Termination of Teachers in Tripura: Legal Angle

Reading time: 8-10 minutes

Rule of law is one of the essential and underlying features of the Indian Constitution. It sets out the structure by which the power of the State is limited and not unfettered. Equality before the law and fairness in the application of the law are the two most important aspects of the rule of law. Article 14 and 16 of our Constitution ensures that the State shall treat all persons equally in matters of employment. Therefore, the selection process in any public institution should be fair and justified.

Appointments at public offices should not be guided by bribery or nepotism. As noted in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal and Ors.,  “Appointments made arbitrarily, without any clear selection process or for political reasons, will be subject to judicial review and will be liable to be quashed.”It is in the public interest that the selection and appointment process should be transparent in order to make it foolproof. The present case in which the Apex Court confirmed the termination of 8,882 ad hoc teachers in Tripura is based on similar lines. The Division Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ajoy Debbarma and others Versus State of Tripura and others, observed that because their very selection and appointments were found to be unconstitutional and invalid, the candidates concerned could not be given any other advantages.

Facts of the Issue

In 2014, the selection of 10,323 teachers by the state government of Tripura was challenged before the High Court in Tanmoy Nath vs. State of Tripura & others. It was argued that the selection process contained discrepancies.  The Hon’ble High Court concluded that the selections and the relevant policies were illegal and arbitrary, as the appointments were not in accordance with the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, and suffered due to favoritism and nepotism.  Consequently, the Apex Court issued directions to the Tripura government that the State should establish a new employment policy within two months. The selections shall be made as soon as possible and no later than 31.12.2014, in accordance with the new policy. The Hon’ble Court also made it clear that no other advantages will be given to the candidates.

 “We would like to make it clear that there can be no preference or reservations dependent on age other than the benefits mentioned by us above. No preference shall be granted to dependent government officials or retired government employees or retrenched employees etc. There can be no linguistic or religious minority reservations, except on an area-wide basis.”

In 2017, the decision of the Tanmoy Nath case was appealed against in the Supreme Court. The Apex Court while rejecting the appeal, modified the orders of High Court and directed the Government of Tripura to complete the fresh selection process by 31 December 2017 or before that.

The time given by the Supreme Court in the directions issued in the 2017 Order has been extended from time to time and the Supreme Court has finally issued instructions on 01.11.2018, extending the service duration of the teachers concerned to the completion of the 2019-2020 academic session.

Consequently, as per the instructions issued by the Supreme Court in 2018 and the direction issued in Tanmoy Nath‘s case, the teachers’ services were terminated after the 2019-20 academic session was over. Some of them have challenged their termination before the High Court of Tripura. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed their petition stating that petitioners seek review of the decision given in Tanmoy Nath‘s case which is not in accordance with the law, more so on the doctrine of merger. This judgment of Hon’ble High Court was challenged in the Supreme court. The Apex Court dismissed this appeal on the basis that the validity and legality of the complete selection process and the appointment of approximately 10,323 teachers were discussed in detail in the Tanmoy Nath case. The Supreme Court further directed that the State is obligated to undertake a selection procedure in which the applicants concerned are eligible participate, with age relaxation. The Court also pointed out that the attempt on the part of the State to offer some alternative employment is not to degrade the teachers, but to offer some consolation even in cases where the candidates do not succeed in selecting the teachers’ positions.

Thus, the above factual scenario led to the passing of the judgment by the Hon’ble Court of termination of 8882 teachers in Tripura with no other advantages to the concerned candidate.

Legal Provisions Involved

The legal provisions involved in the present case are Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Articles 14 and 16 falls within the framework of a constitutional right to equality. Article 14 focuses on the fundamental right to equality and Article 16 provides for the right to equal opportunity in matters relating to public employment. Thus, Article 14 read with Article 16 implies that the selection process in case of public employment should be such that all qualified applicants are given the equal chance of being selected.

