Madras High Court
Teacher Recruitment Board vs S.Ilango on 16 August, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.A.No.1016 of 2022
and
C.M.P. No.6484 of 2022
Teacher Recruitment Board
rep. By the Chairman,
D.P.I. Complex,
College Road, Chennai – 6. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.S.Ilango
2.The Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9. .. Respondents
(R2 impleaded vide order dated 29.06.2022
made in W.A.No.1016 of 2022)
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 21.02.2022 made in W.P.No.21263 of 2012.
For Appellant .. Mr.R.Neelakandan,
Addl. Advocate General
for Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar
For Respondents .. Ms.A.Arulmozhi for R1
Mr.Abhishek Moorthy,
Govt. Advocate for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated
21.02.2022 recorded on W.P. No.21263 of 2012. This appeal is by
the respondent in the writ petition.
2. This Court had on 29.06.2022 passed the following order:
“1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated
21.02.2022 recorded on W.P.No.21263 of 2022. This appeal is by
the sole respondent / Teachers Recruitment Board.
2. Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate
General for the appellant has submitted that, non-production of the
certificate indicating educational qualification on the cut-off date
could not have been condoned and therefore the non-inclusion of
the name of the writ petitioner in the select list ought not to have
been interfered with by learned Single Judge. It is submitted that,
this appeal be entertained.
3. On the other hand, Mrs.A.Arulmozhi, learned
advocate for the writ petitioner, by referring to the documents on
record submitted that, the last candidate selected was junior to the
petitioner so far registration date with employment exchange is
concerned and the writ petitioner possessing educational
qualification was not only not disputed, even that can also not be
disputed that the writ petitioner is possessing higher educational
qualification than what was stipulated. For this purpose, attention of
this Court is drawn to the educational qualification certificates of the
writ petitioner – B.P.Ed., so also Master of Physical Education, in
which year the said qualification was obtained, with specific
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
reference to the certificates issued by the University of Madras
pertaining to B.P.Ed and Master of Physical Education. It is
submitted that, non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the
select list is arbitrary and therefore learned single Judge has rightly
granted relief and therefore this appeal be dismissed.
4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and having considered the material on record this Court
finds that, not only no interference is required in the order passed
by learned Single Judge, dismissal of this appeal, at this stage, in
substance, would not be giving full relief to the writ petitioner,
though the case of the petitioner is accepted on merits. It is only
under this circumstances, the following order needs to be passed.
4.1 Leave to Join, the Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009, as
party respondent.
4.2 Mr.Abishek Murthy, learned Government Advocate
accepts notice on behalf of the newly impleaded respondent.
5. The joining of the party respondent has been
necessitated under the following circumstances.
5.1 The recruitment pertains to the years 2010 – 2011
and 2011 – 2012. The candidates selected at the relevant time,
include, persons junior to the writ petitioner.
5.2 Learned Additional Advocate General, on
instructions, states that the selected candidates were given
appointment some where in the year 2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5.3 The date of birth of the writ petitioner is indicated to
be 09.05.1975. Learned advocate for the appellant further states
that, the superannuation age for such employees is 60 years.
Keeping this in view, even if the writ petitioner is given appointment
(without prejudice to the rights of the State Authorities of
challenging the order passed by this Court before appropriate
forum), he would attain the age of superannuation in the year 2035.
More than 10 years have already passed by this time. Couple of
years more, and then if the writ petitioner is given appointment, at
the time of his superannuation, it can legitimately be said that he
has not put in 10 years of pensionable service, which may dis-
entitle him to claim pension from the State, even after
superannuation retirement.
5.4 It is this situation which needs to be taken care of.
This can not be done only by hearing the sole appellant, who was
the sole respondent in the writ petition. The duty would be on the
State Authorities as well. Further, the sole respondent is also
ultimately an instrumentality of the State.
5.5 Further to avoid further litigation in the matter, with a
view to see that, the concerned Department can also put its case
before this Court, if it so desires, the second respondent is joined
as party respondent. The newly added respondent may file
counter, if he so wishes, keeping in view the necessity recorded
herein above.
6. List for further appropriate order on 11.07.2022. “
3. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that
the non-production of the certificate indicating educational
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
qualification on the cut off date could not have been condoned and
therefore non-inclusion of the name of the writ petitioner in the
select list ought not to have been interfered with by learned single
Judge. It is submitted that this appeal be entertained.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the original writ
petitioner has submitted that as noted in the order dated
29.06.2022, the last candidate selected was junior to the writ
petitioner so far registration date with employment exchange is
concerned and the writ petitioner possessing educational
qualification was not only not disputed, even that can also not be
disputed that the writ petitioner is possessing higher educational
qualification than what was stipulated. For this purpose, attention
of this Court is drawn to the educational qualification certificates of
the writ petitioner – B.P.Ed., so also Master of Physical Education,
in which year the said qualification was obtained, with specific
reference to the certificates issued by the University of Madras
pertaining to B.P.Ed and Master of Physical Education. It is
submitted that, non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the
select list is arbitrary and therefore learned single Judge has
rightly granted relief and therefore this appeal be dismissed.
5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and having considered the material on record, this Court finds that
learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis single Judge has on the basis of material on record
recorded satisfaction to the effect that the writ petitioner did
possess requisite educational qualification and her possessing
educational qualification is not in dispute. Non-production of the
original certificate on the cut off date can not be stated to be fatal
if otherwise acquiring qualification is not in dispute.
6. We have noted the contents of the contest put forward on
behalf of the State Authorities and weighed it vis-a-vis reasons
recorded by learned single Judge and the final direction contained
in the order under challenge (dated 21.02.2022). We find that the
direction given by learned single Judge can not be said to be an
error much less any error apparent on the face of record which
may call for any interference under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.
7. We further note that, the State was joined as party
respondent vide order dated 29.06.2022 and that the authority has
also filed affidavit which was taken on record as reflected in the
order dated 12.07.2022. The administrative difficulties perceived
by the State can not be a ground to deprive a citizen of his rights
if otherwise he is entitled to.
8. With a view to see that the Government exchequer does
not suffer, we do not give any direction in this appeal (of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
State) to pay arrears and other benefits to the writ petitioner,
however the appointment of the writ petitioner shall be treated
along with persons of the same batch and in any case the date on
which his immediate junior was appointed. So far consequential
benefits is concerned, it is left to the writ petitioner to resort to
appropriate remedy and we may not be understood to have
rejected that claim in this appeal.
9. For the reasons recorded above, this writ appeal is
dismissed with above clarification. No costs. Connected
miscellaneous petition would not survive.
(P.U.,J.) (V.B.S.,J.)
16.08.2022
Index:No
mmi/4
To
The Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
mmi
W.A.No.1016 of 2022
16.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
