Madras High Court
State Of Tamil Nadu vs S. Kalaiselvan on 5 October, 2021
W.A.No. 2486 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A. NAKKIRAN
W.A. No. 2486 of 2021
&
C.M.P. No. 16117 of 2021
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. Teachers Recruitment Board,
rep. by its Member Secretary,
E.V.K. Sampath Maligai,
4th Floor, DPI Compound,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006. ..Appellants
Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 2486 of 2021
S. Kalaiselvan ..Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 07.01.2020 passed in
W.P. No. 33578 of 2019.
For Appellants :: Mr.R. Neelakandan
Addl. Advocate General VIII
assisted by
Mr.K.Tippu Sultan
Govt. Advocate
For Respondent :: Mr.H. Mohd. Imran
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.)
The present writ appeal has been preferred as against the order dated
07.01.2020 passed in W.P. No. 33578 of 2019.
2. The respondent herein/writ petitioner filed the writ petition
challenging the rejection of his candidature for selection to the post of PG
Assistant (Mathematics) on the ground that he was not in possession of
Course Completion Certificate on the date when he submitted his
application online for the said post. The learned Single Judge, after
considering the rival submissions, quashed the order dated 20.11.2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 2486 of 2021
insofar as it rejected the candidature of the respondent and directed the
Teachers' Recruitment Board to take into consideration the respondent's
qualification and the marks obtained by him and proceed with the process of
selection treating the respondent as an eligible candidate. Aggrieved over
the same, the present writ appeal has been filed at the instance of the
respondents before the Writ Court.
3. This Court, in similar matters, in W.A. Nos. 2400 of 2021 etc.
batch, by judgment dated 22.09.2021, dismissed the writ appeals and the
relevant portions of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:
6. It is not in dispute that the respondent herein had
submitted the application, as per the notification dated 12.06.2019,
on completion of P.G.course on 14.07.2019, on which date the
results of his P.G. Examination had been published and he had also
cleared the examination. The on-line examination for selection to
the post of P.G. Assistant (Mathematics) was fixed on 28.09.2019
and the cut-off date for submitting the on-line application was
15.07.2019. As the respondent had become eligible prior to the cut-
off date pursuant to the declaration of results of his P.G.
Examination, non-filing of certificate evidencing completion of
P.G.course will not disentitle the respondent from competing with
others. Reliance placed on the decision of the Division Bench of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 2486 of 2021
this Court by the appellants in W.A. Nos. 1483 & 1484 of 2015 will
not be applicable to the facts of this case as the respondent therein
did not possess the required qualification before the cut-off date.
Nowhere in the certificate verification clause, it is stated that
certificates will have to be uploaded. As long as there is a specific
bar in the notification, the reference made by the learned
Government Counsel to the decision of this Court reported in 2006
(3) CTC 449 (Dr.M. Vennila V. TNPSC), wherein it has been held
that information/brochure will be binding on the candidates, would
be of help to the appellants, but in the absence of a specific clause
for uploading of certificates, the candidature of the respondent/writ
petitioner ought not to have been rejected.
7. Reliance was also placed on the “note” found at the
end of clause 4 of the notification, which speaks about educational
qualifications. The said “note” reads thus:
“Note:
All qualifying/equivalent certificates should
have been obtained prior to the last date for
submission of filled-in online applications.”
The above “Note” found in the notification is not mandatory.
It is only directory in nature as it cannot be read in isolation without
reference to the entire educational qualification as what is required
is that the candidate must possess the qualification as per the
notification dated 12.06.2019 on the date or before the last date of
submission of application through online mode. It is suffice that any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 2486 of 2021
candidate, who acquired the necessary qualification, uploaded the
same in the website and there is no need for production of certificate
as could be seen from the “Note” extracted supra. At the risk of
repetition, it is stated that “all qualifying/equivalent certificates need
to be available with the candidates on the date of certificate
verification” as in clause 8 of the notification, it has been
specifically mentioned that the selection will be based on two
successive stages and that the dates will be intimated later.
