Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION    

Special Leave Petition (C) No.28043 of 2013

Prof. A. Marx. …. Petitioner

Verses

Government of Tamil Nadu & Anr. …. Respondents

WITH

Special Leave Petition (C) No.28042 of 2013

J U D G M E N T  

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.   

1. The petitioner herein has approached the High Court  

seeking  a  writ  of  certiorari  to  quash  the  Tamil  Nadu  

Teacher  Eligibility  Test  (TNTET)  -2013  

Notification/Advertisement  No.13/2013  dated  22nd May,  

2013 issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board and also  

sought a direction to the Board to issue fresh notification  

extending  the  constitutional  benefits  of  reservation  to  

TNTET by assigning minimum qualifying cut off marks for

Page 2

2

each  communal  category,  in  accordance  with  the  

prevailing reservation rule and also for the consequential  

reliefs.   

2. The Madras High Court refused to grant the reliefs  

prayed for on the ground that the question as to whether  

relaxation/concessional marks to be granted or not to be  

granted  is  a  policy  matter,  to  be  taken  by  the  State  

Government and the court sitting under Article 226 of the  

Constitutional of India cannot give a positive direction to  

the  State  so  as  to  reduce  the  minimum marks  to  any  

reserved category.

3. It is noticed that the same question was considered  

by the High Court in a series of cases, reference was made  

to  the judgments  of  the Division Bench in  Writ  Petition  

No.30426 of 2012 and connected matters as well and the  

judgment in Writ Appeal No.819 and 820 of 2013.  The  

High Court also made reference to the Judgment of this  

Court reported in Bharatia Seve Samaj Trust through  

President and another v. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel

Page 3

3

and another (2012) 9 SCC 310.  Aggrieved by the same,  

these special leave petitions have been preferred.

4. Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioner  

submitted that fixing 60% as uniform qualifying marks is  

illegal and is violative of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of  

India.  Learned counsel submitted that the State ought to  

fulfill  the constitutional obligation in allocating minimum  

qualifying marks based on communal reservation.   

5. We find it  difficult  to accede to the request of the  

counsel.   The question as to whether the cut off  marks  

stipulated for the reserved category candidates have to be  

reduced  or  not,  is  entirely  a  matter  for  the  State  

Government  to  decide.   The  Court  exercising  writ  

jurisdiction  cannot  grant  such  relaxation/concessional  

marks,  as the same is  the decision to be taken by the  

State Government.  Taking into consideration a variety of  

factors, State/Authorities concerned in their wisdom would  

fix the cut off marks and court cannot substitute its views  

to that of the experts.  We, in such circumstances, are not

Page 4

4

inclined to interfere with these special leave petitions and  

the same are dismissed.

…………………………………J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

………………………………...J. (A.K. Sikri)

New Delhi, December 13, 2013