REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 835, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 835 
V. LAVANYA & ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 10700of2016) 
B 
NOVEMBER 09, 2016 
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH A~D R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Selection - Selection Criteria - National Cou,ncil for Teacher 
Education (J!CTE) Guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility 
Test (TET) - Appoint111ent of Secondary Grade Teachers and B. T. 
Assistants in the State of Ta111il Nadu - State Govern111ent granted 
relaxation of 5% marks in TET to candidates belonging to SC, ST. 
Backward Classes, De-notified Communities and Person with 
Disability etc. - Challenged - Contradiction in decisions of the 
Madras Bench and Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court -
The Madras Bench_dismissed the writ appeals and writ petitions 
· challenging the policy decision of the Government whereas, the 
Madurai Bench quashed the relaxation given to the reserved 
category candidates - On appeal, held: The framers of the NCTE 
guidelines took note of the huge socio-economic disparity existing 
in the nation and accordingly, by virtue of clause 9 of NCTE 
guidelines enabled the respective State Government/authorities to • 
provide relaxation to the candidates belonging to socially backward 
classes - Therefore, State Governi11e.nt cannot be faulted for 
discharging its constitutional obligation for upliftment of socially 
and economically backward communities by providing 5% rela~ation 
to candidates belonging to reserve
category - It was an affirmative 
action taken by State Government granting relaxation for TET and 
hence the view taken by the Madurai Bench is not sustainable -
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 -
s.23 - Constitution of India - Arts. J 4, 15,, 16, 335. 
Estoppel - Selection of Teachers - Relaxation of qualifying 
marks for Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) - In the earlier round of 
litigation, Govern111ent of Tamil Nadutook-a stand that it would_. nor 
grant relaxation of 111arks in TET - Plea of appellants that 
835 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
836 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
Government cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time by 
changing its stand - Held: It is well settled that there can be no 
question of estoppel against the Government in the exercise of its 
legislative, sovereign or executive powers - It is a matter of State 
policy to frame and prescribe selection norins with regard to services 
and posts connected with the affairs of the State - Courts cannot 
interfere with the policy decisions of the State especially when the 
policy decision is taken in public interest to further the advancement 
of reserved categories - Constitution of India - Art. 162 and proviso 
to Art.309. 
Selection - Of teachers - State Government provided 
relaxation of 5% marks in TET for candidates belonging to socially 
backward classes and the under privileged, after the selection 
process of teachers had commenced - Plea of appellants that it 
resulted in altering the criteria of selection after the commencement 
of selection process - Held: State Government had not changed the 
rules of selection insofar as appellants were concerned - State 
Government merely widened the ambit of TET so as to reach out to 
those candidates belonging to the deprived section of the society 
who were not able to compete - It is ji-ee to take such actions suitable 
to the socio-economic conditions prevalent in the State - It was in 
the interest of reserved category candidates so that more candidates 
can
take part in the selection process - Therefore, this did not amount 
to change in the selection after the selection process commenced. 
Allowing the appeal by the State Government and 
dismissing tl!e appeal by unsuccessful candidates, the Court 
F 
HELD: 
Point No. 1: Whether the State Government has the 
competence to give relaxation of 5% marks in Teacher Eligibility 
Test (TET) and whether such relaxation provided by the State 
Government by G.0.(Ms.) No.25 dated 06.02.2014 is legally 
G 
justified? 
H 
1.1 Clause No.9 of NCTE Guideline vests a discretion in 
the School Managements (State Government, Local Bodies, 
Government aided and un-aided) to grant relaxation/concessions 
to persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently-abled persons 
etc. in accordance with their extant reservation policy. Clause
V. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY 
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 
No. 9(a) clearly empowers the State Government/S~hool 
Managements/Local Bodies to grant such relaxation. Further, 
Constitution of India has made adequate enabling provisions 
empowering the State to promote reservation/concessions. 
Special provisions are made for advancement of the socially and 
economically backward classes. These provisions will bring out 
the contents of equality of opportunity guaranteed under Articles 
14, 15 (1), 16 (1) of the Constitution of India by creating equal 
level-playing field. Therefore, Preferential treatment or 
concessions granted to SC/ST, backward classes, physically 
handicapped and denotified communities is within the concept of 
equality. Grant of relaxation is for the upliftment of Scheduled 
Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other backward communities .. 
[Paras 21, 23 and 24](854-B-C, G-H; 855-A, C-D] 
1.2 The idea behind laying down NCTE Guidelines for 
conducting TET was to bring about uniformity and certainty in 
the standards and quality of education being imparted to the 
students across the nation. However,·at the same time the framers 
of the guidelines took note of the huge socio-economic disparity 
existing in the nation a_\ld accordingly, by virtue of Clause No. 9 
enabled the respective state governments/authorities to provide 
relaxation to the candidates belonging to socially backward 
classes. Such a provision is in line with the
principles.ensh·rined 
in the Constitution. State Government cannot be faulted for 
discharging its constitutional obligation of upliftment of socially 
and economically backward Communities by providing 5% 
relaxation to candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Schedule 
Tribes, Backward Classes, Backward Classes (Muslim), Most 
Backward Classes, De-notified Communities and P~rsons with 
Disability (PWD). [Para 25)(856-D-F) 
1.3 Granting relaxation to SC/ST, OBC, physically 
handicapped and de-notified communities. is in furtherance of the 
constitutional obligation of the State to the under-privileged and 
create an equal level-playing field. After referring to clause 9 of 
the NCTE Guidelines, the Madras High Court rightly held that 
the Government of Tamil Nadu has acted in exercise of the powers 
conferred under clause 9 of the Guidelines issued by the NCTE. 
Madurai Bench was not right in quashing GO.(Ms.) No.25 dated 
837 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
838 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
06.02.2014 on the ground that such rela'Xation "bllsed upon tile 
theory of socilll justice is llctu(l//y destructive of tlte very /(Ibric of 
tlte.soci(I/ justice". The judgment of the Madurai Bench has not. 
kept in view the constitutional obligation of the State to provide 
equal level-playing field to the ·under p~ivileged. In consonance 
with the M. Nagar(lj case, an affirmative action taken by State 
Government granting relaxation for TET would not amount to 
dilution of standards and hence the view taken by the Madurai 
Bench is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.[Para 27)(858-
C-F] 
M Nagaraj and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 8 
SCC 212 : 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 336; State of Madhya 
Pradesh and Am: " Kumari Nivedita Jain and Others 
(1981) 4 SCC 296 : 1982 (1) SCR 759; Vikas Sankhala 
and Ors. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal and Ors. Etc. (2016) 
10 SCALE 163 - relied on. 
K. Manjushree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. 
(2008) 3 SCC 512 : 2008 (2) SCR 1025; Hemani 
Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi (2008) 7 SCC 11 : 
2008 (5) SCR 1066 - referred to. 
Point No. 2: Whether the State Government is estopped 
from granting relaxation? 
2.1 In the earlier round of litigation Government of Tamil 
Nadu took a categorical stand that they would not compromise 
on the quality of the teachers. After referring to the said stand 
of the State Government, Madurai Bench observed that the State 
Government is
not justified in retracting from its earlier stand. 
