Madras High Court
Teachers Recruitment Board vs C. Thiyagarajan on 22 September, 2021
W.A.No. 50 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A. NAKKIRAN
W.A. No. 50 of 2021
&
C.M.P. No. 512 of 2021
1. Teachers Recruitment Board,
rep. by its Chairman,
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maligai,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 6.
2. The Directorate of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai – 600 006. ..Appellants
Vs.
C. Thiyagarajan ..Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 14.02.2020 passed in
W.P. No. 33221 of 2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 50 of 2021
For Appellants :: Mr.R. Neelakandan
Addl. Advocate General VIII
assisted by
Mr.K.V. Sajeev Kumar
Govt. Counsel for
1st appellant and
Mr.K.Tippu Sultan
Govt. Advocate for
the 2nd appellant
For Respondent :: Mr.Ajmal Khan,
Senior Counsel assisted by
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
14.02.2020 passed in W.P. No. 33221 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, following the
earlier orders in similar matters, allowed the writ petition and directed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 50 of 2021
respondents therein to call the writ petitioner for certificate verification and
on fulfilling all the conditions, directed the Teacher's Recruitment Board to
proceed further with the appointment of the writ petitioner. Aggrieved over
the same, the present writ appeal has been filed at the instance of the
respondents before the Writ Court.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of
the 1st appellant would submit that eventhough the respondent/writ
petitioner had completed M.Sc (Mathematics) course on 14.07.2019,
inasmuch as he was not in possession of the Course Completion Certificate
on the last date for submission of application through online mode for
selection to the post of P.G. Assistant (Mathematics), i.e, 15.07.2019, he
would not be eligible to participate in the on-line examination for the post in
question. The learned Additional Advocate General 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. In this context, reliance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 50 of 2021
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 inasmuch as the results of P.G.
Examination had been published by the Tamil Nadu University, Thanjavur
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 50 of 2021
on 14.07.2019 and on the cut-off date, namely, 15.07.2019, the respondent
had the required marks for applying for the post of P.G.
Assistant(Mathematics), non-possession of certificate will not deprive his
candidature being considered and hence, 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 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 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 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 this Court by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 50 of 2021
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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 50 of 2021
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
application, the candidature will be rejected. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in
the decision rendered in Food Corporation of India V. Rimjhim reported in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 50 of 2021
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 50 of 2021
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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 50 of 2021
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, the same may not
be applicable to the present case on hand as there 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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 50 of 2021
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 50 of 2021
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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 50 of 2021
15. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed with the above
observation. No costs. Connected C.M.P is closed.
(S.V.N.J.) (A.A.N.J.)
nv 22.09.2021
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 50 of 2021
A.A. NAKKIRAN,J.
nv
W.A. No.50 of 2021
22.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