Then comes the aspect of the Doctrine of Merger, which states that if the dispute before the superior court has been disposed of in some way i.e. either by affirming the judgment or order or by setting aside or by amending the same, the judgment of the Supreme Court shall be the final, binding and operational decision and the impugned order/judgment shall stand merged into the order passed by the Superior Forum, i.e. the impugned order/judgment retains no identity or enforceability of its own.

Critical Analysis                                              

The termination of teachers who were employed in the school education department has become a central political issue in the State of Tripura. The decision of the Supreme Court indeed seems to be a viable option, considering the law of the land, as the selection process is purely based on an oral interview which is contrary to the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. The nepotism and favoritism in employing government teachers are against the spirit of equality, which is enshrined in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. As in the case Ramana Shetty v. International Airport Authority, the Apex Court had opined that “This Court relies on the observations of E.P. Royappa and Maneka Gandhi have again stated that state action must not be influenced by extraneous or irrelevant considerations, as that would be a denial of equality.” The present decision of the Supreme Court, therefore, confirms with the basic laws of the land. 

It is interesting to note that the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court decision of no other advantages to be given to the concerned candidate apart from age relaxation. This clearly shows the balanced decision of the Supreme Court in the present matter. The Court upheld the superiority of the law of the land, by disallowing any other advantages to candidates and simultaneously upheld the importance of equal opportunity by allowing age relaxation.

Conclusion

As the entire selection process was illegal and invalid, the only reasonable option that the Court could resort to, was to terminate the employment of the concerned candidates. The issue regarding the validity and legality of the entire selection process and the termination of 8882 government teachers was smoothly dealt with by the Hon’ble Court. The age relaxation allowed by the Hon’ble Court for application of post of teacher till 31.03.2023 will certainly provide the opportunity to the eligible and competent candidate to get selected for the post of government teacher in the legal and valid manner. Thus, the judgment handed down by the Hon’ble Court is rational and appreciable.

Author: Palak Jain, Institute of Law, Nirma University.

Editor: Astha Garg, Junior Editor, Lexlife India.

Exams During COVID-19: Legal Angle

Reading time: 8-10 minutes

On 6th August 2020, a group of 11 students from 11 different states appearing for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (hereinafter referred to as “NEET”) and Joint Entrance Examination (hereinafter referred to as “JEE”) filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court seeking postponement of the said exams which are scheduled to be held in September 2020, to an unspecified further date, only after normalcy is restored post the covid-19 crisis.

Matters got interesting when a Gujarat based parents association also filed a writ petition on 8th August in the Supreme Court, seeking the Court’s direction to the National Testing Agency (hereinafter referred to as “NTA”) and the Ministry of Education to hold the exams as scheduled in September 2020. The NTA is an autonomous agency tasked with the conduct of these examinations and other national entrance examinations to various graduate and undergraduate courses.

The matters are scheduled to be heard in the coming few days in the Supreme Court. In this article, we try to analyse the two petitions, their background and the legal grounds for each of them.

Facts of the Issue

The JEE and NEET exams were originally scheduled to be held in April and May 2020 respectively. In view of the pandemic and the nationwide lockdown, they were rescheduled initially to July 2020 and later to September 2020.

Let us analyse the two petitions.

  1. Students Petition

The student petitioners’ argued the following:

  1. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, many aspirants who may be infected or fallen ill will be deprived of their chance to appear for the exams. This, they allege is a violation of their fundamental right to equality under article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
  2. Keeping in mind the increasing number of covid-positive cases in the country,  and the possibility of the pandemic reaching its peak around mid-September, due to the congregation of students at the limited number of centres, there is a very high risk of infection of Covid-19.
  3. Where aspirants stay far away from the examination centres, the lack of transportation facilities like public transport, the limited restarting of railways, and the unavailability of safe food, accommodation and medical facilities near the examination centres, as also the added cost of these, will be a grave burden on parents whose financial condition has been affected due to the pandemic.
  4. Aspirants from Bihar, Assam and other North Eastern states which are badly affected by floods, will face severe problems in appearing for online exams due to connectivity issues caused by the floods and in reaching the offline exam centres due to lack of transport facilities.
  5. The petition requested for increase of offline examination centres and have one centre in each district of the country.
  6. The plea cites parallels with several other examinations including CBSE exams which were cancelled due to the pandemic.
  • Parent’s Petition