On behalf of the appellants much reliance was placed upon the 
earlier stand of the Government to contend that when the 
Government had earlier taken the stand that it would not grant 
relaxation of marks for TET pass and dilute the standards of 
education, the Government cannot approbate and reprobate at 
the same time by changing its stand. [Para 28)(858-G-H; 859-A-
B] 
2.2 It is a matter of State policy to frame and prescribe 
selection norms with regard to services and posts connected with 
the affairs of the State. It is well-settled that courts cannot
V. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY 
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 
interfere with the policy decisions of the State especially when 
the policy decision is taken in public interest to further the 
advancement of reserved categories. A policy decision taken by 
the State in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 162 of the 
Constitution of India is subservient oniy _to the mandate of the . 
constitutional provisions and the recruitment rules framed by the 
State itself, either in terms of a legislative act or an executive 
order. The relaxation provided by the State Government and 
criteria of selection laid down vide impugned government orders 
are in exercise of the powers provided under the proviso to Article 
309 of the Constitution of India and being a policy decision in 
terms of its extant reservation policy cannot be impeached on 
the ground that the relaxation has been given to suit some specific 
class of individuals.[Para 29)(859-D-F] 
2.3 It is now well settled by a catena of decisions that there 
can be no question of estoppels against the Government in the 
exercise of its legislative, sovereign or executive powers. The 
view taken by Madurai Bench as regards the stand of the 
Government to relax the norms allegedly in contradiction to its 
earlier stand is not sustainable in law. [Para 30)(859-D-H] 
Excise Co111111issioner U.P., Allahabad v. Ram Kumar 
(1976) 3 sec 540 : 1976 Suppl.. SCR 535; M. 
. Ramanatha Pillai v. State of Kera/a and Am: (1973}
2 
SCC 650 : 1974 (1) SCR 515 - relied on. 
Point No. 3: Whether providing relaxation of 5% marks in 
TET amounts to change in the criteria of selection of teachers 
839 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
after the selection process commenced? 
F 
3.1 The purpose of relaxation was to increase the 
participation of candidates belonging to backward classes in 
State's pool of teachers. The State Government merely widened 
the ambit of TET so as to reach out to those candidates belonging 
to the deprived section of the society who were not able to 
G 
compete, inspite of possessing good academic records and 
qualifications. The change brought about in the selection criteria 
is Government's prerogative. In terms of their extant reservation 
policy, the State Government is free to take actions suitable to 
the socio-economic conditions prevalent in the State, especially 
H
840 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
with regard to selection of candidates belonging to reserved 
category to be employed in State Service. Merely, because the 
Government has widened the ambit of selection, so as to enable 
more and more candidates to take part in the selection process, 
the right of candidates who were already in the process cannot 
be said to have been adversely affected. It is in the interest of 
reserved category of candidates that more candidates take part 
in the selection process and best and most efficient of them get 
selected. This will not amount to change in the criteria for selection 
after the selection process commenced. [Para 33][860-G-H; 861-
A-C] 
3.2 The Government has not changed the rules of selection 
so far as the present appellants are concerned. Weightage of 
marks obtained in TET as well as that of academic qualification is 
still the same. The entire selection process conforms to the 
equitable standards laid down by the State Government in line 
with the principles enshrined in the Constitution and the extant 
reservation policy of the State. It is not the case where basic 
eligibility criteria has been altered in the midst of the selection 
process. Conducting TET and calling for certificate verification 
thereafter is an exercise which the State Government is obliged 
to conduct every year as per the Guidelines issued by NCTE. 
Merely because appellants were called for certificate verification,
it cannot be contended that they have acquired a legal right to 
the post. Impugned GO. Ms.No.25 did not take away the rights 
of the appellants from being considered on their own merits as 
pointed out by the Madras Bench. The views taken by the Madras 
Bench are affirmed that "by merely al/owin1: more persons to 
compete, .the petitioners cannot contend that their accrued right 
has been taken away". The State Government cannot be faulted 
for altering the selection criteria by relaxing 5% marks in favour 
of reserved category candidates. In the present case, the 
relaxation afforded to the reserved category candidates has in 
no way eliminated the appellants from the selection process; 
rather a fair opportunity has been provided to other candidates 
who can legitimately compete with the appellants herein. [Paras 
35, 37][861-G-H; 862-A, C-D; 863-A-BJ 
Te} Prakash Pathak and Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court
V. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY 
841 
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 
and Ors. (2013) 4 sec 540 - relied OD; 
K. Manjushree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. 
(2008) 3 SCC 512 : 2008 (2) SCR 1025; Hemani 
Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi (2008) 7 SCC 11 : 
2008 (5) SCR 1066 - referred to. 
Point No.4: Challenge to GO. Ms. No.71 dated 30.05.2014? 
4.1 The appellants have not only challenged the new grading 
system introduced by GO. No. 71; but they have also challenged 
the weightage of marks of 40% earmarked for academic 
performance. It is their contention that the Government has 
blindly accepted the recommendation of Single Judge without 
application of mind. [Para 38] [863-E] 
4.2 As it is evident from the records, distribution of marks 
for academic performance and TET fixed by the respondents vide 
GO. No. 252 continues to be the same even after issuing of GO. 
No. 71. The TET conducted on 17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013 was 
pursuant to the issuing of G.O.Ms.No.252 fixing the weightage 
for the marks in the basic qualification itself in which the appellants 
have participated. Thus, it is not open to the appellants to 
challenge the said procedure adopted by the respondents after 
writing the examination. [Para 39][863-F, H; 864-A] 
4.3 Equivalence of academic qualifications is a matter for 
experts and courts normally do not interfere with the decisions 
of the Government based on the recommendations of the experts 
It is the prerogative of State-Authorities to
formulate a system 
whereby weightage marks is decided with reference to actual 
marks secured by each candidate. In the present case, as no 
arbitrariness is proved on the part of the respondents, in 
formulating the grading system, court cannot interfere with the 
same. It cannot be expected to go into every minute technicalities 
of decision taken by the experts and perform the job of the 
respondent-State. [Para 41][864-F-H; 865-A] 
4.4 The Madras High Court rightly rejected the challenge 
to GO.(Ms.) No.25 dated 06.02.2014 and G.O.(Ms.)No. 71 dated 
30.05.2014, holding that as per the NCTE Guidelines, the State 
Government has the power to grant relaxation on the marks 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
842 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
A obtained in the TET for the candidates belonging to reserved 
category and the same. is affirmed. The Madurai Bench did not 
keep in view the NCTE Guidelines and the power of the State 
Government to grant relaxation in terms of their extant 
reservation policy and erred in quashing GO.(Ms.) No.25 dated 
B 
06.02.2014 and hence the same is liable to be set aside. [Para 
43][865-E-F) 
c 
D 
E 
F 
University of Mysore v. CD Govinda Rao (1964) 4 SCR 
575; Mohd. Sujat Ali v. Union of India (1975) 3 SCC 
76 : 1975 (1) SCR 449 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2008 (2) SCR 1025 
referred to 
Para 13 
2008 (5) SCR 1066 
referred to 
Para 13 
2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 336 
relied on 
Para 23 
2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 511 
relied on 
Para 24 
(2016) 10 SCALE 163 
relied on 
Para 26 
1976 Suppl. SCR 535 
relied on 
Para 30 
1974 (1) SCR 515 
relied on 
Para30 
2008 (2) SCR 1025 
referred to 
Para 31 
2008 (5) SCR 1066 
referred to 
Para 31 
(2013) 4 sec 540 
relied on· 
Para36 
(1964) 4 SCR 575 
referred to 
Para 41 
1975 (1) SCR 449 
referred to 
Para 41 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10700 
of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2014 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Madras in W. A. No. 1031 of2014 
WITH 
C. A. Nos. 10715-10716, 10720, 10726, 10731-10732, 10737, 
G 
10736, 10735, 10734, 10733, 10727-10730, 10725, 10721-10723, 10719, 
10701-10714and 10717-10718of2016. 
