A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in Ram Sharan Maurya and Others v. State of U.P. and Others examines the legality and constitutional validity of fixation of minimum qualifying marks for the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-2019 (ATRE-2019) conducted by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The dispute arose primarily from challenges mounted by Shiksha Mitras, ex-servicemen, and persons with disabilities against the post-examination prescription of qualifying cut-off marks at 65% for General category candidates and 60% for reserved categories. The appellants contended that such fixation was arbitrary, retrospective, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court undertook an extensive examination of the statutory framework governing teacher recruitment, including the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. A crucial issue concerned the authority of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to prescribe eligibility norms, including permitting B.Ed. candidates to teach Classes I to V subject to a six-month bridge course, as laid down in its Notification dated 28.06.2018.

The Court upheld the power of the State Government to determine minimum qualifying marks “from time to time” under Rule 2(1)(x) read with Rule 14 of the 1981 Rules, even after the conduct of the examination, provided the decision is free from mala fides and aligned with the objective of selecting meritorious teachers. The judgment reaffirms the primacy of educational quality under Article 21A and validates the State’s policy decision to raise standards to ensure competent primary education.

Keywords

Teacher Recruitment; Shiksha Mitra; ATRE-2019; Cut-off Marks; NCTE; Right to Education; Service Law.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The controversy arose in the aftermath of prolonged litigation surrounding the status, rights, and absorption of Shiksha Mitras in Uttar Pradesh’s basic education system. Historically appointed on a contractual and honorarium basis to address teacher shortages, Shiksha Mitras were never regular teachers under statutory service rules. Their attempted regularisation was decisively rejected in State of U.P. v. Anand Kumar Yadav, wherein this Court invalidated their absorption but extended limited equitable relief by permitting them to participate in two consecutive recruitment processes with age relaxation and experience weightage.

Pursuant to this direction, the State initiated large-scale recruitment through ATRE-2018 and ATRE-2019. While ATRE-2018 prescribed minimum qualifying marks in advance, ATRE-2019 was notified without such specification. Subsequently, by Government Order dated 07.01.2019, the State fixed qualifying marks at 65% and 60%. This triggered litigation alleging arbitrariness and hostile discrimination, particularly by Shiksha Mitras who claimed legitimate expectation of parity with ATRE-2018 standards.

Simultaneously, the recruitment process was complicated by the NCTE Notification dated 28.06.2018, which allowed B.Ed. candidates to teach Classes I–V subject to a mandatory six-month bridge course. This led to amendments in the 1981 Rules with retrospective effect, giving rise to further challenges on eligibility and retrospectivity.

Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court was required to reconcile service jurisprudence, statutory interpretation, federal distribution of powers in education, and the constitutional mandate of quality education.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The State of Uttar Pradesh conducted ATRE-2019 for filling 69,000 vacancies of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools. The recruitment was governed by the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, as amended from time to time. Eligibility conditions included possession of requisite academic qualifications, passing of Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), and clearing ATRE.

Unlike ATRE-2018, where minimum qualifying marks were expressly stated as 45% for General/OBC and 40% for SC/ST, the notification for ATRE-2019 omitted any such specification. After the examination was conducted, the State fixed minimum qualifying marks at 65% for General and 60% for reserved categories. The result declared on 12.05.2020 showed that 37.62% of candidates qualified, which was comparable to 38.83% in ATRE-2018, though the absolute number of successful candidates far exceeded the available vacancies.

Shiksha Mitras filed writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court challenging the cut-off. The Single Judge allowed the petitions, holding the post-examination fixation impermissible. On appeal, the Division Bench reversed this view, upholding the State’s action. Multiple appeals and writ petitions were then filed before the Supreme Court by Shiksha Mitras, B.Ed./BTC candidates, ex-servicemen, and persons with disabilities.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the State Government could lawfully prescribe minimum qualifying marks for ATRE-2019 after the examination was conducted?
ii. Whether fixation of higher cut-off marks violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?
iii. Whether retrospective amendments to the 1981 Rules permitting B.Ed. candidates were ultra vires?
iv. Whether Shiksha Mitras were entitled to parity with candidates of ATRE-2018?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the Petitioners submitted that post-examination fixation of cut-off marks was arbitrary and contrary to settled law. Reliance was placed on decisions such as K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, asserting that changing selection criteria after commencement of the process vitiates fairness. It was contended that absence of prior notification created legitimate expectation of lower cut-offs akin to ATRE-2018.

It was further argued that retrospective amendments to the 1981 Rules enabling B.Ed. candidates diluted the recruitment process and prejudiced Shiksha Mitras. The petitioners also alleged hostile discrimination, asserting that experienced Shiksha Mitras were unfairly subjected to the same standards as fresh graduates.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The State contended that Rule 2(1)(x) expressly empowered it to determine qualifying marks “from time to time”. It was argued that minimum marks are inherent to any competitive examination and candidates were aware that passing ATRE necessarily entailed meeting a prescribed benchmark.

The Respondents emphasized the binding nature of NCTE Notifications, particularly that dated 28.06.2018, which conferred eligibility on B.Ed. candidates independently of State amendments. The fixation of higher cut-offs was justified as a policy decision aimed at securing quality teachers in line with Article 21A.

H) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of Shiksha Mitras and upheld the judgment of the Division Bench. The Court held that the NCTE, empowered under the NCTE Act, 1993 and Notification dated 31.03.2010, possessed unquestionable authority to prescribe minimum qualifications for teachers. Consequently, the Notification dated 28.06.2018 allowing B.Ed. candidates was binding on the State, and amendments to the 1981 Rules merely aligned State law with central norms.

On cut-off fixation, the Court observed that Rule 2(1)(x) and Rule 14 contemplated determination of minimum qualifying marks by the Government. The absence of such specification in the ATRE-2019 notification did not negate the power to prescribe them later. The Court distinguished earlier precedents where selection criteria themselves were altered, noting that minimum qualifying marks are a component of eligibility, not evaluation.

Statistical data demonstrated that even with higher cut-offs, the percentage of successful candidates remained comparable to ATRE-2018 and exceeded vacancies. The Court found no mala fides or arbitrariness, concluding that the State’s action was rational and aligned with the objective of selecting meritorious teachers.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The fixation of minimum qualifying marks for a recruitment examination after its conduct is legally permissible when the governing rules authorize the State to determine such marks “from time to time”, provided the decision is non-arbitrary, non-discriminatory, and aimed at selecting the best available talent consistent with Article 21A.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court reiterated that primary education demands high standards and that experiential advantage cannot substitute minimum academic merit. It observed that quality education is inseparable from teacher competence.

c) GUIDELINES

i. The State may prescribe qualifying marks post-examination if empowered by rules.
ii. Such fixation must be uniform, transparent, and policy-driven.
iii. Educational standards under the RTE framework must prevail over equitable claims.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces judicial deference to policy decisions in educational recruitment when grounded in statutory authority and constitutional objectives. It decisively clarifies the scope of State power under service rules and affirms the supremacy of NCTE norms. The ruling marks a significant shift from equity-based accommodation of Shiksha Mitras to merit-centric recruitment, reflecting an evolving jurisprudence prioritizing educational quality over contractual continuity.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

• State of U.P. v. Anand Kumar Yadav, [2017] 10 SCR 428

• Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Surender Singh, (2019) 8 SCC 67

• State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, [1974] 1 SCR 165

b) Important Statutes Referred

• Constitution of India

• National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993

• Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

• U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981