Court Holds Exclusion of Vocational Marks and Summary Termination Violate Rules and Natural Justice

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K.V. Viswanathan heard appeals by three teachers challenging termination orders issued by the Jharkhand Education Department that relied on an exclusion of vocational subject marks and questioned the validity of certain degrees. The appeals arose from Division Bench judgments of the Jharkhand High Court that had reversed earlier Single Judge orders which had quashed the terminations.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Division Bench orders and the termination orders, and directed that two surviving appellants be treated as having been in continuous service from their original appointment in December 2015 with full arrears and seniority, subject to limited conditions on counting experience for promotion; the heirs of the deceased appellant were granted arrears and ancillary relief. The Court held that Rule 21 of the Jharkhand Teachers’ Rules, 2012 applied only to preparation of the merit list and could not be used to determine eligibility under Rule 4, and that denial of a fresh notice before deciding to exclude vocational marks violated principles of natural justice. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In accordance with Rule 4, which did not provide for exclusion of marks secured in the vocational subject, and Rule 21 not being applicable for determining the eligibility of a candidate, the only method which remained for calculation of the marks was the one which was provided on the reverse side of the marksheet of the appellants, according to which the appellants had secured more than 40% marks. Therefore, the appellants were eligible to appear in the Teacher Eligibility Test Examination." The judgment also noted that the respondents “had acted in a rather highhanded, arbitrary and illegal manner in terminating the services of the appellants without justifiable reason and also following due process.”

Background The dispute arose from Advertisement No.10/2015 by the District Education Superintendent, Dhanbad, for recruitment of Intermediate Trained Teachers (Classes I–V). The three appellants joined in December 2015 after selection. Show cause notices issued on 27 September 2016 questioned their eligibility on two grounds: failure to secure the prescribed minimum percentage in the intermediate (class XII) examination and alleged invalidity of certain graduation degrees. The appellants responded that, as members of Scheduled Tribes, they were entitled to 5% relaxation (40% threshold) and that vocational subject marks (bonus marks over pass marks) printed on their marksheets should be added to the aggregate. The Department recalculated percentages excluding vocational marks and issued termination orders on 7 October 2016.

Single Judges in writ petitions quashed the terminations, accepting that inclusion of vocational marks took candidates over the 40% threshold and that termination without departmental enquiry was impermissible. On intra‑court appeals, a Division Bench reversed, holding that Rule 21( A )(ii)(A) of the 2012 Rules disallowed inclusion of additional (vocational) subject marks for computing educational merit and that there was “no requirement to follow the principle of natural justice when the fact is not in dispute.” The appellants then approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court examined Rules 4 and 21 together and concluded Rule 4 (eligibility for Teacher Eligibility Test) did not exclude vocational marks, while Rule 21 governed only district‑level merit list calculation at the appointment stage. The Court found that the Department relied on a new ground (exclusion of vocational marks) not put to the appellants in the original show cause notices and that terminating service without giving a fresh opportunity to explain offended natural justice. The Court distinguished and rejected the Division Bench’s reliance on Escorts Farms Ltd. v. Commissioner, holding that a fresh notice was required where the decisionmaker took a different factual stance. The Court set aside the impugned Division Bench judgments and the termination orders, directed reinstatement (deemed continuous service) and payment of arrears to the two surviving appellants within three months, and directed the Department to disburse arrears to heirs of the deceased appellant on production of proof, with liberty to apply for compassionate employment.

Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 11748–11750 of 2025 Case Title: Ravi Oraon v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (and connected matters) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Advocates not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Advocates not indicated in the judgment