H 
V. Krishnamurthy, Ajmal Khan, Ms. Nalini
Chidambaram, 
P. P. Rao, Subramonium Prasad, V. Kanagaraj, Sr. Advs., T. Harish 
Kumar, G. Sankaran, Navneet D., Anandh Kannan N., 
G. Sivabalamurugan, Ms. Theepa, Reegan S. Bel, N. Rajaraman, Satya
V. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY 
843 
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 
Mitra Garg, Mrs. Manju Aggarwal, S. Loois, M. Yogesh Kanna, 
R. Nedumaran, M. S. Nithya, Sumit Kumar, Mrs. Kumari Supriya, 
P. B. Suresh Babu, Senthil Jagadeesan, V. Ramasubramanian, Advs. for 
the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
- R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The present bat~h of appeals raise identical questions of law 
and fact concerning appointment of Secondary Grade Teachers and B.T. 
Assistants in the State of Tamil Nadu as per the-Guidelines prescribed 
by National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as 
the NCTE) in this regard. These appeals impugn the conflicting 
judgments passed by both Madras and Madurai Bench of the High Court 
of Madras in W.A. No. 1031/2014 & Others. dated 22.09.2014; and 
W.P. No. 4558/2014 dated 25.09.2014 respectively. The dispute revolves 
around the relaxation of 5% marks to the reserved category candidates 
in the State Teachers EligibilityTest (hereinafter referred to as the TET) 
approved by the State Government, which is allegedly in contravention 
of the norms to that effect embodied in the notification dated 23.08.2010 
issued by the NCTE. 
3. Pursuant to the mandate of Right of Children to Free and 
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ("the RTE Act"), the NCTE laid down 
minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a 
Teacher through a Notification dated 11.02.2011. As
per the said 
Notification: " ... to be eligible for appointment as a teacher if any of 
the schools referred to in clause (n) of section 2 of the RTE Act is 
that he/she should pass the teacher eligibility test (TET) which will 
be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with 
the Guidelines framed by the NCTE". NCTE Guidelines prescribed 
60% marks to be declared as pass in TET. The said Guidelines enabled 
the State Government to grant concession to persons belonging to 
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, other Backward Classes, differently-
abled persons etc. 
4. In pursuance of the provisions of the Act, the State Government 
enacted the Tamil Nadu Right of Children to Free and Compulsory 
Education Act, 2011. State Government issued Order No. G.O.Ms.No.181 
dated 15.11.2011, prescribing 60% marks as pass marks for TET under 
the said G.O. The Teacher Recruitment Board was appointed as the 
Nodal Agency for conducting the TET and recruitment of teachers. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
844 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
Subsequently, the State Government vide GO.(Ms.) No.252 School 
Education (Q) Department dated 05.10.2012 issued the Procedure/ 
Guidelines for State Teachers' Eligibility Test. The said Guidelines 
earmarked 60% marks for State eligibility test and the remaining 40% 
for academic performance of the candidates. The 40% performance-
based marks were divided into I 0 marks and 15 marks each for the 
Higher Secondary Examination/Degree Examination and D.T.Ed/B. Ed. 
examination respectively. 
5. The Teachers Recruitment Board conducted the first TET-
Paper I (Secondary Grade Teacher) and Paper II (Graduate Teacher) 
on 12.07.2012 throughoutthe State in which 7, l 4,526 candidates appeared 
and 2448(0.3%) were successful. The details of number of the 
candidates who appeared and who passed are as under:-
Exam 
No. of candidates 
No. of candidates 
% of pass 
who anneared 
who ruissed. 
Paper I 
3,05,405 
1,735 
0.57% 
Paper ll 
4,09,121 
713 
0.17% 
Total 
7,14526 
2,448 
0.34% 
A supplementary TETwas also conducted on 14.10.2012 for Paper 
E 
I and Paper II in which all the candidates who had appeared in the first 
examination and had .not secured 60% marks were allowed to appear 
without any additional examination fee. Around six lakh candidates 
appeared in the said exam, out of which 19,261(around3%) onlydeared 
the TET. The details are as under:-
F 
G 
H 
Exam 
No. of 
No. of candidates 
% of pass 
candidates who 
who
passed 
appeared 
Paper! 
2,78,725 
10,397 
3.7% 
Paper II 
3.64,370 
8,864 
2.4% 
Total 
6,43,095 
19,261 
2.9% 
6. The third TET which is the subject matter of the present 
challenge was conducted by the Teacher Recruitment Board in two 
papers viz., Paper I and Paper II on 17.08.2013 and l 8.08.2013 
respectively. The TET was conducted pursuant to Notification dated
V. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY 
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
22.05 .. 2013 by which 10,672 vacancies of BT Assistants was advertised. 
As per the Notification, TET is only a pre-requisite eligibility test for 
those who are seeking appointment as a teacher; a TET certificate issued 
will be valid for seven years from the date of its issuance and recruitment 
of teachers will be conducted separately as and when there is a need, 
following the Guidelines issued by the State Government. Around 16,000 
candidates qualified TETwith more than 60% marks. In January, 2014, 
candidates who had obtained 60% or more were called for Certificate 
Verification (CV). Verification of certificates was done as per the G.O. 
(Ms.) No. 252 dated 05.10.2012 and weightage marks were also 
awarded. However, recruitment of teachers and appointment thereof 
was not done. 
· 
7. In the meanwhile, the Hon'ble Chief Minister announced on· 
the floor of the Assembly, relaxation of 5% marks in the passing marks 
of60% and thus prescribed the passing marks as 55% for the candidates 
belonging to Scheduled Caste, Schedule Tribes, Backward Classes, 
Backward Classes (Muslim), Most Backward Classes, De-notified 
Communities and Persons with Disability (PWD). In tune with the 
announcement, the State Government issued orders in GO.Ms.No.25 
School Education (TRB) Department dated 06.02.2014 in which 
relaxation of 5% of marks was given to the candidates belonging to SC, 
ST,
BC, BC(M), MBC, DNC and PWD candidates. However, minimum 
qualifying marks with regard to general candidates was retained as 60% 
or 90% marks in both the papers. Relevant portion of the said G.O. 
(Ms.) No.25 dated 06.02.2014, reads as under:-
'' In continuation of the announcement made by the Hon'ble 
ChiefMinister, the Government orders as follows: 
a) Relaxing 5% marks from the prese11t pass marks of 
60% and fix the pass mark at 55% for candidates belonging 
to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, 
Backward Classes (Muslim), Most Backward Classes, De-
notified Communities and Persons with Disability (PWD) 
as given below. The candidates are required to obtain the 
folfowing minimum marks in Paper I for Secondary Grade 
Teachers and Paper II for Graduate Assistants:-
845 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
846 
A 
B 
c 
SUPRE.ME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 9 S.C.R. 
Category 
Maximum 
Minimum Marks(%) to be 
Malks 
obtained in TNTET 
Paper I 
Paper II 
General 
150 
60"/o 
or 
90 
60"/o 
or 
90 
malks 
marks 
SC, ST,BC, 
150 
55% or 82.5 
55% or 82.5 
BC(M),MBC, 
malks rounded marks rounded 
DNCand 
off 
to 
82 
off 
to 
82 
Pers.ens with 
malks 
marks 
Disability 
(PWD) 
b) Relaxing 5% marks from the 60% marks prescribed for clearing 
of the Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test, 2013 held on ·J 7.08.2013 and 
18.08.2013 for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, 
Backward Classes (Muslims), Most Backward Classes, De-notified 
Communities and Persons with Disability (PWD) and fixed at 55% or 
D 
82 marks. 
C) For all future Teacher Eligibility Tests, to fix the minimum marks 
for candidates belonging to General Categ6ry at 90 marks (60% of 150) 
and for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, 
Backward Classes, Backward Classes (Muslims), Most Backward 
E 
Classes, De-notified Communities, and Persons with Disability (PWD) 
at 82 marks (55% of 150)." 
The said relaxation of5% marks was held applicable to TET held 
on 17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013 and all future TETs for the reserved 
.category candidates. 
