The Meghalaya High Court upheld the necessity of the Meghalaya Teacher Eligibility Test (MTET) for those aiming for Assistant Teacher roles, rejecting a plea for leniency in recruitment criteria. Despite the applicants' clean record, the Court ruled they weren't eligible for exemption.

The Court deemed the application inappropriate since it requested participation in an interview for a matter that had already been resolved. It emphasized that if there were any concerns regarding previous directives, a review should have been requested instead. This ruling was made in response to a miscellaneous Application filed within a writ application that had previously been settled.

The division bench, led by Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice W. Diengdoh, noted that the appellants were not eligible for relief. They emphasized that in a concluded case, a Miscellaneous Application is not permissible. If the applicants had doubts about the Court's directions, they should have filed for a review of the order. Additionally, they highlighted that significant time has passed since the initial decision, and the Supreme Court has also affirmed the mandatory nature of the MTET, further reinforcing the decision of the High Court.

The aforementioned ruling was issued in response to a Miscellaneous Application filed within a writ application that had already been resolved on March 8, 2022. The original decision allowed untainted teachers to engage in the subsequent selection process.

The counsel representing the applicants passionately argued that they should be allowed to take part in the new selection process and contended that the requirement for the Meghalaya Teacher Eligibility Test (MTET) should not be enforced.

The applicants based their argument on the notification dated July 1, 2020, asserting that the condition outlined in Section 23 of the RTE Act, 2009, was implemented only from that particular date. They further claimed that despite their initial failure in the examination, it was later invalidated due to reports from the HSLC and CBI.

The counsel argued that the applicants were pristine and untainted candidates, thus deserving the opportunity to take part in the new selection process. They highlighted that according to Section 23(2), teachers are given five years from their induction into service to pass the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), which, at the outset, did not necessitate the Meghalaya Teacher Eligibility Test (MTET) for entry into service.

On the other hand, the Advocate General representing the State argued that the current Miscellaneous Application was not viable because, in a concluded case, filing a miscellaneous application to request participation in an interview is not permissible.

Additionally, the Advocate General asserted that considering the directives issued by the Court in W.A.No.52 of 2011 dated November 2, 2017, particularly in Clause 1(c), individuals must meet the eligibility criteria as per the current applicable rules and guidelines, without needing to reapply.

The Advocate General also argued that untainted and unblemished candidates should not face age restrictions if they were within the age limit specified by the notification dated November 24, 2008. Therefore, according to him, individuals must meet the eligibility criteria based on the current rules and guidelines, with age relaxation being the only concession granted in the judgment.

The Court after hearing arguments from both sides, observed, “It is not in dispute that TET has come into effect from 2011. Though the applicants may be untainted persons having unblemished records, for appointment as a teacher, the applicants should clear the MTET.”

The Court further observed that in this case, the applicants did not clear TET, which has been admitted by the applicants themselves.

“Their case can at the most be considered for relaxation of the age, as if he or she was within the age prescribed by the notification dated 24.11.2008 and not otherwise,” the Court further remarked.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the plea, but refrained from imposing costs.

Case Title: Shri Mofiqul Islam and Anr vs State of Meghalaya and Ors