Madras High Court
V. Jayanthi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 April, 2023
WA No. 2664 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.04.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Writ Appeal No. 2664 of 2022
and
CMP.No.21441 of 2022
---
V. Jayanthi .. Appellant
Versus
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Principal Secretary
Department of School Education
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009
2. The Director of School Education
College Road, Chennai - 600 006
3. Teachers Recruitment Board
rep. by its Member Secretary
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai
DPI Compound, College Road
Chennai - 600 006
4. K. Muthukumaran
Regd.No.13PG23010612
C/o. Teachers Recruitment Board
rep. by its Chairman
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai
DPI Compound, College Road
Chennai - 600 006
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
.. Respondents
1/14
WA No. 2664 of 2022
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 30.06.2022 passed in WP No. 12116 of 2015 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr. S. Sathia Chandran
For Respondents : Mr. Stalin Abimanyu,
Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2
Mr. R. Neelakandan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by K. Sathish Kumar for R3
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J)
The appellant, who is aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated
30.06.2022 passed by the learned Judge in Writ Petition No. 12116 of 2015,
has come forward with this writ appeal.
2. The aforesaid writ petition No. 12116 of 2015 was filed by the
appellant seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the
order dated 18.03.2015 passed by the third respondent and to issue a direction
to appoint her to the post of Post Graduate Assistant (Tamil).
3.(i) According to the appellant, she obtained a Bachelor Degree in
Tamil during the year 2006 and Post Graduate Degree in the same subject in
the year 2008. It is stated that the appellant had registered her name in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 2664 of 2022
Professional Employment Exchange, Chennai bearing Registration No.
2008F00023138 in anticipation of employment opportunity befitting her
qualification. At this stage, the third respondent - Teachers Recruitment Board
(in short, “the Board”) issued a notification dated 09.05.2013 inviting
applications for direct recruitment to the post of Post Graduate Assistant
(Tamil). The appellant applied for the said post and she also participated in
the written examination held on 21.07.2013.
(ii) It is stated that in the written examination conducted by the
Board, the appellant was provided with "D" series question paper, while some
other candidates, who had written the examination along with her, have been
furnished with question papers with "A", "B" and "C" series. It is further
stated that the questions contained in all the question papers remain the same,
but the candidates were furnished different question papers with different
serial number. It is also stated that all the questions are multiple choice
questions for which there was only one correct answer. As per the pattern of
examination, even if a candidate furnishes the wrong answer, there will not be
any negative mark for the same. According to the appellant, she did the
examination well and was anticipating to get selected.
(iii) On 23.12.2013, the Board published the key answers to the
questions as well as the list of candidates eligible for certificate verification.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 2664 of 2022
As per the results published, the appellant secured 100 out of 150 marks but
fell short of 1 mark to come within the zone of consideration viz., 101 marks.
When the appellant verified the questions and key answers, she noticed that
the answers provided by her have not been properly evaluated by the Board
and several questions set in the question papers were wrong and this had
deprived her a mark for being selected. Therefore, on 26.12.2013, the
appellant submitted a representation to the third respondent for correct
valuation of the question Nos. 28, 35, 53, 88, 93, 100 and 115 along with the
documentary evidence.
(iv) While so, by pointing out the errors in several questions in the
question papers furnished to the candidates during the competitive
examination, two writ petitions viz., WP (MD) Nos. 13267 and 14940 of 2013
have been filed and by order dated 01.10.2013, this Court directed the Board
to conduct fresh examination. Aggrieved by the same, the Board filed Writ
Appeal (MD) Nos. 1089 and 1090 of 2013. The Division Bench of this Court,
while ordering notice, directed the Board to keep two posts of Post Graduate
Assistant vacant for the respondents in the said writ appeals. Following the
same, the appellant herein filed WP (MD) No. 421 of 2014 and on 07.01.2014,
this Court granted an interim direction to keep one post of Graduate Assistant
(Tamil) vacant for the appellant. Subsequently, on 04.12.2014, this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 2664 of 2022
disposed of the said writ petition, with a direction to the appellant to submit a
representation to the third respondent-Board and with further direction to the
third respondent -Board to consider the same on merits. Accordingly, the
appellant submitted a representation on 22.01.2015, but it was rejected by the
third respondent on 18.03.2015. In the order of rejection, the third respondent
has stated that the comparison made by the appellant with the respondents in
WA (MD) Nos. 1089 and 1090 of 2013 cannot be accepted inasmuch as they
appeared in the examination and furnished with "B" series question booklet,
but what was furnished to the appellant was "D" series and hence, she cannot
claim that the benefit of the said judgment has to be extended to her.
Aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 18.03.2015, the appellant filed the
instant writ petition No. 12116 of 2015 before the learned Judge.
