Madras High Court
S.Kannaki vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 April, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.13574 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD)No.13574 of 2018
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.12368 and 12369 of 2018
S.Kannaki ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Fort. St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, V.K. Sampath Building,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
3.The Director of School Education,
DIP Campus, College Road,
Chennai- 600 006. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the
impugned result of the petitioner issued by the 2nd respondent Teachers
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.13574 of 2018
Recruitment Board dated nil in so far as rejecting the petitioner's candidature in
Roll.No.13TE15200179 for Direct Recruitment of B.T.Assistants and
B.T.Assistants (IEDSS) for the year 2015-16 dated nil, to quash the same and
further to direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner in the post of
B.T.Assistant (Tamil) under the Department of school.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy
For R1 and R3 : Mr.V.Om Prakash
Government Advocate
For R2 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to quash the impugned result of the petitioner issued by the 2nd
respondent Teachers Recruitment Board dated nil in so far as rejecting the
petitioner's candidature in Roll.No.13TE15200179 for Direct Recruitment of B.T.
Assistants and B.T. Assistants (IEDSS) for the year 2015-16 dated nil and to
direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner in the post of B.T.
Assistant (Tamil) under the Department of school.
2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner had completed Higher
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.13574 of 2018
Secondary examination in the year 1992, later B.Lit. (Tamil) in the year 2003 and
B.Ed., in November 2006. The Teachers Recruitment Board invited applications
for the Teachers Eligibility Test (Paper-I and II) in the year 2013, vide
notification, dated 22.05.2013 and the petitioner passed with mark 103 out of
150. The Teachers Recruitment Board called for certificate verification for paper
II on 10.01.2014. The petitioner attended the certificate verification with the
necessary certificates. Thereafter, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.71,
School Education (TRB) Department, dated 30.05.2014, evolved a method to
award weightage marks for selection of the candidates for the appointment to the
post of Graduate Assistants in Government Schools. As per the qualification
method set out in G.O., the petitioner has secured 64.34 marks out of 100. The
method prescribed under G.O. is as under:
“(a) There shall be 100 marks in total;
(b) The computation of 100 marks will be in the following manner:
i. Higher Secondary Exam : 10 marks
ii. Degree Exam : 15 marks
iii. B.Ed. Exam : 15 marks
iv. Teacher Eligibility Test : 60 marks
The weightage so assigned as indicated in (b) above to be
distributed based on the actual percentage of marks obtained by the
candidate in the qualifying examinations as shown below:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.13574 of 2018
Qualifying Weightage of Marks Percentage of Marks Marks
Examination obtained in the Assigned
qualifying
examination
H.Sc., 10 P% P*10
Degree 15 Q% Q*15
B.Ed., 15 R% R*15
TET 60 S% S*60
Total 100 ***
3.The Teachers Recruitment Board issued a notification, vide
Advertisement No.2/2014, dated 14.07.2014, for filling up the post of B.T.
Assistants under the Tamil Nadu School Educational Subordinate Service from
the candidates qualified in the Tamil Nadu Teachers Eligibility Test (Paper II)
conducted in the year 2012 and 2013. The Teachers Recruitment Board notified
10,671 posts (including backlog and current vacancies). Out of this, 772 posts for
B.T. Assistant (Tamil) were notified under the both the Department of School
Education and Elementary Education. The petitioner's total weightage mark is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.13574 of 2018
below the required mark and the petitioner was not selected.
4. Thereafter, in the year 2015, the petitioner completed Tamil Pandit
Training from Tamil University, Thanjavur and obtained 487 marks out of 600. In
the year 2017, the second respondent issued notification, dated 07.03.2017,
stating that it has decided to give one more chance to certain categories of
persons. However, the respondents have not considered the petitioner's
qualification which was improved later, which is against the said notification.
Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
5. The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the Teachers
Recruitment Board has issued a provisional list based on the Teachers Eligibility
Test on 10.10.2014. The petitioner belongs to MBC (W) and the last candidate
selected for MBC (W) in B.T. Assistant (Tamil) secured 67.92 marks and the
petitioner has secured only 64.34 marks. Hence, she is not entitled to the
appointment and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Heard Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr.V.Om Prakash, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.13574 of 2018
first and third respondent and Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the second respondent.
7. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner has secured only
64.34 and therefore, she is not eligible. This claim was denied by the petitioner
stating that the 64.34 marks was secured in the year 2014. Subsequently, the
petitioner has improved her score in the year 2015 and she has obtained 487
marks out of 600. This mark was not taken into consideration by the respondents.
Admittedly, the respondents have stated in their counter that they have taken
earlier mark of 64.34 and not the marks 67.92. But the respondents are bound to
take the improvement marks as per their own notification.
8.The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents relied on the
judgment dated 10.02.2022 rendered by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1082 of
2021. It is seen that in that case, the petitioner has not attended the certificate
verification and hence declined the prayer of the petitioners. In the present case,
the petitioner has attended the certificate verification and the facts of the case
differs and therefore, the judgment is not applicable for the present facts and
circumstances of the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.13574 of 2018
9.Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner's
claim ought to be considered by the second respondent. Therefore, this Court is
directing the second respondent to consider the subsequent improvement passed
by the petitioner in the year 2015 and the second respondent is directed to
consider the DPI weightage and fix the petitioner's serial number in the list. The
first and third respondents are directed to take into consideration, the subsequent
mark granted by the second respondent and consider to grant an appointment
order. The petitioner submitted that there are 4 vacancies. Therefore the
respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner in one of four vacancies and the
said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of the copy of the order.
10.With the above observation, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No 04.04.2022
Internet : Yes
Tmg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.13574 of 2018
S.SRIMATHY, J
Tmg
To
1.The Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Fort.St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
DIP Campus, College Road,
Chennai- 600 006.
W.P.(MD)No.13574 of 2018
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the Advocate/litigant
concerned.
04.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
