Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs K.Shanthi on 17 August, 2023
2023/MHC/4450
W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.6786 of 2018 & 1099 of 2022
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.Teachers Recruitment Board,
Rep. by its Chairman,
4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai,
D.P.I.Compound, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006. ...Appellants
/Vs./
K.Shanthi ...Respondent
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, to
set aside the order dated 19.01.2018 passed in W.P.(MD)No.21272 of
2014.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018
For Appellants : Mr.V.Om Prakash (A1)
Government Advocate
Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan (A2)
For Respondent : Mr.Maniananth
for Mr.R.Maheswaran
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
The appellants were the respondents in the writ petition and
have challenged an order of the Writ Court dated 19.01.2018. The writ
petitioner is orthopedically challenged and belongs to the Backward class
community (BC). She had participated in the selection process for the
post of Assistant Professor (English) in the Government Arts and Science
College.
2. She was called for certificate verification as well as for the
interview. She claimed, and rightly so, to be the only woman candidate
in BC category, who attended the interview. Being unsuccessful, she
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018
challenged the provisional selection list published by the Teachers
Recruitment Board (TRB), specifically the selection of male candidates
in BC Ortho category and sought her appointment in that position
instead.
3. The Writ Court had, at the time of admission, directed the
appellants to keep one post of Assistant Professor (English) vacant
subject to the decision in the writ petition. At the time of hearing, the
appellants had clarified the position that a corrigendum had been issued
on 09.07.2013 to the effect that 100 point communal roster would be
applicable to the present selection process and hence, the selection or
otherwise of the writ petitioner must be seen in the context of that
corrigendum.
4. The writ petition came to be allowed on 19.01.2018
accepting the writ petitioner's contention that she was the only eligible
candidate falling under the sub-reserved category. The learned Judge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018
notes that her assertion was not denied and that her qualifications to the
post were also not questioned. That position continues even today before
us.
5. As regards the application of the corrigendum dated
09.07.2013, the learned Judge noted that the 3% of reservation provided
for differently abled persons was to be made in accordance with law.
According to the Writ Court, that corrigendum did not in any way take
away the communal turn earmarked to BC woman category.
6. Thus and confirming the appointments made in favour of
two male candidates, D.Prasad and Sakthivel as well, a direction was
issued to the State and to TRB to appoint the petitioner to the post of
Assistant Professor (English) in the Government Arts and Science
College under the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of that order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018
7. The State draws attention to the manner by which 3%
reservation was to apply, which is as per G.O.Ms.No.87, Department of
Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme of Tamil Nadu, dated
17.07.2008. That GO, while applying the 100 point communal roster to
appointments sets out the following methodology by which the
appointments would be governed:
“ jpUj;jk;
murhiz epiy vz; 200> rK:f eyk;
kw;Wk; rj;Jzt[j;jpl;lj; Jiw> ehs; 22.12.2008 y;
jw;nghJs;s gj;jp 5(m)f;F gjpyhf gpd;tUkhW khw;wp
gof;ft[k;:&
(m) “,k;khepyj;jpYs;s muR Jiwfs;>
fHfq;fs; kw;Wk; thhpaq;fspy; 200 g[s;sp fzf;fPL
gjpntl;il 6 (MW) fl;lq;fshf gphpj;J
(CdKw;nwhhpd; K:d;W ,dq;fspy; mjhtJ
ghh;itaw;nwhh;> fhJnfshnjhh;> kw;Wk; iffhy;
CdKw;nwhh; MfpnahUf;F Koe;j tiu jyh 1;:&1;:&1
tPjk; rkkhf tHq;fp) xt;bthU fl;lj;jpYk; cs;s 33
fhyp gzpaplq;fSf;Fs; xU CdKw;nwhiu njh;t[ bra;J
(ck;> 1 – 33> 34 – 66> 67 – 100> 101 – 133>
134 – 166 kw;Wk; 167 – 200) ,d RHw;rp
gl;oaypy; (communal roster) mth; rhh;e;j ,dj;jpw;F
vjpuhf mthpd; njh;it fzf;fpLk; Kiwia filgpof;f
muR MizapLfpwJ.
