The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that in matters where the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) Regulations differ between language versions, the English text is the authoritative document. This decision was made because the regulations, being central government rules, must follow the language specified under constitutional provisions.
Read also: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Petition Alleging Exorbitant Fees Paid to Advocate General
In the case at hand, a woman who had applied for the position of Middle School Teacher challenged the recruitment criteria. Her application was initially rejected on the basis that she did not achieve 50% marks in her graduation, as interpreted from the Hindi version of the 2014 NCTE Regulation. However, she had successfully passed her master's degree with the required 50% marks. The petitioner argued that according to the English version, the eligibility criteria accept either a bachelor’s or a master’s degree with 50% marks in the relevant subject.
Read also: Madhya Pradesh HC Supports Barricades at 56 Dukan to Ease Traffic Congestion
The court emphasized the importance of following the central regulatory document. It noted the discrepancy between the two language versions, pointing out that the Hindi version omitted the reference to a master's degree. Referencing Article 348 (1)(b)(iii) of the Constitution of India, the judge stated:
“As per Article 348 (1)(b)(iii) of the Constitution, the authoritative texts of all orders, rules, Regulations and bye-laws issued under the Constitution or under any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of a State, shall be in the English language.”
The High Court made it clear that, due to this constitutional mandate, the English language text of the NCTE Regulation, 2014 is the correct standard. The court held that the requirement mentioned in the Hindi version—that a candidate must have 50% marks in their graduation—was incorrect when compared with the English version which clearly allows for a master’s degree with 50% marks as a valid qualification.
Key points from the ruling include:
- Discrepancy in Language Versions: The Hindi version lacked the provision for a master’s degree, unlike the English version.
- Constitutional Mandate: The Court referred to Article 348 (1)(b)(iii) confirming that English is the authoritative language.
- Eligibility Criteria Clarified: The petitioner, despite obtaining 47.5% in graduation, qualified based on her master’s degree performance.
- Court Directive: The department was ordered to issue the appointment order along with all consequential benefits, excluding pecuniary benefits already given to similarly situated candidates.
The petitioner’s success in challenging the recruitment criteria underscores the importance of referring to the correct official version of central regulations. As the Court observed, “…going by the aforesaid condition, admittedly, the petitioner has obtained 47.5 marks in graduation and has also obtained B.Ed. degree from a recognized university and thus, on this ground also action on the part of the respondents cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law.”
Case Title: Sunita Gupta Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh School Education Department And Others
Writ Petition No. 3673 Of 2023
