SC quashes termination of Jharkhand ST teachers: vocational-subject bonus counts for eligibility; service restored with arrears
Case name: Ravi Oraon v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (with Premlal Hembrom; Surendra Munda)
Date of Order: 09 October 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 1212; Civil Appeal Nos. 11748–11750 of 2025
Bench: Dipankar Datta, J.; K.V. Viswanathan, J.
Held: (i) For eligibility under Rule 4 of the Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012, bonus marks in the vocational subject (over and above pass marks) must be added to the aggregate as per the marksheet guideline; Rule 21 applies only to preparation of the merit list, not to determination of minimum eligibility. (ii) The termination orders are vitiated for breach of natural justice, as the employees were removed on a ground (exclusion of vocational marks to test a 40% threshold) not put in the show-cause notices. (iii) Degrees from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar obtained prior to 26.02.2015 stand recognized, eliminating that ground of termination.
Summary: District recruitment for Intermediate Trained Teachers (Classes I–V) in 2015 led to the appointment of the appellants, all Scheduled Tribe candidates who thereafter faced show-cause notices alleging failure to meet a 45% intermediate-marks requirement and questioning their graduation credentials. They replied that Rule 4 granted ST candidates a 5% relaxation and that, per the printed guideline on the reverse of their mark sheets, additional marks in the vocational subject must be added to the aggregate to determine percentage and division—placing them above 40% and thus eligible. The Department nonetheless terminated them by excluding vocational marks, recalculating their percentages below 40%. Single Judges set aside the terminations; a Division Bench reversed, invoking Rule 21 to exclude “additional subject” marks and holding that a fresh notice was unnecessary. Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court drew a clear line between Rule 4 (eligibility to sit for TET) and Rule 21 (merit-list computation for appointment), holding that the latter cannot override eligibility computation and that, absent any statutory bar, the marksheet guideline governs percentage calculation at the eligibility stage. Because exclusion of vocational marks was never notified in the show-cause and became the decisive basis for termination, the action offended fair hearing principles. The Court also recorded that Hindi Vidyapeeth degrees obtained before 26.02.2015 are valid, removing that objection. Noting that two appellants were freshly appointed in January 2025 (risking loss of past service) and that one appellant had died in August 2024, the Court moulded the relief accordingly.
Decision: Appeals allowed. Division Bench judgments and the termination orders are set aside. Ravi Oraon and Premlal Hembrom are to be treated as in continuous service from their original appointments (December 2015) with full arrears of pay and seniority, though the period not actually served will not count for experience toward promotion. As Surendra Munda has passed away, his heirs are entitled to full arrears of pay from termination till his death; he is deemed to have died in harness, and his heirs may seek compassionate appointment per policy. Arrears must be released within three months; Surendra’s heirs will receive equal shares (a minor’s share to the widow). No order as to costs.