2.jkpH;ehL khepy kw;Wk; rhh;epiyg; gzpfspd;
bghJtpjp 22 (aa)f;F gzpahsh; kw;Wk; eph;thf
rPh;jpUj;jj; Jiwapy; njitahd jpUj;jk; btspaplg;gLk;.
(Msehpd; Mizg;go)”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018
8. In order to satisfy ourselves that the application of
G.O.Ms.No.87, Department of Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal
Programme of Tamil Nadu, dated 17.07.2008 had been done in a proper
manner, we had sought for records as well as various particulars from the
appellants.
9. There were a total of number of 150 vacancies that were
notified for the post of Assistant Professor (English), out of which, 20
were backlog vacancies and 130 were current vacancies. On an
application of G.O.Ms.No.87, Department of Social Welfare and
Nutritious Meal Programme of Tamil Nadu, dated 17.07.2008, the posts
earmarked for three physically challenged category ie., ortho, deaf and
blind in the details of backlog and current vacancies have been supplied
as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018
S. Clarification Particulars
1. Out of 150 Vacancies for the post of Asst. Prof.
vacancies, In English;
backlog and among the 150 Notified Vacancies.
howmany are
current vacancies 3) Number of Current Vacancies 130
among 150 Notified vacancies
2. How many posts No. of posts No. of No. of Total No.
earmarked for earmarked Backlog Current of
physically for Vacancies Vacancies Vacancies
challenged, each 1)Ortho 2 1 3
category wise I.e.,
Ortho, Deaf, Blind 2)Deaf 6 2 8
3)Blind 3 3 6
3. How many got No. of posts No. of No. of Total No.
selected with all earmarked Backlog Current Selected
their details in for Selected Selected
challenged
(Details of Selection of Physically Challenged
Candidates enclosed separately)
.............
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018
10. The appellants have also filed an abstract of appointments
of physically challenged candidates in the General merit list. This
abstract comprises a total number of 6 candidates, of which only two ie.,
D.Prasad and Sakthivel, who were standing at Serial Nos.1 and 2 have
been selected in Ortho Category. The name of the writ petitioner is at
serial number 4.
11. Since there were only a total number of 150 vacancies,
there would only be five turns in toto, of which, D.Prasath and Sakthivel,
who have obtained 31 and 26 marks have been rightly selected. S.Vinoth
Kumar, who obtained 24 marks in Ortho category stood third and was
eliminated as unsuccessful. Thus, there is no merit in the writ petitioner's
prayer for appointment as she had obtained only 18 marks standing
fourth on the merit list.
12. As regards her claim for selection as BC woman, for which
one seat was earmarked, admittedly, that seat has been taken by more
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018
qualified candidate, who had obtained far higher marks than what the
writ petitioner had obtained (General category). To be clarified that
annexure 1, which sets out the estimate of vacancies and the basis of
reservation had been withdrawn to be replaced by the corrigendum
issued on 09.07.2013.
13. With the issuance of corrigendum dated 09.07.2013, it
becomes incumbent upon the appellants to apply the rules of reservation
as contained in G.O.Ms.No.87, Department of Social Welfare and
Nutritious Meal Programme of Tamil Nadu, dated 17.07.2008, which is
what is seen to have been done in the present case.
14. It appears that G.O.Ms.No.87, Department of Social
Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme of Tamil Nadu, dated
17.07.2008 was not produced before the Writ Court, as there is no
reference to that GO in order dated 19.01.2018. However the G.O, being
a public document having been produced before us along with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018
records as well as the basis upon which the selection has been made, we
find no infirmity in the procedure adopted for appointment. This writ
appeal is allowed and order dated 19.01.2018 of the writ Court is set
aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]
17.08.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
sm
Judgment made in
W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018
Dated:
17.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
