The intention behind the use of words must be analyzed in context with the word: Chhattisgarh High Court

1AFRHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURWPS No. 365211.Kamal Kishor Sahu S o Tribhuvan Lal Sahu Aged About 28 YearsR o Sheetla Chowk Mawlipara Kanker District KankerChhattisgarh. 2.Mukesh Kumar Netam S o Bacchu Ram Netam Aged About 31Years R o Village Tumanar Post Amabeda District KankerChhattisgarh. PetitionersVersus 1.State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary School EducationDepartment Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar NayaRaipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh2.Director Public Instructions Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar NayaRaipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3.District Education Officer Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4.Director National Council For Teacher Education Wing No. 2 HansBhawan Bahadurshah Jafar Marg New Delhi. 5.Keshav Vishwakarma Behind Mission Compound Ward No. 10 Imlibhatha Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. Respondents For Petitioners:Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao Advocate For State:Mr. Amrito Das Additional A.G. Hon ble Shri Justice P. Sam KoshyOrder on Board16 07 20211.The short question involved in the present writ petition is whetherthe candidate who has passed the Central Teacher Eligibility Test(CTET) would be eligible for participation in the recruitment processfor appointment to the post of Teacher in the State of Chhattisgarhwithout qualifying the Teacher Eligibility Testconducted by theState Government . 22.The relevant facts which is necessary for the adjudication of thepresent writ petition is that an advertisement was issued by therespondents for filling up of various posts of Teachers AssistantTeachers in the various subjects for the various schools in the Stateof Chhattisgarh. The petitioners also had applied for the post ofTeachertks bl laca k esa le &le ij tkjh fd s x sjk”Vªh v kid f k{kk ifj”kn~ ¼ekU rk] ekun.M rFkk fØ kfof k½fofu eksa ds vuqlkj izkIr fd k x k gksAvFkokU wure 50 izfr kr vadksa ds lkFk mPprj ek fed vFkok bldsled{k oa pkj o”khZ ch @ch l lh M k ch M @ch l lh MvFkokU wure 50 izfr kr vadksa ds lkFk Lukrd rFkk d o”khZ ch M ¼fo ks”k f k{kk½rFkk¼[k½ jk”Vªh v kid f k{kk ifj”kn~ }kjk bl iz kstu ds fy tkjh fd x ekxZn khZ fl)karksa ds vuqlkj leqfpr ljdkj }kjkvk ksftr v kid ik=rk ijh{kk ¼Vh bZ Vh ½ esa mRrh.kZA^^3.The private respondent i.e. the respondent No.5 Mr. KeshavVishwakarma also had applied for the said post of Teacher(Biology). Apart from the educational qualification required for thesaid post the petitioners in the instant case had cleared the TETexamination conducted by the State of Chhattisgarh whereas the 3private respondent No.5 had cleared the CTET. Both of them havingparticipated the respondent No.5 has been found meritorious andafter due process of selection the offer of appointment has alsobeen issued. The petitioners also were found meritorious howevertheir name stood lower in the order of merit and therefore they havebeen placed in the waiting list. The contention of the petitioners nowin the present writ petition is that the recruitment Rules governingthe field is the Chhattisgarh School Education Services2019. Under the said Rules it isspecifically held that the candidates must have to pass the TETconducted by the appropriate government and according to thepetitioners the appropriate government in the instant case would bethe State of Chhattisgarh and therefore it is only the candidate whohas cleared the TET examination conducted by the State ofChhattisgarh who would be eligible for participation in the selectionprocess from the aforementioned advertisement. 4.That since the respondent No.5 have cleared the CTET conductedby the Central Board of Secondary Education the respondent No.5as such does not meet the requisite eligibility criteria under theRules as also under the advertisement and therefore the proposalfor giving appointment to the respondent No.5 is bad in law and alsocontrary to the Rules. Hence the candidature of the respondentNo.5 should be rejected and the petitioners in turn should beconsidered. According to the petitioners the very reference in theRules of 2019 prescribing the requirement of TET conducted by theappropriate government itself means only the examinationconducted by the State of Chhattisgarh and it cannot be that of any 4other agency or government. The counsel for the petitioners alsodrew the attention of the Court to the Right of Children to Free andCompulsory Education Act 2009 for the purpose of determining themeaning of appropriate government under the respective Rules. 