MP High Court Directs State To Reconsider Candidature For Higher Secondary Teacher Post As Per NCTE Eligibility Regulations
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the State to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Higher Secondary Teacher of Hindi following its decision in WP 10018/2021, which struck down Schedule 3 of MP School Education Service and Condition Rules of 2018 and held that the educational qualifications be governed by the qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 371]
Referring to its earlier judgment, the bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke observed
"It is made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to participate and compete against the vacancies advertised for the 2023 recruitment in terms of paragraph 52 of the judgment dated 17.03.2025. Her appointment, however, shall remain dependent upon her position in the merit list and fulfilment of all other eligibility conditions prescribed under the governing NCTE Regulations and recruitment framework.
The bench further noted that Schedule 3 of the MP School Education Service (Teaching Cadre) Service Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018 was struck down.
"The Division Bench thereafter, in paragraph 49, expressly held that Column 5 of Entry-I of Schedule III of the Rules of 2018 was liable to be struck down as being manifestly arbitrary and contrary to the NCTE Regulations. The Division Bench accordingly struck down the said entry and held that the minimum qualifications prescribed by the NCTE would govern the field in place of the impugned entry. It was further clarified that, since High School Teachers in Madhya Pradesh teach Classes IX to XII, the qualifications prescribed by the NCTE for Senior Secondary classes would be applicable to High School Teachers in Madhya Pradesh".
A petition was filed challenging the selection list of October 16, 2024, passed by the Director of Public Instruction, wherein appointments were made to the post of Higher Secondary Teacher of Hindi. The petitioner claimed that his candidature was not considered on the ground that she had not passed her master's degree in the second division, which was the required educational qualification. She claimed that she had secured 19th rank in the Unreserved female category and 53rd position in the consolidated merit list.
The petitioner claimed that her result was marked as third division by her university; however, since she had obtained 47.62% marks, her result was liable to be rounded off to 48%, qualifying her for second division. She further referred to Ordinance 31 and the General Rules of Examination to support her arguments. She submitted an application to the university on February 25, 2025, but no effective decision was taken.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the actions of the respondents to exclude her were merely because of her marksheet records.
The counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner did not hold the required qualification under the Rules of 2018. It was submitted that, per the grading system of the University, marks between 30-49% are considered in third division, and therefore, even rounding off her marks would not qualify her for second division.
The State further argued that merely because the petitioner was included in the consolidated merit list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment, especially when she did not qualify the verification of documents stage.
The counsel for the MP Employee Selection Board (respondent no 3) submitted that the final determination of eligibility was based on educational qualifications and verification of documents, in which the petitioner could not qualify the document verification stage.
The University (respondent no 4) argued that the ordinance relied on by the petitioner was not applicable to the MA (Hindi) Course pursued by the petitioner. This course was governed by relevant ordinances applicable to affiliate colleges.
Noting that the Rules of 2018 have undergone amendments through the Court's Judgments, the court referred to its case in WP 10018/2021. In the said case, the Division Bench had examined Column 5 of Entry-I of Schedule III of the Rules of 2018, i.e. "Masters Degree in the relevant subject with Second Division and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) or its equivalent".
The Division Bench, on March 17, 2025, had noted that different universities adopt different standards for awarding Second Division, resulting in a chaotic method where some candidates receiving lower marks get Second Division over others with higher marks but different qualifications for Second Division.
Thus, the Division Bench held that eligibility must be governed by "qualifications prescribed by the competent regulatory framework rather than by reference to an uncertain and varying concept of "Second Division" adopted by individual Universities".
The present bench noted that the decision in the aforesaid case directly affects the foundation on which the petitioner's candidature was withheld. The bench further held that the Division Bench had directed the State to conduct a supplementary recruitment process with respect to the 2023 recruitment.
Thus, the bench held that the petitioner was a candidate who participated in the 2023 selection process and therefore, her candidature should be decided while considering the Judgement of March 17, 2025. The court directed the state to undertake this exercise within three months and disposed of the petition.
Case Title: Mamta Anjana v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-8515-2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 371
For Petitioner: Advocate Jayesh Gurnani
For University: Advocate Lucky Jain
For MP Employee Selection Board: Advocate Rishabh Singh Chouhan
For State: Advocate Raghav Raj Singh