Madras High Court
Palanimuthu vs The Chairman on 11 April, 2022
W.P.(MD) No.10996 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD) No.10996 of 2019
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.8479 of 2019
Palanimuthu ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maligai,
College Road, Chennai 600 006.
2. The Secretary to School Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
3. The Director of Government Examinations,
College Road, Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to select the
Petitioner as Drawing Teacher in the Quota reserved for candidates who
studied in Tamil Medium as the Petitioner secured 63 marks which is more
_________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10996 of 2019
than the cut off marks of the selected candidates of MBC/DNC GT male,
consequently the 2nd respondent to give appointment order to the petitioner
to join in any one of the Government Schools under the control of
Directorate of School Education forthwith on the basis of the petitioner's
representation dated 16.04.2019 within a time frame to be stipulated by this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Asok Kumar Ram
For R1 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
For RR2 & 3 : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh
Additional Government Pleader
******
ORDER
The issues raised in this writ petition are no more res integra, as
the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) Nos.404 of 2020 etc.,
batch, dated 16.03.2020 passed judgment regarding the PSTM (Persons
Studied in Tamil Medium) Certificate. The relevant paragraph is extracted
hereunder:-
45. In service jurisprudence where Rules are in
place, then the key proposition raised has to be examined on
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10996 of 2019
the basis of the Rules. Unless Rules are held to be ultra vires
or otherwise illegal, the Court does not enjoy a legal space to
pronounce a method which amounts to altering the Rules
itself. One has to keep in mind the adage that the job of the
Court is to iron out the creases and not weave a new texture.
In the absence of any ambiguity, efforts should be to uphold
the process if it is valid and in accordance with the Rules. To
provide something better which may run counter to the Rules
is not within the realm of this Court, unless there is any
material to support the same. This would be legal
adventurism and any amount of hardship or inconvenience
cannot be a ground to direct another process to be followed.
The incapacity of the candidates to provide the certificate
cannot be translated into a non-requirement. An assertion of
a belief of pragmatism is insufficient to substitute an already
existing Rule. A perception as to what would be more
practical takes the shape of pragmatism, which is a belief
bias. Belief bias has been described by Andrew Goodman in
his book 'How Judges decide Cases' as “An effect where
someone's evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is
biased by the believability of the conclusion”. The Court
cannot believe something and then proceed to justify it. The
justification for the belief has to precede the conclusion. The
Rule of Law therefore has to be adhered to and the law
cannot be legislated by laying down the procedure, which in
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10996 of 2019
the opinion of the Court might be a better proposition. This
would violate the Rule of Law. To arrive at this conclusion,
we have stepwise analyzed the entire dispute and are
therefore of the opinion that the writ petitions deserve to be
rejected
and ought not to have been allowed.
46. Accordingly, we allow all the appeals and set
aside the impugned judgments dated 12.03.2019 and
28.03.2019 and dismiss all the writ petitions. No order as to
costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.6456, 6457, 6462, 6463,
6465, 6466, 6467, 6471 and 6473 of 2020 are closed.”
2. The writ petitions filed on the very same issue were dismissed
by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court. Therefore, the present writ
petition deserves no further consideration and accordingly, stands
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.04.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes
abr
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10996 of 2019
To
1. The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maligai,
College Road, Chennai 600 006.
2. The Secretary to School Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
3. The Director of Government Examinations,
College Road, Chennai 600 006.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10996 of 2019
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
abr
W.P.(MD) No.10996 of 2019
11.04.2022
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