F 
8. Vide GO.Ms. No. 29 School Education (Q) Department 
dated 14.02.2014, corresponding amendments were made in criteria 
for selection of candidates who have cleared the TET (or appointment 
to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers and Graduate
Assistants 
prescribed in G.O. dated 05.10.2012. The said order laid down the 
weightage of marks under TET head as '36' for those candidates who 
G 
obtain 55% and above but below 60% marks in TET. The order also 
specified th!\t the amended selection criteria would be applic~ble to TET 
held on 17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013. Relevant portion of the· said G.0. 
reads as under: 
"Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test for Secondary Grade 
H
V. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY 
847 
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
Teachers and Graduate Assistants:-
A 
Examination 
Weightage 
90% 
80% 
70% 
60% and 
55% and 
passed 
of marks 
and 
and 
and 
above but 
above 
above 
above 
above 
below70% 
but 
but 
but 
below 
below 
below 
60% 
90% 
80% 
TNTET 
60 
60 
54 
48 
42 
36 
4. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board is directed 
to take note"Ofthis Government order for finalizing selection 
B 
list of the Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test 2013 held on 
C 
17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013 and for all future Tamil Nadu 
Teacher Eligibility Test with respect to candidates belonging 
to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, 
Backward Classes (Muslims), Most Backward Classes, De-
notified Communities and Persons with Disability (PWD)." 
9. Resultantly, a number of writ petitions were filed before the 
High Court challenging the Government Orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.252 
School Education(Q) Department, dated 05.10.2012, G.0.Ms.No.25 
School Education (TRB) Department dated 06.02.2014 and 
G.0._Ms.No.29, School Education (TRB) Department dated 14.02.2014 
on different grounds. The Writ Court disposed of these petitions by 
upholding the validity of G.O.Ms.No.25, School Education (TRB) 
Department dated 06.02.:2014. However, the learned Single Judge set 
aside the grading system adopted by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 
252 dated 05.10.2012 observing that it lacks rationality as it places
a 
candidate with the difference of l tu 9 marks in the same basket. 
I 0. Pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, 
while continuing with the weightage of marks fixed earlier a\ per the 
Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.252 School Education (Q) 
Department, dated 05.10.2012 with reference to the basi9 qualification 
mark~, the State Government passed a subsequent order in G.O.(Ms.) 
No.71 School Educatio11 (TRB) Department dated 30.05.2014 in tune-
with the suggestion made by the learned Single Judge. Relevant portion 
of the said q9.(Ms.) No.71 dated 30.05.2014, is as under: 
"7. The Government no\v issue revised orders for fixing 
D 
E 
F. 
G 
H
848 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
the weightage and for distributing the weightage marks fixed 
in the light of the High Court orders as mentioned in para 5 
above for selection of candidates for appointm~nt to the 
post of Secondary Grade Teachers and Graduate Assistants 
in Government Schools from among those candidates who 
have cleared the Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test. The 
weightage of marks and the distribution of weightage of 
marks be fixed as follows:-
A) Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test Weightage for 
Secondary Grade Teachers 
(a) There shall be 100 marks in total 
(b) The computation of 100 marks will be in the following 
manner 
(i) Higher Secondary Exam: 15 marks 
(ii) D.T.Ed.,/D.E.Ed., Exam: 25 marks 
(iii) Teacher Eligibility Test : 60 marks 
The weightage so assigned as indicated in (b) above to be 
distributed based on the actual percentage of marks obtained 
by the candidate in the qualifying examinations as shown 
E 
below:-
Qualifying 
Weightage 
Percentage of 
l\iarks 
Examination · ofmarks 
marks obtained in 
assigned 
t11e qualifying 
F 
examination 
H.Sc. 
15 
P% 
Px 15 
100 
DTEd.,1 
25 
Q% 
Qx25 
D.E.Ed., 
100 
TET 
60 
R% 
Rx 60 
G 
100 
Total 
100 
xxxxx 
H
V. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY 
849 
lTS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
B) Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test Weightage for 
A 
Graduate Assistants: 
(a) There shall be 100 marks in total 
(b) The computation of 100 marks will be in the following 
manner 
(i) Higher Secondary Exam : 10 marks 
(ii) Degree Exam 
(iii) B.Ed., Exam 
: 15 marks 
: 15 marks 
(iv) Teacher Eligibility Test : 60 marks 
The weightage so assigned as indicated in (b) above to be 
distributed based on the actual percentage of marks obtained 
by the candidate in the qualifying examinations as shown 
below:-
Qualifying 
Weigbta.ge 
Percentage of 
Marks 
Examination 
of marks 
marks obtained in 
assigned 
the qualifying 
examination 
H.Sc. 
10 
P% 
Px 10 
100 
·Degree 
15 
Q% 
Q x 15 
100 
B.Ed. 
15 
R% 
Rx 15 
100 
TET 
60 
S% 
Sx 60 
100 
Total 
100 
xxx 
The Government Order passed in G.O.(Ms.) No.71 School 
Education (TRP) Department dated 30.05.2014 was challenged both on 
the ground ofweightage having been awarded for the marks obtained in 
three qualifications and also the method of gradation. 
11. The High Court of Judi~ature at Madras heard various writ 
petitions and writ appeals filed before it challenging the concerned G.Os 
and by the orders impugned herein disposed of the same. The High 
Court dismissed the writ appeals as we! I as the writ petitions holding that 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
850 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
the challenge to the policy decision of the Goyernment can sustain only 
ifit suffers from arbitrariness and unreasonableness which did not surface 
in these cases. It was held that the writ petitioners/writ appellants are 
non-suited to challenge the procedure adopted in granting weightage to 
the marks obtained in the basic qualification required. 
B 
c 
E 
F 
G 
H 
12. As opposed to the view taken by the Madras Bench of the 
High Court, in a batch of writ petitions; the Madurai Bench has quashed 
the relaxation given to the reserved category candidates. The Madurai 
Bench also heard the challenge to Ggvernment Orders passed in 
GO~Ms.No.252 School Education (Q) Department, dated 05.10.2012, 
GO.Ms.No.25 School Education (TRB) Department dated 06.02.2014 
and G.O.Ms.No.29, School Education (TRB) Department dated 
14.02.2014 and held that in the absence J'f any statistics to prove that 
the prescription of 60% marks resulted in· fewer number of candidates 
belonging to reserved categories getting appointed, it' is not possible to 
uphold the Government Order. The Court further observed that the 
argument that relaxation was necessary to advance social justice, is· 
nothing but a myth and is devoid of any factual data and analysis. 
13. These petitions by way of special leave have been filed 
challenging the two contradicting decisions of the Madras Bench and 
Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. For the sake of convenience,
unless otherwise expressly mentioned, the term appellant has been used 
to refer to the private parties or original writ petitioners. Contention of 
the appellants is that after the Select List was finalized on the basis of 
GO.Ms. No. 252 dated 05.10.2012·, marks were awarded to all the. 
candidates as per Go.vernment Order and all the candidates were awaiting · 
the order of appointment and thereafter, Government issued orders in 
GO.Ms. No. 25 School Education Department relaxing 5% marks with 
respect to candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, 
Backward Classes, Mos! ~.ackward Classes, Backward Classes 
(Muslims) De-notified communities and differently-abled persons by 
which the pass marks was reduced to 55% from 60% and G.O.Ms. 
School Education No. 29 dated 14.02.2014 was issued amending the 
criteria for selection prescribed in GO.Ms. 252 dated 05.10.2012. It 
was submitted that the Government has reduced the passing percentage 
for qua! ifying in the TET and changed the criteria for selection after the 
commencement of the selection process, which is arbitrary, illegal and 
violative of Article 14 of the Coustitution oflndia. In-this regard, reliance
V. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY 
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
. 
~as place_d upon K Mm1jusltree v. State o{Andltra Pradesh and 
Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512 and Hemani Malhotra v: High Court of Delhi 
(2008) 7 sec 11 to contend that it is impermissible to change the rules 
of selection once the selection process has started. 
