Madras High Court
B.Jaiwanth vs The Teachers Recruitment Board on 27 April, 2022
W.P.No.13161 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.13161 of 2021
B.Jaiwanth ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Teachers Recruitment Board,
represented by its Chairman,
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondent
PRAYER: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to
direct the respondent apply the ratio of the Supreme Court Decision in Dolly
Chhanda Vs. Chairman Jee reported in (2005) 9 SCC 779 and issue
appointed order to the petitioner as PG Assistant in Botany under Persons
Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) category reserved for Scheduled Caste
Women Pursuant to Notification No.10/2019, dated 12.06.2019 since the
petitioner has enclosed all the relevant certificates at the time of Certificate
Verification by the respondent including the certificate of having passed
M.Sc degree in Botany before 15.07.2019 within a time frame to be fixed by
this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.Nalinichidambaram
Senior Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.C.Kathiravan
Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.No.13161 of 2021
ORDER
The relief sought for in the writ petition is Mandamus to direct the
respondent to apply the ratio of the Supreme Court Decision in Dolly
Chhanda Vs.Chairman Jee reported in (2005) 9 SCC 779 and issue
appointed order to the petitioner as PG Assistant in Botany under Persons
Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) category reserved for Scheduled Caste
Women Pursuant to Notification No.10/2019, dated 12.06.2019 since the
petitioner has enclosed all the relevant certificates at the time of Certificate
Verification by the respondent including the certificate of having passed
M.Sc degree in Botany before 15.07.2019 within a time frame to be fixed by
this Court.
2.Brief facts of the case:
The respondent has arbitrarily included the name of the petitioner
in Serial No.4 of the ineligible list dated 20.11.2019 for the post of PG
Assistant 2018-19 in Botany on the ground that she did not obtain the
qualifying degree certificate prior to the last date for submission of
application through online pursuant to Notification No.10/2019, dated
12.06.2019, issued by the respondent. Hence, the petitioner has preferred
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13161 of 2021
W.P.(MD).No.621 of 2020, challenging the ineligible list dated 20.11.2019,
and by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
2005 (9) SCC 779 – Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman Jee on 10.02.2020, this
Court has allowed the petition and relevant portion is read as follows:
“3.The above order is self-explanatory. As
such, the petitioner's inclusion in the ineligible list on
the ground that she did not obtain the qualifying
educational certificate, prior to the last date for
submission of filled in online application, cannot be
sustained. Consequently, the impugned order passed
by the fist respondent dated 20.11.2019, stands
quashed, insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned.
Consequently, there shall be a direction to the first
respondent herein to permit the petitioner herein to
participate in the further selection process for the
appointment to the post of PG Assistant (Botany) by
considering that the petitioner has educationally
qualified herself to the post of PG Assistant (Botany).
The first respondent shall also upload and update the
petitioner's candidature in their records to this effect.”
Aggrieved over the same, the respondent has filed W.A.(MD).No.1058 of
2020 and by order dated 23.12.2020 the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13161 of 2021
Court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed in
W.P(MD).No.621 of 2020. However, the respondent has not complied with
the orders of this Court i.e., the respondent has not issued the appointment
order to the petitioner for the post of PG Assistant in Botany under the quota
reserved for PSTM candidates. Hence, the writ petition.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the above
said facts and submit that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in 2005 (9) SCC 779 – Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman Jee on
10.02.2020, the petitioner is eligible for the post of PG Assistant in Botany
under the quota reserved for PSTM candidates, however, the respondent has
not consider the name of the petitioner in the eligible candidates list.
4.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent
would submit that pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as cited supra, the name of the petitioner has been included in the
revised selection list and hence, he seeks four weeks time to forward the
same to the users department.
5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13161 of 2021
materials placed on record.
6.Recording the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondent, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No
costs.
27.04.2022
Dua
Internet:Yes
To
The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13161 of 2021
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
Dua
W.P.No.13161 of 2021
27.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