8. Moreover, a narrow interpretation to the “note” cannot
be given when there is no condition prescribed in the notification
that if the certificates are not uploaded before the last date of
submission of application, the candidature will be rejected. The
Hon’ble Apex Court, in the decision rendered in Food Corporation
of India V. Rimjhim reported in 2019 (5) SCC 793, has held as
follows:
“13. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the
FCI that a candidate must and/or ought to have produced
the experience certificate along with the application is
concerned, at this stage, a decision of this Court in the
case of Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew (1980) 2 SCC
752 and the subsequent decision of this Court in the case
of Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, Jee and others (2005) 9
SCC 779 are required to be referred to. In the case of
Charles K. Skaria (supra), this Court had an occasion to
consider the distinction between the essential requirements
and the proof/mode of proof. In the aforesaid case, this
Court had an occasion to consider the distinction between
a fact and its proof. In the aforesaid case before this
Court, a candidate/student was entitled to extra 10%
marks for holders of a diploma and the diploma must be
obtained on or before the last date of the application, not
later. In the aforesaid case, a candidate secured diploma
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 2486 of 2021
before the final date of application, but did not produce the
evidence of diploma along with the application. Therefore,
he was not allowed extra 10% marks and therefore denied
the admission. Dealing with such a situation, this Court
observed and held that what was essential requirement
was that a candidate must have obtained the diploma on or
before the last date of application but not later, and that is
the primary requirement and to submit the proof that the
diploma is obtained on or before a particular date as per
the essential requirement is secondary. This Court
specifically observed and held that what is essential is the
possession of a diploma before the given date; what is
ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification….”
9. A Division Bench, presided by Honourable Justice
N.Kirubakaran has already considered a similar clause and the note
mentioned therein in the decision in The Chairman, Teachers
Recruitment Board V. B. Jaiwanth and others (W.A.(MD) NO.
1058 of 2020 dated 23.12.2020) and the relevant paragraph of the
said judgment is extracted hereunder:
“7. As per the notification, what is required is
passing of the required qualification. The cut-off date for
the required qualification was fixed as 15.07.2019 and the
petitioner passed the Degree Course well within the cut-
off date, i.e, on 14.07.2019, in view of the declaration of
results by the University. Though the provisional
certificate was issued belatedly, the first respondent also
produced the same at the time of Certificate Verification
and therefore, it cannot be construed that the first
respondent was not having the required prescribed
qualification, as on the last date of submission of filled-in
online application.”
...
This Court, further observed that,
“11. In the present case on hand, before the last date, i.e,
15.07.2019, the respondent had acquired the qualification and in
terms of the advertisement, qualification alone needs to be uploaded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 2486 of 2021
and on the date of certificate verification, all the documents that are
required have to be produced. Therefore, we are of the view that
the learned Single Judge was right in allowing the writ petition and
we find no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single
Judge.
12. However, it is represented by learned Additional
Advocate General that entire posts have been filled up on
31.12.2020 and that being the case, the respondent's candidature
will be considered in the case of immediate vacancy, but his
services for the purpose of all terminal benefits should be taken into
account as if he entered into service when his junior was inducted
into service for the purpose of terminal benefits. He further
contended that the candidate has nowhere stated that he has
uploaded the marks.
13. It is not the case of the respondent that marks have
been uploaded. What is required is only whether he is qualified or
not and it is only a procedural aspect. The analogy given by the
Division Bench in paragraph 7 of the decision in Joint Director,
Teachers' Recruitment Board V. N. Sankar is not applicable as in
that case, the candidate had no qualification at all and he had only
appeared for the examination. The learned Additional Advocate
General had referred to a situation of the candidate failing in the
examination, which is a hypothetical one and the said analogy may
apply provided in the present case on hand, the respondent had also
failed. The respondent had cleared the examination on 14.07.2019
and the present relief is only granted to the respondent. This Court
makes it very clear that candidates who are going to knock at the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 2486 of 2021
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
A.A. NAKKIRAN,J.
dpq/nv
doors of the Court after the selection has been made will not be
entitled to any relief.
14. It is represented that the order of the Division Bench
in W.A (MD) No. 1058 of 2020 has been taken on appeal to the
Supreme Court and the SLP was dismissed and as against the same,
a review is pending. This Court makes it very clear that any order
that may be passed by the Apex Court will bind the respondent/ writ
petitioner as well.
4. Following the judgment passed by this Court in similar matters,
this writ appeal stands dismissed on the same lines and the observations
made by this Court in those matters, extracted above, would hold good for
the respondent in this case as well. No costs. Connected C.M.P is closed.
(S.V.N.J.) (A.A.N.J.)
dpq/nv 27.09.2021
W.A. No.2486 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