Parent Petitioner’s argued the following:

  1. Further postponement of the exam will lead to loss of the academic year for the students of the 2020-2021 batch.
  2. The admissions process, even post the result of these exam, is long and prone to errors and will severely affect the academic session of the students.
  3. The students have been rigorously preparing for these exams since they were in Class 10, and the repeated postponement will cause study fatigue, thereby affecting their result.
  4. Postponement will also increase their stress levels and lead to anxiety, trauma and other mental health issues, also severely affecting their performance in these crucial exams, which determine their academic career and affecting their whole future.
  5. The plea refers to the NTA notification dated 3rd July 2020 which had given students the option to make changes to their centre of choice and also assured the students that the NTA will make every effort to allot the city of choice to the candidates as per their choice.
  6. Like the students’ petition, this petition also cites parallels with other entrance exams which were also held during the pandemic.

The NTA’s Stand

The BBC conducted an interview with Dr. Vineet Joshi, the Director General of the NTA on 9th August where he was asked about the petition of the students.

While he said that he was unaware of the particulars of the petition, he made the following points regarding the conduct of exams:

  1. As per government guidelines, the number of test centres for JEE have been increased from 450 to 600, and for NEET from 2500 to 4000.
  2. Staggered timings for students to avoid congregation of students at one time in the exam centre.
  3. Provision of thermal screening and sanitizer at all centres for students. These timings will be mentioned on the admit cards.
  4. Admit card will be accepted as pass to enter and exit containment zones. The local administration will be informed about this.
  5. The aspirants were also given a window to change their exam centre of choice in July, as per their convenience.
  6. He also expressed hope that there is still one month to go before the exams, and by that time, the flood situation in the flood affected states will also improve tremendously.
  7. He also said that the Standard Operating Procedure issued by the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development will be adhered to strictly ensuring safety of students.

Legal Provisions Involved

The students’ petition relies upon Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees the equality of law and equal protection of law for all persons in the territory of India.

According to them, conducting the exams in September violates this right as the students who do not have a high speed internet connection or those staying away from exam centres and not having the financial means to reach the centre, as well as students hailing from flood affected states like Bihar, Assam and the North East will face severe difficulties in appearing for the exam, which will affect their chances of succeeding and in turn affect their career and future.

Article 21 provides for the right to life and personal liberty of all persons. This Article may also be invoked as the congregation of large number of aspirants at the exam centres may lead to high risk of disease and even death due to the infection. This violates the fundamental right to life of the students.

Legal Precedent

A recent petition filed by Abdulla Mannan Khan with respect to the Karnataka Common Entrance Test (hereinafter referred to as “KCET”) has many parallels with the petition filed by the students and the order of the Karnataka High Court in this matter can provide some guidance as to how the Supreme Court may look at both these petitions.

The Petitioner in this case pleaded for the postponement of the KCET on grounds similar to the students’ petition. The bench of Justices Arvind Kumar and M.I. Arun ruled that the exam should not be cancelled or postponed indefinitely, and it must be held in the interest of the students.

The Bench also said that all norms of social distancing must be followed not only inside the Centre but also outside it. Also, congregation of students must not be allowed to happen. The order also stated that due to the lack of adequate medical facilities and general physicians, the students who are Covid-19 positive must also be allowed to appear for the exam and separate rooms for such candidates must be provided, and under no condition should such candidates be stopped from appearing for the exam. 

Critical Analysis

While the Covid-19 pandemic is indeed an extraordinary situation which has affected all aspects of life, the NTA and Ministry of Human Resource Development have revised the schedule of these crucial exams twice.

While one petition places great emphasis on the right to life and equality as enshrined in the Constitution, the other places a greater emphasis on the students’ mental health and career opportunities and the loss of an academic year.

