In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed the issue of discrepancies between the English and Hindi versions of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) regulations concerning teacher recruitment. The case centered around a petitioner who was denied appointment as a Middle School Teacher due to not meeting the eligibility criteria as interpreted from the Hindi version of the NCTE Regulation, 2014. The court's decision underscored the primacy of the English version of central regulations in instances of conflict, emphasizing constitutional provisions and the importance of uniformity in legal interpretations.
The petitioner had participated in the Middle School Teaching Eligibility Test, 2018, aiming for the position of Middle School Teacher. Upon the declaration of results, it was determined that she did not meet the eligibility criterion, specifically the requirement of securing 50% or more marks in her graduation. The state education department, relying on the Hindi version of the NCTE Regulation, 2014, concluded that the eligibility for holding a B.Ed. degree necessitated graduation with 50% marks, thereby excluding candidates who had achieved the requisite marks at the master's level.
Challenging this interpretation, the petitioner contended that the English version of the NCTE Regulation, 2014, stipulated that a candidate should have 50% marks either in the bachelor's degree or the master's degree in the relevant subject. This broader criterion would render her eligible for the position, as she had secured the necessary marks at the postgraduate level. The crux of the dispute lay in the divergent interpretations arising from the two language versions of the regulation.
Justice Subodh Abhyankar, presiding over the case, delved into the constitutional framework governing the language of authoritative texts. Citing Article 348(1)(b)(iii) of the Constitution of India, the court noted that the authoritative texts of all orders, rules, regulations, and bye-laws issued under the Constitution or under any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of a State shall be in the English language. Given that the NCTE Regulation, 2014, is a central government regulation, the English version holds primacy in cases of discrepancy.
The court observed that the respondents had erred in relying solely on the Hindi version of the regulation, which led to the exclusion of the master's degree as a qualifying criterion. By doing so, they had unjustly disqualified the petitioner, who otherwise met the eligibility requirements as per the English version. The judgment emphasized that in situations where there is a conflict between different language versions of a regulation, the English version must prevail to maintain consistency and avoid ambiguity.
This ruling has broader implications for recruitment processes and the interpretation of regulations across various sectors. It underscores the necessity for authorities to refer to the authoritative English versions of central regulations to ensure accurate and uniform application. The decision also highlights the potential pitfalls of relying on translations that may not capture the nuances of the original text, leading to misinterpretations and unjust outcomes.
Furthermore, the case brings to light the challenges faced by candidates due to inconsistencies in regulatory interpretations. The petitioner's predicament illustrates how reliance on a non-authoritative version of a regulation can adversely affect individuals' career prospects. The court's intervention rectified this injustice, reinforcing the principle that legal interpretations must align with the authoritative texts to uphold fairness and equity.
In conclusion, the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision reaffirms the constitutional mandate regarding the language of authoritative texts and the primacy of the English version in the interpretation of central regulations. It serves as a critical reminder for authorities to exercise diligence in referring to the correct versions of legal documents to ensure just and consistent application. The ruling not only rectifies the specific grievance of the petitioner but also sets a precedent for future cases involving discrepancies between different language versions of regulations.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.