PROF. A. MARX Vs THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU
Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,A.K. SIKRI
Case number: SLP(C) No.-028043-028043 / 2013
Diary number: 26244 / 2013
Advocates: JYOTI MENDIRATTA Vs
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