The matter is still to be heard by the Supreme Court. If the precedent of the Karnataka High Court petition is followed, it is likely that the Apex Court may allow the exam to be held, while directing the strict implementation of Standard Operating Procedure and guidelines for conduct of such examinations, to ensure safety of the students.

On the other hand, the Court may take a more cautioned stand and may direct the postponement of the exam or even cancellation of the exam. But this can create issues of its own. If it is postponed, when can it be held? There is no certainty as to when the pandemic will end or even be controlled as the vaccine trials go on in full steam. But it is highly likely that this entire academic year might be lost for all these students.

There are precedents of exams supporting both the petitions. While on one hand, the CBSE, Chartered Accountants exams were cancelled which support the contention of the student petition; the KCET and some other state entrance tests have been conducted during the pandemic.

Conclusion

As we saw that both petitions have their merits. On the one hand the right to equality and life as fundamental rights of the students and on the other side, the adverse impact due to stress, anxiety and trauma suffered due to the uncertainty around these exams for students who have toiled for almost 2-3 years just for this exam.

It remains to be seen as to which factors the Supreme Court attaches more importance to and how it balances these two issues.

Author: Hemant Kelkar.

Editor: Astha Garg, Junior Editor, Lexlife India.

Legal challenges to NEET

Reading time: 8-10 minutes.

The Supreme Court in the recent judgment of Christian Medical College Vellore Association v/s Union of India And Others, ruled that the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET), which is given for entrance into medical and dental courses, does not violate the rights of aided or unaided minority institutions under the Constitution of India. The three-judge bench comprising of Justices Arun Mishra, Justice Vineet Saran, and Justice MR Shah passed the aforementioned judgment on April 29, 2020.

The main point of contention raised in front of the judges was that NEET violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article19 (1) (g) of the Indian Constitution and the rights of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice as guaranteed under Article 30, read with Articles 25 and Article 26, which includes their right to admit students of their own choice. But the Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that in the view of national and public interest, NEET would be applicable for both aided and unaided medical colleges administered by minorities.

Introduction to NEET

As priorly stated, NEET stands for National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test and is a national level single medical entrance exam conducted to provide admissions to eligible candidates into MBBS, BDS, MD, MS, etc. courses in India. The purpose behind it was to create a single common entrance exam for all the medical courses in the country and ensure uniformity in the process of admission into the medical courses at various universities and colleges across India. NEET-UG is conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) and NEET-PG is conducted by the National Board of Examinations (NBE), both autonomous bodies set up by the Government of India. With approximately 15,00,000 test-takers, NEET is the most important medical entrance examination in India and is conducted once every year.

History of NEET

NEET is the brainchild of the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India and Medical Council of India (MCI). The exam replaced the All India Pre-Medical Test (AIPMT) and other medical entrance exams and brought uniformity in the admission process to the medical courses offered across the country. NEET was notified under the ‘Regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1997’ and ‘BDS Course Regulations, 2007’ by the Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India and published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary in 2012. The modifications were related to the introduction of the single eligibility-cum-entrance exam for admissions to the medical courses, i.e., NEET, its qualification, rules, and eligibility criteria.

NEET was conducted for the first time in 2012. Several states including Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Kerala opposed it stating that it infringed on their rights because education is a subject in the state list. The Supreme Court passed a judgment declaring the test ‘unconstitutional’ because it deprived the state-run universities and colleges the right to evaluate students on the criteria set by them. In April 2016, the Supreme Court recalled the 2013 judgment and ordered for NEET to be conducted from the 2016 academic year.

Legal basis

The petitions filed in the court challenged the constitutional validity of the NEET notifications issued by the Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India. In 2016, these notifications were incorporated as statutory provisions as Sections 10D of the Indian Medical Council Act of 1956 and similar amendments were made to the Dentists Act and the validity of these amendments was in question here.