5.The State counsel on the other hand opposing the petition submitsthat the term appropriate government in the Rules does not excludethe candidates who have cleared CTET. According to the Statecounsel the requirement is that of a candidate having cleared theTET which is conducted by an appropriate government inaccordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE. According tothe State counsel neither the Rules of 2019 nor the advertisementanywhere restricts the candidates with CTET from participating inthe recruitment process rather it is inclusive in the term appropriategovernment . As per the State counsel the appropriate government in the instant case refers to the authority conducting theexamination which would be either the State Government or theCentral Government as the case may be. The only aspect whichneeds consideration is whether the examination has beenconducted in terms of the guidelines framed by the NCTE. The Statecounsel submits that it is not the case of the petitioners that theCTET cleared by the petitioners is not in terms of the guidelinesframed by the NCTE thus there is no dispute that the petitioners arethe qualified CTET candidates.6.Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusalof record what requires at this juncture to be appreciated is theRules of 2019 which prescribed the minimum eligibility criteria forthe post of Teacher and the said criteria prescribed is the same 5which has been reproduced in the preceding paragraph which ispart of the advertisement. For ready reference English version of theRules of 2019 is reproduced herein under: “(ii)Teacher:(a)Graduation and 2 year diploma in ElementaryEducationin accordance with the NCTERegulations issued from time to timein this regard.ORHigher Secondary or its equivalent with at least 50% marksand 4 years B.A. B.Sc.Ed. or B.A.Ed. B.Sc.Ed.ORGraduation with at least 50% marks land 1 year B.Ed.(Special Education)And(b)Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Testto beconducted by the appropriate Government in accordancewith the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.”7.The Rules of 2019 specifically defines Teacher Eligibility Test. Forready reference the definition of TET under Rule 2(t) reads asunder: “2(t) Teachers Eligibility Test means the teacher eligibilitytest conducted for the post filled up by direct recruitment ofeducational cadre.” 8.The said definition of TET does not excludes the TET conducted bythe Central Government. It only refers to the term appropriategovernment which in other word means a TET conducted by an appropriate government would be acceptable as a validqualification for the purpose of recruitment in the State ofChhattisgarh. This Court finds sufficient force in the argument of the 6Additional Advocate General when he says that if the intention ofthe Government was to be given a restrictive interpretation then theterm appropriate government would not have been used by theGovernment at the time of framing of the Rules it would have simplymentioned TET conducted by the State of Chhattisgarh. 9.Even otherwise the contention of the petitioners cannot beaccepted for the simple reason that if such an analogy is to beaccepted it would be too harsh a decision for all those candidates who have cleared the CTET even though they may be permanentresident of the State of Chhattisgarh getting disqualified or deniedparticipation only on the ground of not clearing the TET ofChhattisgarh and as such the same would be per se violative ofArticle 14.10.Clearing CTET a candidate has the advantage of applying for thepost published by the State of Chhattisgarh and also for applying forall those posts advertised by the Central Government in respect ofthe schools run exclusively by the Central Government in terms ofthe guidelines issued by the NCTE itself. Needless to mention at thisjuncture that this Court in the past in a similar set of facts arising outof the same recruitment had dismissed a writ petition i.e. WPS No.5423 2020decided on 17.12.2020 wherein in paragraph No.4 hasheld as under:“4.From the plain reading of aforementioned clauseit clearly reflects that the Central Board of SecondaryEducation has laid a prerogative of the State Government toaccept the candidates of CTET if it decides not to conductthe State TET which by itself would mean that thecandidates of CTET are otherwise eligible for being 7considered for the post of Assistant Teacher Teacher andLecturer.”11.For all the aforesaid given facts and circumstances of the case thisCourt is of the firm view that the very reference in the recruitmentRules dealing with the minimum qualification clearly envisaging thatcandidate must be passed in TET candidate by the appropriategovernment in terms of the guidelines of the NCET means a TETconducted either by the State of Chhattisgarh or for that matter theCentral Government. The said provision of the Rules cannot begiven a restrictive interpretation. Thus this Court does not find anystrong case made out by the petitioner for issuance of any writrestraining the respondents from issuing an order of appointment infavour of the respondent No.5. 12.Accordingly the question of law which was put for adjudication inthe writ petition is answered in the affirmative in holding that forappointment to the post of Assistant Teacher and Teacher in theState of Chhattisgarh where the Rules of 2019 is applicable acandidate who has passed CTET also is eligible for participation.13.The writ petition thus sans merit and therefore deserves to be and isaccordingly rejected.Sd (P. Sam Koshy)JudgeVed 