14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted 
that relaxation has been extended by the State Government only to the 
reserved category candidates. It was submitted that Clause 9 of the 
NCTE Guidelines for conducting TET empowers the State Government 
to give concessions/relaxations to candidates belonging to reserved 
categories ·and the State Government in exercise of its power under 
Clause 9 of the NCTE Guidelines granted relaxation and the same cannot 
be challenged. 1t is submitted that the TET examination is a qualifying 
examination and after writing the examination a11d after accepting the 
rules and terms of selection in the first place, the appellants cannot 
challenge the procedure adopted by the respondent-State and challenge 
the weightage of marks. It was submitted that the Madras Bench has. 
rightly upheld G.0. (Ms.) No. 25 dated 06.02.2014, G.O.Ms. No. 29 
dated 14.02.2014 and GO.Ms. No. 71dated30.05.2014 and the contrary 
view taken by the Madurai Bench is unsustainable. 
15. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the 
impugned j udgm.ents, the following issues arise for
consideration:-
(i) Whether the State Government has the competence to give 
relaxation of 5% marks in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) and 
whether such relaxation provided by the State Government by 
G.O.(Ms.) No.25 dated 06.02.2014 is legally justified? · 
(ii) Having regard to the stand of the Government in the earlier 
round of Writ Petitions in Writ Petition No.30426 of 2012 and 
22407 of 2013, not to relax the qualifying marks for Teacher 
Eligibility Test (TET), whether Government is estopped from 
granting relaxation? 
(iii) Whether providing relaxation of5% marks in Teacher Eligibility 
Test (TET) by G.O.(Ms.) No.25 dated 06.02.2014 amounts to 
change in the criteria of selection of teachers after the selection 
process commenced? 
· 
(iv) Whether prescribing 40% marks as weightage for the 
academic performance is arbitrary and does not take into 
consideration different streams ofeducation and subjects of 
study? 
851 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
852 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Point No. I: Whether tile State Government has tile 
B 
c 
competence to give relaxatio11 of 5% marks in Teaclter Eligibility 
Test (TET) and wltetlter suclt relaxation provided by tlte State 
Government by G.O.(Ms.) Nu.25 dated 06.02.2014 is legally 
iustijied? 
16. In exercise of the power conferred under Section 23 ( 1) of 
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 35 of2009, a 
Notification was issued by NCTE prescribing the minimum qualification 
for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in Class I to VIII 
in a school referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of Act 35 of 2009. 
Notification dated 23.08.2010 was followed by Guidelines dated 
11.02.2011 issued by the NCTE for conducting TET under the Act. 
Guideline_No.9 deals with qualifying marks, which reads as under:-
-
"Qualifying marks.-
9. A person who scores 60% or more in the TET exam will 
D 
be considered as TET pass. School managements 
(Government, local bodies, government aided and unaided) 
E 
(a) may consider giving concessions to persons belonging 
to SC/ST, OBC, differently abled persons, etc., in 
accordance with their extant reservation policy; 
(b) should give weightage to the TET scores in the 
recruitment process; however, qualifying the TET would 
not confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment 
as it is only one of the eligibility criteria for appointment." 
F 
While prescribing 60% marks as minimum qualifying
marks for 
TET, Clause 9 enables concerned government/authorities to grant 
concessions/relaxation to persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently-
abled persons, etc., in accordan<;e. with their extant reservation policy. 
17 .As noticed earlier, the Government ofTamil Nadu in G.0.(Ms.) 
G 
No.252 School Education (Q) Department dated 05.10.2012 fixed the 
c(iteria for selection of candidates who have cleared the TET for · 
appoiiitment to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers and B.T. 
Assistants. As per the said Govern1nent Order, out of the 100 marks, 40 
marks have been earn1arked for academic performance. Remaining 60 
marks out of 100 has been fixed for the TET. A Notification was issued 
H
'· 
V. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY 
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
by the Teachers Recruitment Board on 22.05.2013 for the conduct of 
TEI, followed by recruitment of teachers. Clause 6 of the Notification, 
which deals with "General Information", makes it clear that the TET is 
only a pre-requisite eligibility test for those who are seeking appointment 
as a teacher and that a TET certificate issued will be valid for seven 
years from the date of its issuance. Recruitment of teachers is conducted 
separately_ as and whe~ there is a heed, following the Guidelines issued 
by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Accordingly, it was notified to the 
- candidates that TET is only an eligibility test and conducting of the same 
is distinct from the recruitment of teachers, which is a subsequent event 
18. Section 23 o:fthe RTE Act empowers the Central Government 
to authorize the academic authority to prescribe minimum qualification 
to be eligible for appointment of teachers. Once the academic.authority 
fixes the minimum qualification, then the relaxation is possible only under 
Section 23(2). Sub-section (2) enables the State to approach the Central 
Government to relax the minimum qualification required for appointment 
of teachers, where a State does not have adequate institutions offering 
courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum 
qualification as laid down under sub-section (!)are not available in 
sufficient numbers.
On such request, the Central Government may, if it 
deems necessary, by Notification, relax the minimum qualification required · 
for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, 
as may be specified in that Notification. In terms 0fSection 23 (2) power 
to relax such minimum: qualification has been reserved with the Central 
Government 
19. Contention of the appellants is that Section 23 (2) of the RTE 
Act requires the State/Union Territories to request the Central Government 
for relaxation of prescribed minimum qualification to be eligible for 
appointment of teachers and the power to relax the minimum qualification 
is exclusively within the domain of the Central Government and the same 
does not rest with the State Government or NCTE. It is further submitted 
that the High Court without properly appreciating the import of Section 
23 of the Act, and Rules 17 and 18 of the Rules, erroneously held that 
Clause No. 9 of NCTE Guidelines dated I 1.02.2011 empowered the 
State to make such relaxation. It was submitted that the Guidelines of 
NCTE cannot be contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 
20. Per contra, the respondent-State has maintained that the 
853 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
854 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
Government was well within its powers to take a policy decision of 
granting relaxation to the reserved category candidates. Jn this regard, 
the State has placed reliance on Clause No.9 ofNCTE Guidelines which 
empowers the Government or local bodies to grant concessions/relaxatipn 
as per their respective reservation policies. 
21. As noted earlier, Clause No.9NCTE Guideline vests a discretion 
in the School Managements (State Government, Local Bodies, 
Government aided and un-aided) to grant relaxation/concessions to 
persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently-abled persons etc. in 
accordance with their extant reservation policy. Clause No. 9(a) clearly 
empowers the State Government/School Managements/Local Bodies 
to grant such relaxation. Candidates had also contended before the 
courts that no reservation policy was in-effect at the relevant point of 
time. 
· 
22. Article 14 of the Constitution enshrines the principle of equality 
before law. Article 15 prohibits discrimination against citizens on grounds 
only of religion, race, caste, sex, place ofbi1ih or any of them. As per 
Article 16, there shal I be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters 
relating to employment, or appointment to any office under the State. 
However, at the same time, the framers of the ·constitution were conscious 
of the backwardness of large sections of the population. It was also 
apparent that because of their
backwardness, these sections of the 
population would not be in a position to compete with advanced section 
of the community. Article 16 (4) of the Constitution enables the State to 
make provision for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any 
backward class of citizens which, in its opinion, is not, adequately 
represented in the services under the State. Article 16(4) has to be read 
with Article 335 which deals with claims of Scheduled Castes and 
Scheduled Tribes to services and posts and lays down that "the claims 
of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be 
taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency 
of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in 
G 
connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State". 
