Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs R.Rajadurai on 7 October, 2021
W.A.No. 2605 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
W.A.No.2605 of 2021
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai- 600 009.
2. Director of School Education
D P I Campus,
College Road,
Chennai- 600 006.
3. Teachers Recruitment Board,
Rep. by its Member Secretary,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai- 600 006. ..Appellants
Vs.
R.Rajadurai ..Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent Act, to set aside
the order dated 07.01.2020 passed in W.P.No. 33589 of 2019.
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 2605 of 2021
For Appellants :: Mr.K. Tippu Sultan,
Govt. Counsel for
appellants 1 and 2
Mr.K.V. Sajeev Kumar
Govt. Counsel for
Third Appellant
For Respondent :: Mr.H.Mohamed Imran
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.)
The Writ Appeal is filed against the order passed in W.P.No.35771 of
2019, dated 24.02.2020 in allowing the Writ Petition filed by the first
respondent.
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 insofar as it rejected the
candidature of the respondent and directed the Teachers' Recruitment Board
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 2605 of 2021
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 this
Court.
3. Learned Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellants 1 and 2 would submit that eventhough the respondent/writ
petitioner had completed M.Sc (Mathematics) course on 14.07.2019,
admittedly, he was not in possession of the Course Completion Certificate
on the last date of submission of application through online mode for
selection to the post of P.G. Assistant (Mathematics), i.e, 15.07.2019 and
therefore, he is not eligible to participate in the on-line examination for the
post in question. He also brought to the notice of this Court, the “Note”
found at the end of clause 4 of the notification, which speaks about
educational qualifications and contended that it has been specifically stated
in the said “Note' that all qualifying/equivalent certificates should have been
obtained prior to the last date for submission of filled-in online applications.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 2605 of 2021
In this context, reliance was also placed on the judgment dated 24.01.2018
of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos. 1483 & 1484 of 2015
(The Joint Director, Teachers' Recruitment Board V. N. Sankar) to
contend that if the claim of the respondent is accepted, then it would unsettle
the settled position in respect of selection, which has attained finality and it
was held in the said case that educational certificates should have been
issued prior to the last date for submission of filled-in applications, failing
which the candidates will not be eligible to be considered. It is the further
contention of the appellants that the learned Single Judge ought not to have
allowed the writ petition, as admittedly, on the cut-off date, i.e, 15.07.2019,
the respondent was neither in possession of the qualification prescribed nor
the Course Completion Certificate.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ
petitioner would submit that on 14.07.2019, the results of P.G. Examination
had been published by the Tamil Nadu University, Thanjavur and only the
certificate for the completion of the course was issued much later. The
learned counsel would submit that though the results of P.G. Examination
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 2605 of 2021
had been published by the Tamil Nadu University, Thanjavur on
14.07.2019, on the cut-off date, namely, 15.07.2019, the respondent had the
requisite qualification / marks marks for applying to the post of P.G.
Assistant (Mathematics). Hence, it is prayed that mere non-possession of
certificate will not deprive his candidature being considered and the learned
Single Judge was right in allowing the writ petition.
5. Heard both parties.
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 her P.G.
Examination had been published and she had also cleared the examination.
The on-line examination for selection to the post of P.G. Assistant
(Mathematics) was fixed on 29.09.2019 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 her
P.G. Examination, non-filing of certificate evidencing completion of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 2605 of 2021
P.G.course will not disentitle the respondent from competing with others.
Reliance placed on the decision of the Division Bench of 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 on or before the
cut-off date. As long as there is no 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 no help to the appellants and 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 2605 of 2021
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 2605 of 2021
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 2605 of 2021
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.”
10. Though reliance was placed on behalf of the appellants on the
judgment of the Honourable Apex Court rendered in Bedanga Talukdar V.
Saifudaullah Khan and Ors reported in 2011 (12) SCC 85 to drive home
the point that there can be no relaxation in the terms and conditions
contained in the advertisement, unless the power of relaxation is duly
reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement and the said
judgment same may not be applicable to the present case on hand, as there
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 2605 of 2021
is no relaxation given or sought for by the respondent/writ petitioner.
Paragraph No. 31 of the said judgment reads as hereunder:
“31. In the face of such conclusion, we have little
hesitatin in concluding that the conclusion recorded by the
High Court is contrary to the facts and materials on record.
It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in the terms
and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the
power of relaxation is duly reserved in the relevant rules
and/or in the advertisement. Even if there is a power of
relaxation in the rules, the same would still have to be
specifically indicated in the advertisement. In the present
case, no such rule has been brought to our notice.”
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 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. In similar circumstances this Division
Bench in W.P.No.2400 of 2021 dated 22.09.2021, had also considered the
said issue and confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge.
12. At this juncture, it is represented by learned Government Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 2605 of 2021
appearing for the Appellants that entire posts have been filled up on
31.12.2020 and that being the case, the respondent's candidature will be
considered against the immediate vacancy in future, but, however, his
services for the purpose of all terminal benefits will be taken into account as
if he entered into service when his junior was inducted into service for the
purpose of terminal benefits. It is further 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.
This Court further makes it very clear that candidates who are going to
knock doors of the Court after the selection has been made will not be
entitled to any relief.
13. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed with the above
observation. No costs. Connected C.M.P No.17052 of 2021 is closed.
(S.V.N.J.) (A.A.N.J.)
arr 07.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 2605 of 2021
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
A.A. NAKKIRAN,J.
arr
W.A. No.2605 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 2605 of 2021
07.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