Summary: While interpreting a sentence, one must consider the intention with which a word is used and apply it in context with it. A restrictive interpretation cannot be forced on a huge group of people if the intention behind the use of such words was to be a broader meaning and if such a restrictive interpretation will result in inconvenience to large number of people. This was held by Hon’ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy in the case of Kamal Kishor Sahu and Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department and Ors. [WPS No. 3657 of 2021] on the 16th of July 2021 before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The brief facts of the case are, an advertisement was issued by the respondents for filling up of various posts of Teachers, Assistant Teachers, in the various subjects for the various schools in the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioners also had applied for the post of Teacher (Biology). the respondent No.5-Mr. Keshav Vishwakarma also had applied for the said post of Teacher (Biology). Apart from the educational qualification required for the said post, the petitioners in the instant case had cleared the TET examination conducted by the State of Chhattisgarh, whereas the private respondent No.5 had cleared the CTET. Both of them having participated, the respondent No.5 has been found meritorious and after due process of selection, the offer of appointment has also been issued. The petitioners also were found meritorious, however their name stood lower in the order of merit and therefore they have been placed in the waiting list. The contention of the petitioners now in the present writ petition is that the recruitment Rules governing the field is the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) 2019. Under the said Rules, it is specifically held that the candidates must have to pass the TET conducted by the appropriate government and according to the petitioners, the appropriate government in the instant case would be the State of Chhattisgarh and therefore it is only the candidate, who has cleared the TET examination conducted by the State of Chhattisgarh, who would be eligible for participation in the selection process from the aforementioned advertisement. The counsel for the petitioner submits that, the very reference in the Rules of 2019 prescribing the requirement of TET conducted by the appropriate government itself means only the examination conducted by the State of Chhattisgarh and it cannot be that of any other agency or government. The counsel for the petitioners also drew the attention of the Court to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 for the purpose of determining the meaning of appropriate government under the respective Rules. However, the counsel for the state submitted that, he term ‘appropriate government’ in the Rules does not exclude the candidates who have cleared CTET. According to the State counsel, the requirement is that of a candidate having cleared the TET, which is conducted by an ‘appropriate government’ in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE. According to the State counsel, neither the Rules of 2019, nor the advertisement anywhere restricts the candidates with CTET, from participating in the recruitment process, rather it is inclusive in the term ‘appropriate government’. As per the State counsel, the ‘appropriate government’ in the instant case refers to the authority conducting the examination, which would be either the State Government or the Central Government as the case may be. The only aspect, which needs consideration is ‘whether the examination has been conducted in terms of the guidelines framed by the NCTE. The State counsel submits that it is not the case of the petitioners that the CTET cleared by the petitioners is not in terms of the guidelines framed by the NCTE, thus there is no dispute that the petitioners are the qualified CTET candidates. The court heard the contentions of both the parties and observed that “definition of TET does not exclude the TET conducted by the Central Government. It only refers to the term ‘appropriate government’ which in other word means a TET conducted by an ‘appropriate government’ would be acceptable as a valid qualification for the purpose of recruitment in the State of Chhattisgarh. This Court finds sufficient force in the argument of the Additional Advocate General, when he says that if the intention of the Government was to be given a restrictive interpretation, then the term ‘appropriate government’ would not have been used by the Government at the time of framing of the Rules, it would have simply mentioned TET conducted by the State of Chhattisgarh. the contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted for the simple reason that if such an analogy is to be accepted, it would be too harsh a decision for all those candidates, who have cleared the CTET, even though they may be permanent resident of the State of Chhattisgarh, getting disqualified or denied participation only on the ground of not clearing the TET of Chhattisgarh and as such the same would be per se violative of Article 14.”