23. Constitution of!ndia has made adequate enabling provisions 
empowering the State to promote reservation/concessions: Special 
provisions are made for advancement of the socially and economically 
backward classes. These provisions will bring out the contents of equality 
H 
of opportunity guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 ( 1 ), 16 ( 1) of the
v. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY ·sss 
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
Constitution oflndia by creating equal level-playing field. In M. Nagaraj 
and Others v. Union oflndia and Others (2006) 8 SCC 212, Constitution 
Bench of this Court held as follows:-
"47. Equality of opportunity has two different and 
distinct concepts. There is a conceptual distinction 
between a non-discrimination principle and affirmative 
action under which the State is obliged to provide a 
level-playing field to the oppressed classes. Affirmative 
action in the above sense seeks to move beyond the 
concept of non-discrimination towards equalizing 
results with respect to various groups. Both the 
conceptions constitute "equality of opportunity". " 
24. Preferential treatment or concessions granted to SC/ST, 
backward classes, physically handicapped and denotified communities 
is within the concept of equality. Grant ofrelaxation is for the upliftment 
of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other backward 
communities and the same has been eloquently stated in State o(Madflra 
Pradesh and Anr. v. Kumari Nivedita Jain and Others ( 1981) 4 SCC 
296 as under:-
" 26. -It cannot be disputed that the State must do 
everything possible for the upliftment of the Scheduled 
Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other backward 
communities and the State is entitled to make 
reservations for them in the matter of admission to 
medical and other technical institutions. In the absence
of any law to the contrary, it must also be open to the 
Government to impose such conditions_ as would make 
the reservation effective and would benefit the 
candidates belonging to these categories for whose 
benefit and welfare the reservations have been made. 
In any particufar situation, taking into consideration 
the realities and circumstances prevailing in the State it 
will be open to the State to vary and modify the 
conditions regarding selection for admission, if such 
modification or variation becomes necessary for 
achieving the purpose for which reservation has been 
made and if there be 1:0 lmv to the contrary. Note (ii) of 
A 
B 
t: 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
856 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
.H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
Rule 20 of the Rules for admission framed by the State 
Government specifically empowers the Government to 
grant such relaxation in the minimum qualifying marks 
to the extent considered necessary ..... The relaxation 
made by the State Government in the rule regarding 
selection of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes 
and Scheduled Tribes for admission into Medical 
Colleges cannot be said to be unreasonable and the 
said relaxation constitutes 110 violation of Article 15(1) 
and (2) of the Constitution. The said relaxation also 
does not offend Article 14 of the Constitution. It has to 
be noticed that there is no relaxation of the condition 
regarding eligibility for admission into Medical 
Colleges. The relaxation is only in the rule regarding 
selection of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes 
and Scheduled Tribes categories who were otherwise 
qualified and eligible to seek admission into Medical 
Colleges only in relation to seats reserved for them .... " 
25. The idea behind laying down NCTE Guidelines for conducting 
TET was to bring about unifon11ity and certainty in the standards and 
quality of education being imparted to the students across the nation. 
However, at the same time the framers of the guidelines took note of the 
huge socio-economic disparity existing in the nation and accordingly, by 
virtue of Clause No. 9 enabled the respective state governments/ 
authorities to
provide relaxation to the candidates belonging to socially 
backward classes. As discussed earlier, such a provision is in line with 
the principles enshrined in the Constitution. State Government cannot be 
faulted for discharging its constitutional obligation ofupliftment of socially 
and economically backward Communities by providing 5.% relaxation to 
candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Schedule Tribes, Backward 
Classes, Backward Classes (Muslim), Most Backward Classes, De-
notified Communities and Persons with Disability (PWD). 
26. State of Rajasthan by its Notification dated 29.07.2011 has 
granted similar relaxation of5% marks in the qualifying marks relatable 
to TET exams condu~ted in the State of Rajasthan. The Rajasthan 
High Court struck down the relaxation granted by the State ofRajasthan 
on the ground that such relaxation was in excess of extant reservation 
policy. In Vikas Sankha/a and Ors. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal mu/
V. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU_REPRESENTED BY 
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
Ors. Etc. (2016) 10 SCALE 163, this Court reversed the judgment of 
the Rajasthan High Court holding that State has a legitimate right in 
granting such relaxation to SC/ST, OBC etc. After referring to Nivedita 
Jain and M. Nagaraj case, this Court in paras (51 ), (54) and (55) held 
as under:-
"51. Examined in the aforesaid context, when our 
Constitution envisages equal respect and concern for 
each individual in the society and the attainment of the 
goal requires special attention to be paid to some, that 
ought to be done. Giving of desired concessions to the 
reserved category persons, thus, ensures equality as a 
levelling process. At jurisprudentibl level, whether 
reservation policies are defended on compensatory 
principles, utilitarian principles or on the principles of 
distributive justice, fact remains that the very ethos of 
such policies is to bring out equality, by taking 
affirmative action. Indian Constitution has made 
adequate enabling provisions empowering the State to 
provide such concessions. 
54. it hardly needs to be emphasized that the State has 
a legitimate and substantial interest in ameliorating or 
eliminating where feasible, the disabling effects of 
identified discrimination. it is a duty cast upon the Stale, 
by the Constitution, to remedy the effects of "societal 
. discrimination". Provision for relaxation in TET pass 
marks has to be looked
into from this angle which is in 
tune with the constitutional philosophy. After all it only 
ensures that such candidates·' belonging to reserved 
category become eligible for appointment as primary 
teachers. On the other hand, when it comes to selection 
process such reserved category candidates have to 
compete with general category candidates wherein due 
regard for merit is given. 
Therefore, only those 
candidates belonging to reserved category who are 
found meritorious in selection are ultimately appointed 
We are of the opinion that in this manner the two 
constitutional goals, that of rendering quality education 
857 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
858 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
on the one hand and providing "equality of opportunity' 
to the unprivileged class on the other hand, are 
adequately met and rightly balanced. 
55. We, thus, do not agree ivilh the interpretation that is 
given by the High Court and answer Question No. I 
holding that relaxation prescribed in letter dated March 
23, 2011 in pass marks in TET examination for different 
reserved categories mentioned therein is legal and valid 
in iaw." 
We are entirely in agreement with the above judgment in Vik((S 
S((nklw/(( C((Se. 
27. Granting relaxation to SC/ST, OBC, physically handicapped 
and de-notified communities is in furtherance of the constitutional 
obligation of the State to the under-privileged and create an equal level-
playing field. After referring to clause 9 of the NCTE Guidelines, the 
Madras High Court rightly held that the Government ofTamil Nadu has 
acted in exercise of the powers conferred under clause 9 of the Guidelines 
issued by the NCTE. Madurai Bench was not right in quashing G.O.(Ms.) 
No.25 dated 06.02.2014 on the ground that such relaxation "based upon 
the theory of social justice is actually destructive of the very fabric 
of the social justice". In our considered view, the judgment of the 
Madurai Bench has not kept in view the constitutional obligation of the 
State to provide equal level-playing field to the under privileged. In 
consonance with the M. N((g((raj case, an affirmative
action taken by 
State Government granting relaxation for TET would not amount to 
dilution of standards and hence the view taken by the Madurai Bench is 
not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. 
Point No. 2: Whether the St((te Government is estopped from 
gr((nting refaxmion? 
28. In the earlier round of litigation (in Writ Petition No. 30425 of 
2012 and Writ Petition No.22407of2013), Government of Tamil Nadu 
took a categorical stand that they would not compromise on the quality 
of the teachers. After referring to the said stand of the State Governm~nt 
in its counter affidavit before the Division Bench, in paras (38) to ( 40) of 
the judgment, Madurai Bench observed that the State Government is 
not justified in retracting from its earlier stand. The Madurai Bench 
further observed that the impugned Government Order G.O.(Ms.) No.
V. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY 
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
25 .dated 06.02.20I4 is not based upon any statistics and therefore 
granting relaxation to advance social justice ·· .... is nothing but a myth 
and is not based on facts and figures". On behalf of the appellants 
much reliance was placed upon the earlier stand of the Government to 
contend that when the Government had earlier taken the stand that it 
would not grant relaxation of marks for TET pass and dilute the standards 
of education, the Government cannot approbate and reprobate at the 
same time by changing its stand. It was further submitted that the teachers 
are responsible for moulding the younger minds and any dilution of 
standards ofTET would be detrimental to the standards of education. 
29. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the view of 
Madurai Bench quashing the impugned G.O. on the ground of alleged 
change in the stand of the Government. Considering the representation 
from various quarters, it was a policy decision taken by the Government· 
to relax marks for TET pass for specified and under-privileged 
communities. It is a matter of State policy to frame and prescribe 
selection norms with regard to services and posts connected with the 
affairs of the State. It is well-settled that courts cannot interfere with 
the policy decisions of the State especially when the policy decision is 
taken in public interest to further the advancement ofreserved
categories. 
A policy decision taken by the State in exercise of its jurisdiction under 
Article 162 of the Constitution oflndia is subservient only to the mandate 
of the constitutional provisions and the recruitment rules framed by the 
State itself, either in terms of a legislative act or an executive order. The 
relaxation provided by the State Government and criteria of selection 
laid down vide impugned government orders are in exercise of the powers 
provided under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and 
being a policy decision in terms of its extant reservation policy cannot be 
impeached on the ground that the relaxation has been given to suit some 
specific class of individuals. 
30. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions that there can 
be no question of estoppels against the Government in the exercise of its 
legislative, sovereign or executive powers (vide Excise Co111111issio11er 
U.P., Allahabad v. Ram Kumar ( 1976) 3 SCC 540 and M. Ra11u111atlw 
Pillai v. State o{Kera/a am/ Am: (1973) 2 SCC 650). The view taken 
by Madurai Bench as regards the stand of the Government to relax the 
norms allegedly in contradiction to its earlier stand is not sustainable in 
law. 
859 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
860 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
Point No. 3: Whether providing rela:mtion of 5% marks in 
TET amounts to change in tile criteria of selection of teac/1ers after 
ihe selection process commenced? 
31. The appellants have contended that the provisionally selected 
candidates were called to attend certificate verification on 23.01.2014 
and 24.01.2014 and weightage marks were also awarded as per the 
then existing Government Order. While so, by issuing impugned GO.Ms. 
No.25 dated 06.02.2014 and GO.Ms. No. 29 dated 14.02.2014 the criteria 
of selection was altered by relaxing passing marks by 5% in TET from 
60% to 55%, thereby allowing large number of candidates who scored 
lesser marks to be considered for selection. As per the appellants, this 
has resulted in altering the criteria of selection after the commencement 
of selection process. Reliance is placed upon K. Manjushree v. State 
o(Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512 and Hemani Malhotra 
v. High Court o(De/lti (2008) 7 SCC 11 to contend that the rules of 
selection cannot be changed after the selection process commenced. 
32. Per contra, State has contended that granting relaxation of 
marks to SCs/STs/OBCs and others will not amount to change in the 
rules of the games. By relaxation of marks more candidates belonging 
to reserved category are allowed to compete. The appellants cannot 
· contend that their rights have been taken away; no prejudice has been 
caused to them as
the selection criteria has not been altered with respect 
to them. 
33. Appellants appeared in the TETconducted on 17.08.2013 and 
18.08.2013. Respondents were to select the suitable candidates. As 
per the selection criteria laid down in GO. Ms. No: 252 laid down that 
the candidates have to secure minimum 60% in TET so as to qualify the 
said exam. The weightage of the marks secured in TET was 60% and 
that of academic qualification was 40%. It is true that the candidates 
who passed TET were called to attend certificate verification on 
23.01.2014 and 24.01.2014; but the selection process has not been 
completed. Later on, GO.Ms. No.25 dated 06.02.2014 was issued 
granting relaxation of 5% marks _to SC, ST, backward classes, physically 
handicapped, de-notified comm9nities etc. The purpose of relaxation 
was to increase the participation of candidates belonging to backward 
classes in State's· pool of teachers. The State Government merely 
·widened the ambit ofTET so as to reach out to those candidates belonging 
to the deprived section of the society who were not able to compete,
V. LAVANYA v. ST.~TE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY 
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
inspite of possessing good academic records and qualifications. The 
change brought about in the selection criteria is Government's 
prerogative. In terms of their extant reservation policy, the State 
Government is free to take actions suitable to the socio-economic 
conditions prevalent in the State, especially with regard to selection of 
candidates belonging to reserved category to be employed in State 
Service. Merely, because the Government has widened the ambit of 
selection, so as to enable more and more candidates to take part in the 
selection process, the right of candidates who were already in the process 
cannot be said to have been adversely affected. It is in the interest of 
reserved category of candidates that more candidates take part in the 
selection process and best and most efficient of them get selected. This 
will not amount to change in the criteria for selection after the selection 
process commenced. 
34.As discussed earlier, by virtue ofNCTE Guidelint)s No.9 dated 
11.02.2011, the State Government was already empowered to grant 
relaxation to under-privileged candidates and only in exercise of that 
power, G.O.Ms.No.25 was issued to create a level-playing field. Further 
as noted earlier, in TET-I conducted in 2012, 7,14,526 candidates had 
appeared and only 2448 (0.3%) had qualified. In the subsequent TET, 
around 6 lakhs candidates had appeared and
only 20,000 i.e. 3% 
candidates could clear the test. Even in third TET with which we are 
concerned only 16,392 candidates had qualified. In that scenario to 
provide a level-playing fiela to persons belonging to SC/ST/OBC, 
denotified communities, differently-abled persons etc., State Government 
relaxed 5% mark~ to enable them to compete with others. It was the 
prerogative of the State Government to relax the passing marks with 
respect to reserved category candidates so that more qua! ified candidates 
could come up and participate in the selection process. In fact, even 
after grant of relaxation of 5% marks, many posts of reserved categories 
are remaining unfilled. State has placed the figures before us to show 
that even after granting relaxation of 5% marks, many posts ofSCs/STs 
and other backward categories in various subjects are remaining unfilled. 
35. The Government has not changed the rules of selection so far 
as the present appellants are concerned. Weightage of marks obtained 
in TET as well as that of academic qualification is still the same. The 
entire selection process conforms to the equitable standards laid down 
by the State Government in line with the principles enshrined in the 
861 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
862 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
Constitution and the extant reservation policy of the State. It is not the 
case where basic eligibility criteria has been altered in the midst of the 
selection process. Conducting TET and calling for certificate verification 
thereafter is an exercise which the State Government is obliged to conduct 
every year as per the Guidelines issued by NCTE. By calling for CV 
along with certificates of other requisite academic qualifications, a 
candidate's overall eligibility is ascertained and then he/she is recruite'd. 
Such an exercise by which qualified teachers in the State are segregatep 
and correspondingly certified to that effect cannot ae equated to 
finalization of select list which comes at a much later stage. No prejudice 
has been caused to the appellants, since the marks obtained by the 
appellants inTETare to remain valid for a period of seven years, based 
on which they can compete for the future vaca~cies. Merely because 
appellants were called for certificate verification, it cannot be contended 
that they have acquired a legal right to the post. Impugned G.O. Ms.No.25 
did not take away the rights of the appellants from being considered on 
their own merits as pointed out by the Madras Bench. We entirely agree 
with the views taken by the Madras Bench that "by merely allowing 
more persons to compete, the petitioners cannot contend that their 
accrued right has been taken away". 
36. Appearing
in TET is synonymous to obtaining an eligibility. By 
obtaining pass marks in TET a candidate is not said to have been recruited. 