4. The writ petition was opposed by the third respondent by filing a
detailed counter affidavit. According to the third respondent, the appellant
appeared for the examination and she was issued with "D" series booklet in the
written examination. She had secured 100 marks as against the required 101
marks to become eligible to progress to the further selection process. It is
further stated that the appellant earlier filed WP (MD) No. 421 of 2014 and
based on the directions issued by this Court, she sent a representation stating
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 2664 of 2022
that question Nos. 28, 35, 88, 93, 100 and 115 of "D" series booklet were
erroneous and claimed marks therefor. The said representation was considered
and was ultimately, rejected by the Board especially when the entire selection
process was completed except reserving two seats for the petitioners in
W.P.(MD) Nos.13267 and 14940 of 2013, who were the respondents in
WA (MD) Nos. 1089 and 1090 of 2013. Thereafter, the Board published the
selection list on 03.01.2014 and forwarded it to the user department for issuing
appointment orders. Further, the Board also conducted examination and
published the provisional selection list on 22.01.2015, for the years 2013-14
and 2014-15. As the entire selection process was completed and appointment
orders have also been issued to the notified vacancies, the claim of the
appellant cannot be considered. Therefore, the third respondent prayed for
dismissal of the writ petition.
5. The learned Judge, after having found that the entire selection was
completed, refused to entertain the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.
While so, it was observed by the learned Judge that the entire selection process
was completed even in the year 2014 and after 8 years, the claim of the
appellant to provide additional marks and to consider her candidature for
appointment to the post of Post Graduate Assistant (Tamil) cannot be granted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 2664 of 2022
Accordingly, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition, by the order dated
30.06.2022, which is impugned in this writ appeal, at the instance of the
appellant / writ petitioner.
6.(i) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the question
Nos. 28, 35, 53, 88, 93, 100 and 115 set in the competitive examination by the
Board are erroneous. In fact, the Board has admitted in W.A. (MD) Nos. 1089
and 1090 of 2013, that errors had crept-in in 21 questions set in the
competitive examination due to printers' devil. Therefore, as per the direction
of this Court, the Board awarded grace marks to the writ petitioners in
W.P.(MD) Nos.13267 and 14940 of 2013, who were the respondents in
WA (MD) Nos. 1089 and 1090 of 2013, but they failed to adopt the same
yardstick to the case of the appellant herein. Adding further, the learned
counsel submitted that in the earlier writ petition filed by the appellant viz.,
WP No. 421 of 2014, this court, by order dated 04.12.2014, permitted her to
submit a representation to the Board by enclosing the copy of the Judgment
passed in W.A. (MD) Nos. 1089 and 1090 of 2013 and on receipt of the same,
the Board was directed to consider the claim of the appellant for award of
grace marks by taking note of the errors crept-in, while preparing the question
paper for the competitive examination. Inspite of such direction, the Board
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 2664 of 2022
rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that provisional selection list
was already published on 03.01.2014 and all the notified vacancies were filled
up. According to the learned counsel, the appellant should not be made to
suffer, for the failure on the part of the Board in not correctly printing the
question paper. Even otherwise, the appellant required only one grace mark for
being selected and appointed to the post called for. When grace marks were
awarded to similarly placed persons like the appellant, the Board ought to have
adopted the same yardstick to the case of the appellant as well. Therefore, it is
submitted that the order, which was impugned in the writ petition, was
discriminatory and arbitrary.
(ii) The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that when
WP No. 12116 of 2015 filed by the appellant was listed for hearing on
23.04.2015, this Court granted an order of interim direction to keep one post
of Graduate Assistant (Tamil) vacant for the appellant herein, pending disposal
of the writ petition. However, while disposing the said writ petition, on
30.06.2022, the learned Judge failed to take note of the interim direction
passed at the earliest point of time and erroneously held that there is delay and
laches on the part of the appellant in approaching this Court. Whereas, the fact
remains that the order of rejection was passed by the Board on 18.03.2015 and
immediately thereafter, the appellant has filed WP No. 12116 of 2015, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 2664 of 2022
which, an order of interim direction was granted on 23.04.2015 and hence,
there is no delay on the part of the appellant in approaching this Court.
(iii) The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that at the
time of filing of the first writ petition viz., WP.No.421 of 2014, the selection
process was not completed and the same was stated to have been completed
only on 03.01.2014. Thus, the appellant has approached this court well in
advance and hence, the learned Judge was not right in holding that there is
delay and laches attributable on the part of the appellant. The learned counsel
for the appellant therefore prayed for setting aside the order passed by the
learned Judge and allowing this writ appeal.
7. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for
the third respondent submitted that at the instance of the appellant, the entire
selection process cannot be resorted to afresh. The learned Judge has refused
to grant the relief sought for by the appellant by taking note of the fact that the
entire selection process, including issuance of appointment orders to the
selected candidates, was over on 03.01.2014. Therefore, it was pointed out by
the learned Judge that after eight years of the selection of candidates, the
appellant cannot be awarded grace marks in the competitive examination
conducted in the year 2014 to enable her to get selected to the post. By passage
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 2664 of 2022
of time, much water had flown under the bridge and the attempt on the part of
the appellant to set the clock back, is legally impermissible. The learned
Additional Advocate General would further submit that if the relief sought for
by the appellant is entertained, it would result in a logjam and much prejudice
will be caused to the candidates who were already selected and working in the
posts in which they were appointed. The learned Additional Advocate General,
therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the
learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the third respondent and
also perused the materials placed.
9. The facts remain undisputed are that in response to the
notification issued by the Board, the appellant participated in the selection
process for appointment to the post of Post Graduate Assistant (Tamil) and she
had secured 100 marks as against the required 101 marks. She therefore sought
to re-evaluate her mark sheet with reference to question Nos. 28, 35, 53, 88,
93, 100 and 115 along with the documentary evidence submitted by her. It is
an admitted fact that in the competitive examination, several questions were
erroneously printed and it led to series of writ petitions filed before this Court.
By order dated 01.10.2013 in WP (MD) Nos. 13267 and 14940 of 2013, this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 2664 of 2022
Court even directed the Board to conduct a fresh competitive examination.
However, appeals were filed thereagainst and the Division Bench of this Court
directed to keep two posts vacant for the respondents therein. By placing
reliance on the said interim order, the appellant also filed WP No. 421 of 2014,
in which, an order of interim direction was granted on 07.01.2014 to keep one
post of Graduate Assistant (Tamil) vacant for the appellant herein. But when
the said writ petition was taken up for final hearing on 04.12.2014, this Court
directed the respondents therein to consider the claim of the appellant, on
merits. Pursuant to such direction, the third respondent rejected the claim of
the appellant by order dated 18.03.2015, which was the subject matter of
challenge in WP No. 12116 of 2015.
10. As stated earlier, it is the categorical stand of the third respondent
in his counter affidavit filed in WP No.12116 of 2015, that the Board
published the provisional selection list for the year 2012-2013 on 03.01.2014
and forwarded the same to user department for issuance of appointment orders.
Further, the Board also conducted subsequent recruitment drive for the years
2013-2014 and 2014-2015 for the post of Post Graduate Assistant (Tamil) and
also published the provisional selection list on 22.01.2015. While so, at this
stage, if the prayer sought for by the appellant is granted, it would definitely
reign in chaos in the administration and would cause immeasurable prejudice
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 2664 of 2022
and hardship to the respondents.
11. The learned Judge, on consideration of the entire facts and
submissions made on both sides, dismissed the writ petition, placing reliance
on the judgment dated 20.02.2022 passed in WA(MD)Nos.1089 and 1090 of
2013, mainly on the ground that the entire selection process resorted to by the
Board, had been completed even in the year 2014 and hence, there is no scope
for accommodating the appellant after eight years, i.e., in the year 2022, by the
order impugned in this writ appeal.
12. It may be true that this Court passed an interim order on
23.04.2015 in WP No. 12116 of 2015 directing the Board to reserve one post
vacant for the appellant. Such an order was passed as an interim measure,
subject to the result of the writ petition. The said writ petition was dismissed
on 30.06.2022 by the learned Judge and therefore, the interim order already
granted on 23.04.2015 got merged with the final order passed in the writ
petition. In such circumstances, the appellant cannot take advantage of the
interim direction issued by this Court in the writ petition.
13. It is also worthwhile mentioning that WA (MD) Nos.1089 and
1090 of 2013 filed by the Board, against the order passed in WP(MD)
Nos.13276 and 14940 of 2013 pertaining to the very same recruitment for the
year 2012-13, were finally allowed, on 20.02.2022, by setting aside the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 2664 of 2022
of the learned Judge, for the reason that the exercise of conducting the
examination had been concluded in the year 2014 itself and thereafter also,
two selection process had been completed and hence, it would not be proper
and advisable to upset the apple cart by ordering the conduct of the fresh
examination at this point of time as directed by the learned Judge. Following
the said judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court, the learned
Judge has concluded that the selection process which was completed in the
year 2014, cannot be made the subject matter of the writ petition in the year
2022; and if any order is passed to accommodate the appellant, it would
certainly unsettle the settled selection process. Accordingly, the learned Judge
has rightly refused to entertain the writ petition filed by the appellant. This
court finds no reason much less valid reason to interfere with the order so
passed by the learned Judge.
14. In the result, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.M.D., J] [M.S.Q., J]
rsh 10.04.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 2664 of 2022
R. MAHADEVAN, J
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J
rsh
To
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Principal Secretary
Department of School Education
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009
2. The Director of School Education
College Road, Chennai - 600 006
3. Member Secretary
Teachers Recruitment Board
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai
DPI Compound, College Road
Chennai - 600 006
WA No. 2664 of 2022
10.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