The leading petitioner, in this case, Christian Medical College (CMC), Vellore has been fighting a losing battle against NEET ever since the changes were brought about in 2012. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that the State has no power to compel an unaided minority institution to admit students through a single centralized national examination such as NEET. They further claimed that the unaided minority professional colleges have the fundamental rights to choose the method and manner in which to admit its students, subject to satisfying the triple test of having a fair, transparent, and non-exploitative process. Another contention raised was that NEET cannot be the only parameter to determine the merit of a student and institutions have fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30(1) of the Constitution to conduct and manage the affairs of the institution.

The Supreme Court did not find much relevance in the petitioners’ objections. They have taken the help of various decisions, which are of the view that some system of computing equivalence between different kinds of qualifications like a common entrance test, would not violate the rights conferred. They have pointed out that the unaided minority institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India have the right to admit students, but the merit may be determined by a common entrance test and the rights under Article 30(1) are not absolute to prevent the Government from making any regulations and the Government cannot be prevented from framing regulations that are in the national interest and that the State can impose such conditions as are necessary for the proper maintenance of standards of education and to check maladministration. The Court duly noted that large-scale malpractices, exploitation of students, profiteering, and commercialization of entrance examinations held by various institutions exist, and this further leads to failing the triple test of having a fair, transparent, and non-exploitative process.  

Thus, the Court held that the regulatory mechanism for centralized examination is legal and constitutional and does not infringe on the fundamental rights of the minority or non-minority to establish and administer educational institutions.

Significance of the SC judgment

With this judgment, the Court has tried to strike a just balance between the fundamental rights of the institutions and the larger interest of the society. It has been stated that “There is no right given to mal-administer the education derogatory to the national interest. The quality of medical education is imperative to sub-serve the national interest, and the merit cannot be compromised. The decision to regulate admission in professional colleges on a national basis has been given to wipe out the corruption and various evils from the system.”

If such a decision would not have been taken, keeping in mind the national atmosphere, there would be no end to the multiplicity of examinations for the students and this also helps in ensuring fairness in the selection, recognition of merit, and the interests of the students. The SC pointed out, “To weed out evils from the system, which were eating away fairness in the admission process, defeating merit and aspiration of the common incumbent with no means, the State has the right to frame regulatory regime for aided/unaided minority/private institutions as mandated by Directives Principles, Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.”

Thus, the Court stated that they are of the opinion that rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30 read with Articles 25, 26 and 29(1) of the Constitution of India do not come in the way of securing transparency and recognition of merits in the matter of admissions and reasonable restrictions can be imposed in the national and public interest. They have ensured that the rights under Article 19(1)(g) are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restriction in the interest of the student’s community to promote merit, recognition of excellence, and to curb the malpractices and NEET as a Uniform Entrance Test qualifies the test of proportionality and is, therefore, reasonable. It is also intended to check several maladies that have crept into medical education and to prevent exploitation, profiteering, and commercialization of education.

Conclusion

The bench, led by Justice Mishra, set aside all the challenges to the common entrance exam and ensured that this will result in a meritorious and proper entry of the students in the medical fields. The Court opined that there is no violation of the rights of the unaided/aided minority to administer institutions under Articles 19(1) (g) and 30 read with Articles 25, 26 and 29(1) of the Constitution of India by prescribing the uniform examination of NEET for admissions in the graduate and postgraduate professional courses of medical as well as   dental science. Organizing a single entrance exam solves many problems like providing uniformity to the profound system of admissions and making the process easier, reducing the pressure on students who now only have to prepare for one common test, reducing the financial strain on the applicants, and ensuring more transparency in the examination. Moreover, contribute towards generating and adding well-educated medical professionals into the public health workforce.

The Court once again through the means of this judgment reiterated that the regulatory measures are not made to interfere with the rights to administer the institution by the religious or linguistic minorities, but the idea is to bring the education within the realm of charity, the character which it has lost over time.

Author: Nimrat Dhillon from Government Law College, Mumbai.

Editor: Muskaan Garg from Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana.