Madras High Court
S.Geetha vs The Secretary To The Government on 13 July, 2023
WP No.27792 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 13.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
WP No.27792 of 2017
And
W.M.P.Nos. 29778 & 29779 of 2017
S.Geetha ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Secretary to the Government
School Education Department
Secretariate, Chennai -9.
2. The Chairman
Teachers Recruitment Board,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
3. The Member Secretary
Teachers Recruitment Board,
College Road, Chennai-6.
4. The Director of School Education
Chennai – 6. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.27792 of 2017
PRAYER: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records
of the third respondent's impugned proceedings vide RC No. 848/L2/2016
dated 23.06.2016 quash the same and consequently directing the
respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of P.G. Assistant (Telugu)
Teacher in any one of the School under the 4th respondent.
***
For Petitioner : Mr. S.T.Moorthy
Senior Advocate
for M/s. R.Govindasamy
For RR 2 & 3 : Mr.R.Neelakandan
Additional Advocate General
Mr.C.Kathiravan
Standing Counsel
For RR 1 & 4 : Mr.V.Nanmaran
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus
seeking records relating to the impugned proceedings of the third
respondent, the Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, College
Road, Chennai -6, in R.C.No. 848/L2/2016 dated 23.06.2016 and quash the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.27792 of 2017
same and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of PG
Assistant Teacher (Telugu) in any one of the school under the fourth
respondent.
2. The petitioner in her affidavit had stated that she is residing at
No. 484, 16th Cross Street, T.P.Chathiram, Chennai-30. She had however
further stated that she was from Palasamudram Village, Chittoor District,
Andhra Pradesh. She had studied in Telugu Medium. She had passed 10 th
std, Plus 2, B.A., (Telugu) and also Post Graduate Degree (Telugu) in the
academic year 2006-2007 at Sri Venkateswara Univerity and B.Ed (Telugu
Social) completed in the year 2011. She had also registered herself with the
Employment Office at Chennai.
3. The second respondent had called for applications in a
notification in Advertisement No. 2/2013 dated 09.05.2013 for two Telugu
P.G. (Assistant) teachers, one under the General Turn (G) and another for
SC (G).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.27792 of 2017
4. The petitioner belongs to SC category. She had applied for the
same. At the time of application, the first prerequisite was that she should
uploaded all the requisite certificates relating to her Educational
qualification and also her community certificate. She did the same. She had
written her examination and was then called for producing the certificates in
original. The certificates in original were also produced.
5. She claims that she was provisionally selected but that her
name was not included in the selection list under the SC category. She had
given representations and then she had filed W.P.No. 12140 of 2016 seeking
a Mandamus against the respondents directing hem to appoint her as P.G
Assistant (Telugu) on the basis of the selection process. A learned Single
Judge of this Court had directed that the representation given by the
petitioner on 22.05.2015 should be examined on merits and orders passed.
The order passed by the third respondent/ the Member Secretary, Teachers
Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai-6, on 23.06.2016 is impugned
in the present Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.27792 of 2017
6. The entire facts surrounds the eligibility of the petitioner herein
to qualify herself as SC category candidate within the State of Tamilnadu or
under the notification issued by the respondents. There is no doubt raised
by the respondents that she belongs to SC Category.
7. However, it must be also noted that she is bound by the terms
in the notification and she cannot claim any further privilege. The
notification is clear and straight forward. Under the notification in
Advertisement No. 2/2013 dated 09.05.2013, it had been very specifically
stated under Clause 11, in the sub paragraph relating to community
certificate as follows:-
“11. Certificate Verification: Candidates
short-listed as above shall bring the original and
attested copies of all Certificates as stated in the
call letter for Certificate Verification. All
Certificates should have been issued prior to the
last date for submission of filled-in Applications.
Certificates issued after the cud-off date will not be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.27792 of 2017
considered. Teaching experience certificate issued
by Headmaster/ Principal of the School should be
countersigned by the Inspecting Officer concerned.
(Annexure- III of Prospectus).
Community Certificate: Permanent
Community Card Certificate obtained from the
under mentioned authorities on or before the last
date for submission of filled-in applications, is
necessary for candidates claiming reservation
category.
i. ST-Revenue Divisional Officer dated after
11.11.1989”
ii. SC – Tahsildar of native taluk of the
candidate
iii BC/MBC/DNC – Headquarters Deputy
Tahsildar or Special Deputy Tahsildar
Note:
i. Community Certificate of married women
issued in father's name (Not in Husband's Name)
alone shall be accepted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.27792 of 2017
ii. Other State and UT Community Certificate
will not be considered. They will be treated as GT.”
8. It had been very specifically pointed out in the
notification, on a reading of which the petitioner had applied, that her
community certificates will not be considered and she would be treated only
under the General Turn. This particular clause if it violates the petitioner's
right should have been questioned by the petitioner. She had abided by the
term and had accepted to such terms. It is only on the basis of the
acceptance of the terms of the notification that she had actually applied for
selection. The notification is only an offer for prospective candidates to
examine whether they conformed to the guidelines prescribed therein and if
they do so, to apply for the post. The petitioner had uploaded along with
application form her community certificate issued by the Government of
Andhra Pradesh. This fact is not controverted by the petitioner herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.27792 of 2017
9. This particular clause very specifically states that whatever be
the caste of the candidate, if the certificate is produced from any other State
or from Union Territory, then that candidate would be only treated as one
applying under General Turn. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein
had obtained lesser marks, than the candidates, who actually applied under
the General Turn.
10. Once this fact stares on the face of the petitioner herein, she
could not by any stretch of imagination sidestep this particular fact.
11. However, she took advantage of a small window which was
opened by the respondents. The respondents had issued a notification on
28.10.2013 subsequent to the date on which they had verified the
certificates. By such notification, they had stated that during the verification
held on 23.10.2023, a few candidates were absent for certificate verification
and some candidates did not produce the required certificates.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.27792 of 2017
12. This notification does not give liberty for a candidate to go over
to any other Tahsildar Office and produce a certificate afresh quite contrary
to what had been uploaded in the application form. This would mean taking
advantage of a notification which was meant for genuine candidates, who
had not been present during the certificate verification or who had not
produced the certificates. Any candidates, who produces the original
certificate for verification, must produce the certificates which was
originally uploaded along with the application form. They cannot bring
about a second set of certificates and therefore claim a right to be appointed.
The respondents on the other hand have a right to reject such certificates by
claiming that it is different to be certificates uploaded.
13. The issue of appointment will have be examined with a strict
view in mind. If one candidate is given undue advantage to produce two
alternate certificates, to be selected, then a genuine candidate, who had
actually produced a certificate from the State categorising him or her as SC
candidate would suffer.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.27792 of 2017
14. That is not the object behind any selection process. It is to
provide a leveling playing field for all the candidates. They must upload the
certificates which they rely on along with the application form. Those
certificates must be in conformity with the qualification required and in
accordance with the eligibility conditions as stated in the notification.
15. Reliance was placed by the petitioner on the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2005(9) SCC 779 [Dolly Chhanda Vs.
Chairman, JEE & Ors]. That was a case where applications were called
and priority was given for daughters/widow of Ex serviceman. The
petitioner therein had produced a certificate. Her father fell under the
category of disabiled / killed in war hostility. While issued that certificate,
unfortunately, the Army Board had used the words 'not eligible'. As a fact
this is a mistake. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not give any
additional privilege but corrected a wrong fact stated in certificate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.27792 of 2017
16. They stated in Paragraph No. 7 as follows:-
“7. The general rule is that while applying for
any course of study or a post, a person must
possess the eligibility qualification on the last
date fixed for such purpose either in the
admission brochure or in application form, as
the case may be, unless there is an express
provision to the contrary. There can be no
relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of
holding the requisite eligibility qualification by
the date fixed. This has to be established by
producing the necessary certificates, degrees or
marksheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the
benefit of reservation or weightage etc.
necessary certificates have to be produced.
These are documents in the nature of proof of
holding of particular qualification or
percentage of marks secured or entitlement for
benefit of reservation. Depending upon the
facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in
the matter of submission of proof and it will not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.27792 of 2017
be proper to apply any rigid principle as it
pertains in the domain of procedure. Every
infraction of the rule relating to submission of
proof need not necessarily result in rejection of
candidature. ”
17. In the instant case, the petitioner's case is certainly
distinguishable. When she applied for the post, she had produced a
certificate issued by the Andhra Pradesh categorising her to be a SC
candidate. If she produces a certificate from a State which is other than
Tamilnadu, then whatever be the community, she will be categorised only
under the General Turn. That is the term of the notification which she
applied. Therefore, the facts in this Judgment are distinguishable.
18. Reliance had also been placed in W.P.No. 2316 of 2019
[ A.K.anand Vs. the Registrar General and Another]. A Division Bench
was examining the selection of candidates for the post of Civil Judge of
Tamilnadu State Judicial Service for the years 2014-2015 and 2016-2017.
The petitioner therein, while producing the certificates during the course of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.27792 of 2017
verification, had produced a certificate issued by the Union Territory of
Puducherry categorising him as belonging to SC community. However, the
permanent address of that particular candidate was subsequently determined
to be in Tamilnadu, Villupuram. Therefore, the certificate issued by the
Union Territory of Puducherry was rejected. The candidate then produced a
certificate issued by the State of Tamilnadu.
19. It must be pointed out that there was no such guideline during
the selection of Civil Judges, that if a community certificate is produced
from any other State, that particular candidate would be treated only under
General Category. This particular eligibility condition has been stipulated
for the post for which the petitioner had applied. She is bound by that
particular clause. She could have produced another certificate prior to her
application. Once, she applies, all the application forms will have to be
viewed with the same standard and if one of the certificates in her
application is not proper, then an opportunity cannot be given to her. This
would mean rejecting a bona fide candidate. There would be a swing of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.27792 of 2017
pendulum in favour of the petitioner to the disadvantage of other eligible
candidates.
20. The fact that there were no other candidates to seeking
admission does not advance the case of the petitioner. She has a right to
seek admission provided she is eligible in accordance with the terms of the
notification issued by the respondent herein.
21. Attention has been also drawn to the Judgment of a Division
Bench of this Court in W.P.No. 14054 of 2012 [ D.Thriveni Vs. The State
of Tamil Nadu and Another]. The petitioner sought a Mandamus that she
was qualified for the viva voce by including her under the BC/OBC
category by accepting both or the community certificate issued by the
competent authorities. She had failed to enclose the community certificate
in her application and the community certificate produced by her was from
the Deputy Tahsildar, Thirunallar, Government of Puducherry. That
certificate could not be used for the purpose of treating her as a BC
candidate under the State of Tamilnadu. The facts again are distinguishable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.27792 of 2017
22. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that a post in still
vacant. This Court cannot thrust a candidate on the respondents. I would
leave it to the respondents to take a decision about filling of the post but
that should be an independent decision taken and certainly not on the
directions of this Court.
23. So far as the facts of this case are concerned, as pointed out by
the learned Additional Advocate General, the petitioner had applied abiding
by the regulations as stipulated in the notification. The petitioner cannot
claim any right and she can not claim any different privilege. The
notification prevails so long as set aside or questioned.
24. I am afraid, I am not able to grant the relief sought for by the
petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.27792 of 2017
25. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
13.07.2023
vsg
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
To
1. The Secretary to the Government
School Education Department
Secretariate, Chennai -9.
2. The Chairman
Teachers Recruitment Board,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
3. The Member Secretary
Teachers Recruitment Board,
College Road, Chennai-6.
4. The Director of School Education
Chennai – 6.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.27792 of 2017
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
vsg
WP No.27792 of 2017
And
W.M.P.Nos. 29778 & 29779 of 2017
13.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
