Madras High Court
P.Geetha vs Teachers Recruitment Board on 25 April, 2022
W.P.No.19772 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.04.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.19772 of 2010
P.Geetha .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. Teachers Recruitment Board
rep. by its Member Secretary
College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
2. The Director of School Education
Chennai - 600 006.
3. The Assistant Director
Professional and Executive Employment Exchange
Chennai - 600 004. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in
File No.2554/B1/2009 of the first respondent relating to non-selection
of the petitioner (Roll No.A.02291005) to the post of Post Graduate
Assistant (English) for 2009-10 published on 07.06.2010, quash the
same and issue consequential directions to the respondents 1 and 2 to
consider the petitioner for appointment to the said post on the basis of
certificate verification held on 17.03.2010 and appoint her to the said
post.
___________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19772 of 2010
For the Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi
For the Respondents : Mr.C.Kathiravan
Special Government Pleader
For respondent 1
Mrs.E.Renganayaki
Addl. Government Pleader
For respondents 2 and 3
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the select list dated
07.06.2010 for the post of Post Graduate Teacher in English and
consequently, to consider the petitioner for appointment to the said
post pursuant to the certificate verification held on 17.03.2010.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she had passed B.Sc.
Zoology in April 1990 through Bharathidasan University. Thereafter,
she pursued M.A. Degree in English through Madurai Kamaraj
University and passed the same in April 1994. Subsequently, she
underwent B.Ed. Degree course and completed the same in
November 1999 in Bharathidasan University. She had registered all
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19772 of 2010
her above qualifications in the Professional and Executive
Employment Exchange, namely the third respondent. Subsequently,
she also pursued B.A. Degree in English and completed the same in
April 2009 through Bharathidasan University.
4. It is her further case that she initially registered her name
in the District Employment Exchange, Karur, on 08.11.1994 and
after acquiring B.Ed. Degree, she got the registration renewed in
the Professional and Executive Employment Exchange. While her
name was on the live register in the Employment Exchange, as per
the employment seniority, she was sponsored by the Employment
Exchange for the post of Post Graduate Assistant to the selection
made by the Teachers Recruitment Board and she was called for
certificate verification on 17.03.2010. Subsequently, when she
verified the select list, her name was not found and upon
verification, she was informed that 22.10.1999 was fixed as the cut-
off date and her date of registration was not within the cut-off date.
Hence, the present writ petition.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19772 of 2010
5. The writ petition is contested by the first respondent by
filing a counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit. As per
the additional counter affidavit, even though the names of 4268
candidates were sponsored, appointment was made as per the
employment seniority and the last of the candidates who was
selected as per the employment seniority is as follows:
Community Date
SC(W) 22.10.1999
SC(G) 10.07.1997
GT(W) 02.09.1989
GT(G) 19.08.1989
However, the petitioner has acquired the qualifications on the dates
given below:
Qualification Date of acquiring
Under Graduation - B.Sc. Zoology April 1990
Under Graduation - B.A. English April 2009
Master Degree - M.A. English April 1994
B.Ed. November 1999
Since the possession of B.A. English is an essential qualification for
the said post, without which the Post Graduation acquired by the
petitioner in the subject of English cannot be taken into account,
and as the petitioner acquired the said qualification only during April
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19772 of 2010
2009, which is beyond the cut-off date mentioned above, she was
not selected.
6. Heard Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.C.Kathiravan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for
the first respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
stand taken by the first respondent cannot be countenanced for two
reasons. Firstly, in the call letter itself, it has been clearly
mentioned that taking into account her qualifications etc., the
Employment Exchange has sponsored her name and therefore, she
has been called for the certificate verification. Once the petitioner
was found to be qualified, she was sponsored. Subsequently, there
was no occasion for the respondents to hold that the petitioner was
unqualified, especially when the petitioner possesses all the
required qualifications.
8. It is his second submission that the cut-off date now
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19772 of 2010
mentioned in the counter affidavit was not originally part of the
notification or in the call letter. Therefore, the introduction of the
cut-off date amounts to change in the course of the game and
therefore, it cannot be permitted. The first respondent cannot
introduce a new Rule in the form of cut-off date after the course of
the selection had started.
9. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioner would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Tamil Nadu Computer Science B.Ed. Graduate Teachers
Welfare Society vs. Higher Secondary School Computer
Teacher Association [(2009) 14 SCC 517], specifically relying
upon paragraphs 32-34. Learned counsel would also rely upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in K.Manjusree vs. State of A.P.
and others [C.A.No.1313 of 2008 dated 15.02.2008].
Reference to paragraph 30 of the said judgment has been made to
press the point that the rules cannot be changed by introducing new
criteria after the commencement of selection. Learned counsel also
relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court of India in the case of
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19772 of 2010
Bishnu Biswas and others vs. Union of India and others
[C.A.Nos.4255-58 of 2015 dated 02.04.2014], for the same
proposition.
10. Therefore, he would submit that this is a case where this
Court should interfere, especially considering the fact that the
petitioner is a meritorious candidate hailing from a poor background
and having acquired two different qualifications in pursuit of her
willingness to have a career as a teacher and accordingly, he would
pray to allow the writ petition.
11. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader would
submit that the law relating to the subject is very well settled that
unless any candidate has a qualification in the pattern of
10+2+3+2, the Post Graduation Degree obtained through an Open
University or through any other University without having an Under
Graduate Degree, cannot be taken into account for the purpose of
recruitment. The petitioner's qualification became valid only after
the acquisition of the Bachelor's degree, which was in the year
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19772 of 2010
2009. Unfortunately, when various communal rotations were
implemented, the last of the candidates who come within the
purview of the employment seniority in respect of Scheduled Caste
(Women) ends in the year 1999, while in respect of General
Category candidates, it ends in the year 1989. The petitioner
acquired the required qualification only in the year 2009 and
therefore, the petitioner does not come within the purview of the
employment seniority which was the criteria for appointment at the
relevant period of time.
12. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of
either side and perused the materials on record.
13. The law relating to the qualification is now settled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment in Annamalai
University, rep. by its Registrar vs Secretary to Government
and others [(2009) 4 SCC 590].
14. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that when she
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19772 of 2010
obtained M.A. degree in the year 1994 and subsequently, when she
registered her B.Ed. Degree in the year 1999, she became eligible.
The petitioner became eligible to be considered only after her Under
Graduation in the year 2009. Thus, she does not come within the
last cut-off date of the employment seniority. The contention of
learned counsel for the petitioner that such a criteria of cut-off date
introduced at the time of selection is illogical and is without any
merit because the method of selection is by way of employment
seniority and once that is notified, the respondents have to go only
by rule and there is no change in the rule during the process of
selection. It is only the last of the candidates who got selected, the
date is mentioned as a cut-off date and therefore, it is not as if
some criteria of cut-off date is introduced during the course of
selection and therefore, the submission in this regard is
unacceptable and the three judgments cited by learned counsel in
this regard are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this
case as the question as to the change of rules of the game does not
arise in the instant case at all.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19772 of 2010
15. Similarly, the further contention that only taking into
account that the petitioner was qualified, she was sponsored by the
Employment Exchange and the certificates were verified and
thereafter, there is no question of any change of stand on the part
of the first respondent cannot be countenanced, because, any
mistake is liable to be corrected. The Employment Exchange has
sponsored the name of the candidates who have registered in the
discipline of English on the basis of the entries in the Employment
Exchange and it does not step into the shoes of the employer to
verify each and every qualification of the candidate. Thereafter, in
the certificate verification and even subsequently, the respondents,
being the employer, are entitled to verify the eligibility and
qualifications of the petitioner and if the petitioner is found not to
have the required qualification or found to have acquired the
qualifications on a subsequent date, it is well within their powers
not to consider the petitioner and accordingly, the submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner is also without any merit.
16. Finally, the plea to consider the case on sympathetic basis
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19772 of 2010
also cannot be accepted, because, if accepted, the same will go
against the above mentioned ruling of the Supreme Court. Though
it can be said that in the instant case, one casual decision of the
petitioner to change the subject of the study had cost her dear
which can be termed as unfortunate. However, this Court is unable
to redress the effect of such decision which is made by the
petitioner herself. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the
impugned selection list and accordingly, the writ petition fails and is
dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
25.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
drm
To:
1. The Member Secretary
Teachers Recruitment Board
College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
2. The Director of School Education
Chennai - 600 006.
3. The Assistant Director
Professional and Executive Employment Exchange
Chennai - 600 004.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19772 of 2010
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
(drm)
W.P.No.19772 of 2010
25.04.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
