Reserved-category candidates are entitled to 5% CTET qualifying-mark relaxation where recruitment follows the relaxation notification.

The applicants, belonging respectively to the Scheduled Caste and Persons with Disability categories, applied for Special Educator (Primary) posts under Post Code 01/2012.

They scored 58.6% and 56.6% in CTET Paper I, below the prescribed 60% threshold.

Their candidature was rejected on 13 July 2015 for not meeting that threshold, without the benefit of a claimed relaxation of up to 5%.

Although the recruitment advertisement had issued in February 2012, the final eligibility list was published in November 2013 and the applicants were interviewed in January 2014.

They sought recognition as CTET-qualified and reconsideration of their candidature under the applicable relaxation provisions.

1. Whether the applicants, as reserved-category candidates, were entitled to up to 5% relaxation in CTET qualifying marks for the Special Educator recruitment under Post Code 01/2012.

2. Whether the relaxation could apply where the applicants took CTET before the Directorate of Education’s notification dated 30 November 2012, but the recruitment process continued after its issuance.

The Tribunal applied the NCTE Notification dated 29 July 2011, which contemplated relaxation of up to 5% in qualifying marks for candidates belonging to reserved categories, read with the Directorate of Education Notification dated 30 November 2012 and Circular dated 6 February 2013.

It also relied on the Directorate’s clarification dated 5 December 2012: the date of the CTET examination was not determinative where the recruitment was held after the relaxation notification was issued.

The Tribunal referred to Rajneesh Kumar Pandey v. Union of India in the context of TET requirements for Special Educators, but held that it did not determine the distinct issue of relaxation in CTET marks.

The Tribunal found that both applicants belonged to eligible reserved categories and had scored above 55%, the threshold resulting from a 5% relaxation of the prescribed 60% requirement.

Although the advertisement predated the 30 November 2012 notification, the selection process substantially continued after it: the final eligibility list was published in November 2013 and the applicants were interviewed in January 2014.

The Directorate’s clarification permitted the relaxation in such circumstances irrespective of when CTET had been taken.

The applicants had also initially been declared eligible after clarification from the user department, making their later rejection solely for failure to meet the unrelaxed threshold inconsistent with the applicable eligibility provisions.

It set aside the rejection dated 13 July 2015 insofar as it denied their candidature for failing to meet the unrelaxed 60% requirement, and directed the respondents to treat them as having fulfilled the CTET requirement and reconsider their candidature under the applicable recruitment rules, reservation policy, merit and other eligibility conditions.

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The OA was allowed to that extent, with no order as to costs.