Postgraduate Marks Don’t Meet Himachal Special Educator Rule Requiring 50% In Graduation, HC Holds

In brief

The question

1. Whether the requirement of at least 50% marks in graduation under the 2024 Rules was arbitrary or otherwise liable to be set aside, given the petitioner’s post-graduate qualification.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner had not established a basis to invalidate or require amendment of the 2024 Rules.

It also directed

It dismissed the writ petition, with any pending miscellaneous applications also disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged the Himachal Pradesh Elementary Education Department’s 2024 Recruitment and Promotion Rules for Special Educators (Classes VI–XII), which require a graduate degree with at least 50% marks, along with other specified qualifications.

¶ 2

Although the petitioner possessed the other qualifications and had more than 50% marks in post-graduation, he did not have 50% marks in graduation.

¶ 2

He argued that an NCTE notification dated 13.11.2019 permitted the required 50% marks to be obtained in either graduation or post-graduation, and sought amendment of the Rules.

¶ 3–5

He also challenged a six-month cross-disability training condition in the TET prospectus and sought permission to sit the TET examination.

¶ 1, 3–5

The State opposed the petition, contending that the NCTE notification relied on did not apply to Special Educators.

¶ 7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the requirement of at least 50% marks in graduation under the 2024 Rules was arbitrary or otherwise liable to be set aside, given the petitioner’s post-graduate qualification.

¶ 2–4, 14

ii.2. Whether the State could be directed to amend the 2024 Rules by applying the NCTE notification dated 13.11.2019 to Special Educators.

¶ 3–4, 15–17

iii.3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief against the six-month training condition in the TET prospectus and to permission to appear in the TET examination.

¶ 1

03Law Applied

The Court considered the 2024 Recruitment and Promotion Rules, which prescribe graduation with at least 50% marks as an essential qualification for Special Educators for Classes VI–XII.

¶ 2

It also considered the NCTE notification dated 13.11.2019, issued under Section 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009; the Court held that the notification relied on did not relate to Special Educators and therefore did not govern the petitioner’s case.

¶ 3, 15, 17

The Court applied the principle that prescribing recruitment qualifications is within the employer’s domain, subject to judicial interference where a condition is arbitrary or unconstitutional.

¶ 14

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 Section 23

04Reasoning

The petitioner did not meet the express graduation-mark requirement in the Rules.

The Court found that the NCTE notification relied on did not apply to Special Educators, so it could not support a direction to amend the Rules.

¶ 14–17

The Department had prescribed different qualifications for different categories of Special Educators, demonstrating that it had considered the requirements of the posts; the 50% graduation threshold was not shown to be arbitrary or unconstitutional merely because the petitioner lacked those marks.

¶ 9–14

The Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it.

¶ 18