Introduction:

In the case of Sunita Gupta Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh School Education Department And Others, Writ Petition No. 3673 Of 2023, the Madhya Pradesh High Court was called upon to adjudicate a critical matter concerning the applicability and interpretation of the National Council for Teachers Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulation, 2014 (NCTE Regulations). The petitioner, Sunita Gupta, challenged the decision of the Madhya Pradesh School Education Department, which had denied her appointment as a Middle School Teacher on the grounds that she did not meet the eligibility criteria—specifically, that she did not have 50% marks in her graduation. The department relied on the Hindi version of the NCTE Regulation, 2014, to assert that a candidate must possess a graduation degree with 50% marks to be eligible for the B.Ed. qualification. The petitioner, however, had obtained 47.5% in her graduation but had secured over 50% in her master’s degree. Her counsel pointed to the English version of the same regulation, which stated that the eligibility for B.Ed. admission includes either a bachelor’s or a master’s degree with 50% marks. This discrepancy between the Hindi and English versions of a central regulation formed the crux of the legal debate, leading to a detailed constitutional and legal interpretation by the Court.

Arguments of both sides:

The petitioner, Sunita Gupta, was represented by counsel who articulated her eligibility under the English version of the NCTE Regulation, 2014. It was submitted that she had appeared in the Middle School Teacher Eligibility Test in 2018 and successfully qualified. However, her application for the post was rejected due to the departmental interpretation that she lacked the requisite academic qualification. According to the department, her graduation percentage fell short of the mandated 50%. The petitioner’s counsel contended that this interpretation was erroneous, as the English version of the NCTE Regulation, 2014, clearly stated that a candidate possessing a B.Ed. degree must have secured 50% marks either in the bachelor’s degree and/or the master’s degree in the relevant subject. Therefore, the petitioner, who had secured 47.5% in her bachelor’s but had passed her master’s with 50% marks, fully met the eligibility criteria. Additionally, it was pointed out that the advertisement issued for the post only required a minimum of 45% in graduation in the relevant subject and did not specify a mandatory requirement of 50% marks in graduation. The petitioner’s counsel asserted that the Hindi version of the regulation omitted the reference to the master’s degree and that this omission had misled the authorities into wrongfully denying the petitioner her rightful appointment.

On the other side, the respondents—the Madhya Pradesh School Education Department—through their counsel defended the decision to reject the petitioner’s application. They submitted that the eligibility criteria under the NCTE Regulation, 2014, as per the Hindi version available to them, mandated that a candidate should hold a graduation degree with at least 50% marks. According to them, there was no reference to post-graduation as an alternative qualification, and the regulations were clear in this regard. They contended that the department had only adhered to the eligibility norms laid down in the regulation as per the official Hindi text. The respondents also tried to justify their interpretation by claiming that as a state authority operating within a Hindi-speaking region, reliance on the Hindi version of the regulation was not out of place. They sought to establish that the regulation’s text in Hindi was equally authoritative and should not be overridden unless specifically found deficient by the Court.

Court’s judgement:

Justice Subodh Abhyankar of the Madhya Pradesh High Court delivered a decisive judgment that reaffirmed the supremacy of the English version of central regulations in case of textual discrepancies. The Court undertook a thorough examination of the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the differing language versions of the NCTE Regulation, 2014. It cited Article 348(1)(b)(iii) of the Constitution of India, which unequivocally provides that 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 unless Parliament by law otherwise provides. The Court reasoned that since the NCTE Regulation, 2014, was a central regulation made by an agency of the central government, in this case the National Council for Teacher Education, the English text must prevail in case of any contradiction or omission found in the Hindi version.

Justice Abhyankar noted that on comparing the two versions of the regulation, it became apparent that the Hindi translation was incomplete and failed to mention the alternative qualification of possessing a master’s degree with 50% marks. This omission had led the respondent department to conclude, incorrectly, that the eligibility criteria required graduation alone with 50% marks. The Court expressed that such an interpretation, based on an incomplete or erroneous translation, was untenable in law. It emphasized that the English version clearly permitted candidates with either a bachelor’s or a master’s degree in the relevant subject with 50% marks to qualify for a B.Ed. degree, and hence the petitioner met the eligibility requirements.

Furthermore, the Court scrutinized the advertisement issued by the department, which did not mandate a 50% graduation mark requirement. The advertisement stated that a candidate must have at least 45% in graduation in the relevant subject in accordance with the NCTE Regulations. Since the petitioner had obtained 47.5% in her graduation and had also secured a valid B.Ed. degree from a recognized institution, the Court held that the action of the respondents in denying her appointment lacked legal justification. It further observed that denying her the position based on the Hindi version of the regulation, which did not reflect the complete eligibility criteria as mentioned in the English version, amounted to an arbitrary and unjust decision. The Court condemned the overreliance on the Hindi text when the authoritative English version was readily available and stated that such an approach cannot be permitted when it results in deprivation of rights of eligible candidates.

The High Court, therefore, allowed the writ petition and issued a direction to the Madhya Pradesh School Education Department to appoint the petitioner, Sunita Gupta, to the post of Middle School Teacher. It ordered that she be given all consequential benefits associated with the appointment except for the pecuniary benefits which have already been disbursed to similarly situated candidates who had appeared in the 2018 Middle School Teacher Eligibility Test. This ensured that the petitioner would not suffer due to the delay in her appointment caused by the department’s erroneous interpretation of the regulation. The judgment reinforces the constitutional mandate regarding the supremacy of English text for central regulations and emphasizes the need for due diligence in applying eligibility norms in government recruitment processes.