtra State Boards, were ineligible to apply for Teacher Eligibility Test due to the impugned condition.

Issues

Whether Clause 7 of Schedule 'B' of the Government Resolution dated 25.02.2019 is violative of Articles 14, 16, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Whether the condition requiring SSC and HSC from Maharashtra State Boards is a reasonable classification.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the condition is arbitrary, discriminatory, and a domicile requirement in disguise, violating Articles 14, 16, and 19(1)(g). Respondents argued that the condition is a reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia with rational nexus to the object of ensuring quality teachers familiar with local language and curriculum.

Ratio Decidendi

The condition requiring SSC and HSC from Maharashtra State Boards is a reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia (education from Maharashtra Boards) having rational nexus with the object of ensuring teachers are familiar with local language, culture, and curriculum. It does not violate Articles 14, 16, or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Judgment Excerpts

The condition is not a domicile requirement but an educational qualification requirement. The State has the power to prescribe eligibility criteria for public employment.

Procedural History

The petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Government Resolution dated 25.02.2019 and advertisements. The court reserved judgment on 28.09.2022 and pronounced on 07.10.2022.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 16, Article 19(1)(g), Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Upholds Reinstatement with 50% Backwages for Workman Terminated Orally Without Inquiry. Oral Termination Without Domestic Inquiry or Notice Held Illegal Under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Cancellation of Caste Validity Certificate for Violation of Natural Justice — Committee Cannot Cancel Certificate Without Issuing Show Cause Notice and Providing Hearing