Marks obtained in TET accounts only for 60% in the final selection and 
rest 40% is covered by academic performance. By granting relaxation 
of5% marks in TET for reserved categories only, the eligibility criteria 
is neither altered nor any prejudice is caused to the appellants. The 
contention of the appellants that the State Government cannot legally 
alter the selection criteria after conducting the exam does not find force 
in the light of view taken by a three Judge Bench of this Court in lli 
Prakash Pathak and Ors. v. Rajastlwn High Court and Ors. (20 13) 
4 SCC 540. In this case, the then Chief Justice of the concerned High 
Court ordered that examination conducted for the posts of' Translators' 
be treated as competitive examination and only those candidates who 
secured a minimum of 75% marks be selected to fill up the posts in 
questions. In view of the decision of the Chief Justice, only three 
candidates were found suitable for appointment. This triggered the 
litigation. It was observed that there is difference between altering the 
basic eligibility criteria in the mid of the process of selection and altering
V. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY 
863 
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
the mere procedure of selection. 
A 
3 7. The State Government cannot be faulted for altering the 
selection criteria by relaxing 5% marks in favour of reserved category 
candidates. In Tej Prakash (supra) the alteration in procedure in effect 
led to elimination of selected candidates, still the Court refrained from 
finding fault with such an alteration, as it was done in public interest. In 
B 
the present case, the relr..;ation afforded to the reserved category 
candidates has in no way eliminated the appellants from the selection 
process; rather a fair opportunity has been provided to other candidates 
who can legitimately compete with the appellants herein. 
Point No.4: Chall~nge to GO. Ms. No.71 dated 30.05.2014? 
C 
38.The appellants have also challenged G.O.Ms. 71, 'which was 
issued by the respondents pursuant to the decision of the Single Judge of 
the High Court. As already noted before, the Single Judge while declining 
the challenge to G.O.Ms. No. 252 and G.0.Ms. No. 25 had set aside the 
grading system adopted by the Government vide G.0.Ms. No. 252. The 
D 
Single Judge observed that the grading system adopted in G.0.Ms. No. 
252 lacks rationality as it places candidates with the difference of 1 to 9 
percentage in the same basket. Accordingly, vide G.O.Ms.No. 71 the 
Government came up with the grading methodology as indicated supra 
in para No 10. The
appellants have not only challenged the new grading 
system introduced by G.O. No. 71; but they have also challenged the 
E 
weightage of marks of 40% earmarked for academic performance. It is 
their contention that the Government has blindly accepted the 
· recommendation of Single Judge without application of mind. 
39. As it is evident from the records, distribution of marks for 
academic performance and TET fixed by the respondents vide G.O. 
F' 
No. 252 continues to be the same even after issuing of G.O. No. 71. 
That is, for the post of secondary grade teachers weightage of marks 
obtained in H.Sc. examination, D.T.Ed./D.E.Ed and TETwas 15 marks, 
25 marks and 60 marks respectively and it continues to be the same. 
Similarly, for the post of Graduate Assistants weightage of marks obtained 
0 
in H.Sc. examination, Degree Examination, B.Ed and TET was 10 marks, 
15 marks, 15 marks and 60 marks and it also continued to be the same. 
In such circumstances, we hold that the Madras High Court has correctly 
held that it is not open to the appellants to challenge the weightage of 
marks. The TET conducted on 17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013 was pursuant 
H
864 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 9 S.C.R. 
to the issuing of G.O.Ms.No.252 fixing the weightage for the marks in 
the basic qualification itself in which the appellants have participated. 
Thus, it is not open to the appellants to challenge the said procedure 
adopted by the respondents after writing the examination. 
40. The second aspect of challenge relates to the grading system 
adopted by the respondents. The respondents have acted as per the 
directions of the Single Judge of the High Court. The Single Judge in his 
judgment dated 29.04.2014 while declaring the slab system irrational, 
suggested a scientific rational method for award of weightage marks 
with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate in H.Sc./ 
D.T.Ed./D.E.Ed/B.Ed/TET for Secondary Grade Teachers/ Graduate 
Assistants as the case may be and accordingly make selections. This 
was accepted by the government in G.O.(Ms.) No. 71 dated 30.05.2014 
and the respondents have thus come up with the present awarding of 
weightage marks with reference to actual marks secured by each 
candidate which is more scientific and appropriate and as compared to 
the previous grading system contained in G.O. No. 252 which had put 
candidates obtaining 1-9% marks on the same footing. 
4 I. The appellants have maintained that while prescribing the marks 
for performance in Higher Secondary Examination, the respondents have 
failed to take into account different Education Boards (CBSE, !CSE,
State Boards etc.) conducting Higher Secondary Examination and 
difference in their marks awarding patterns. As also, the appellants have 
alleged that respondents failed to consider different streams of education 
while formulating the grading pattern. It is submitted that unless and 
until the respondents take note of difference in marking scheme of 
Education boards, as also the marking scheme of different streams such 
as Arts, Science etc. a valid grading system cannot be formulated. 
Equivalence of academic qualifications is a matter for experts and courts 
normally do not interfere with the decisions of the Government based on 
the recommendations of the experts (vide University o(Mvsore v. CD 
Govinda Rao (1964) 4 SCR 575 and Molul Sujat Ali v. U11io11 of 
India ( 1975) 3 SCC }6). We hold that it is the prerogative of State-
Authorities to formulate a system whereby weightage marks is decided 
with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate. In the present 
case, as no arbitrariness is proved on the part of the respondents, in 
formulating the grading system we cannot interfere with the same. We 
cannot be expected to go into every minute technicalities of decision
V. LAVANYA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY 
865 
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [R. BANUMATRI, J.] 
taken by the experts and perform the job of the respondent-State. 
A 
Moreover, the High Court has also noted that submission of learned 
Advocate General that almost all the appellants have completed their 
High Secondary examination from the State Boards. 
42. The contention that different Boards of Examination have 
different standards and the examiners who evaluate the scripts are in 
some places more liberal than others and that the·candidates who acquired 
qualifications decades back had to suffer strict evaluation as compared 
to the candidates who have qualified in the recent past facing liberal 
evaluation criteria, are. all hypothetical arguments without any pleading 
and supporting material disclosed in the Writ Petitions. As noted earlier, 
weightage of marks for academic performance and TET fixed vide 
G.O.(Ms.) No.252 dated 05.10.2012 continues to be the same even after 
issuing G.0.(Ms.)No.71 dated 30.05.2014. Having taken up the 
examination as per G.0.(Ms.) No.252, the appellants cannot challenge 
the award of weightage for the distribution of marks for academic 
performance with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate. 
The appellants are not justified in challenging every rational decision 
taken by the respondents to make the selection process more fair and 
reasonable merely because the outcome does not favour the limited 
individual interests
of the appella0~· 
43. The Madras High Court rightly rejected the chall~nge to 
G.O.(Ms.) No.25 dated 06.02.2014 and G.O.(Ms.)No. 71 dated 
30.05.2014, holding that as per the NCTE Guidelines, the State 
Government has the power to grant relaxation on the marks obtained in 
the TET for the candidates belonging to reserved category· and the same 
is affirmed. The Madurai Bench did not keep in view the NCTE 
Guidelines and the power of the State Government to grant relaxation in 
terms of their extant reservation policy and erred in quashing G.O.(Ms.) 
No.25 dated 06.02.201;4 and hence the same is liable to be set aside. 
44. The appeals filed by the State Government are, accordingly, 
'allowe.d and the impugned judgment of the Madurai Bench is set aside. 
The impugned judgment of the Madras Bench of the High Court is 
affirmed and all the appeals preferred by the unsuccessful candidates 
are dismissed. 
Ankit Gyan 
Appeals dispose<l of. 
B 
D 
E 
F 
G