Madras High Court
The Director Of School Education vs C.Porkodi on 21 November, 2023
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
Writ Appeal No.791 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 21.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
Writ Appeal No.791 of 2020
and C.M.P.No.10353 of 2020
1. The Director of School Education,
DPI Complex, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
2. The Chairman,
Teacher Recruitment Board,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006. ... Appellants
Vs
C.Porkodi ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set
aside the order dated 16.04.2019 made in W.P.No.21454 of 2012.
For Appellants : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar,
Special Government Pleader [R1]
Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.K.Sathish Kumar,
Standing Counsel [R2]
For Respondent : Mr.K.Thilageswaran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/14
Writ Appeal No.791 of 2020
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR,J.)
This appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ
Court dated 16.04.2019 made in W.P.No.21454 of 2012.
2. The respondent was the writ petitioner, whose name has been
sponsored by the employment exchange pursuant to the notification
issued by the second appellant i.e., Teachers Recruitment Board in
notification No.5 of 2017 dated 26.07.2017 inviting applications for the
appointment to the post of Special Teachers(Drawing, Physical
Education, Music and Sewing).
3. Insofar as the candidature of the respondent/writ petitioner is
concerned, her name had been sponsored by the employment exchange
for the post of Special Teacher, Drawing, where the respondent
credentials have been verified by way of certificate verification.
Subsequently, selection had not been made, when this was verified by the
respondent, she came to know that she was not selected or her selection
was rejected with the remark that the degree obtained by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent/writ petitioner was degree in Sculpture, therefore, on that
ground her candidature was rejected.
4. Challenging the said rejection made by the Recruitment Agency
viz., the second appellant/Teachers Recruitment Board, the
respondent/writ petitioner had moved the said writ petition and the said
writ petition was heard and was allowed by the learned Judge through the
impugned order.
5. Assailing the said order impugned of the learned Judge,
Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing
for the first appellant herein has contended that, as per the notification
issued by the second appellant, the qualification for Drawing Teacher
had been mentioned specifically, which reads thus:
Drawing 1. General Educational Qualification : S.S.L.C.
Teacher 2. Technical qualification
i) a. Degree with Drawing and Painting under Part III
of a University in the State or its equivalent.
Or
b. Diploma in Painting or Diploma in Drawing of
the Annamalai University.
Or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ii) Diploma in Painting or Commercial Arts or
Modeling of the Government College of Arts and
Crafts;
Or
Government Technical Examinations (Higher
Grade) in free hand outline and Model Drawing
Or
Government Diploma in Drawing or a certificate
issued by the Tamil Nadu Institute or Architecture
and Sculpture, Mamallapuram.
And
iii) Technical Teachers Certificate
Or
iv)a. A Diploma in Fine Arts (5 years Course) awarded
by Director of Technical Education.
Or
b. A Bachelor Degree in Fine Arts awarded by the
Madras University or Bharathidasan University.
6. Relying upon this prescription that has been made in the very
notification issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board i.e., the second
appellant, the learned Special Government Pleader would contend that, a
person must have either of the qualifications, otherwise his or her
candidature cannot be considered for the post of Special Teacher,
Drawing.
7. The learned Special Government Pleader would further submit
that, admittedly the respondent/writ petitioner is having the Bachelor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
degree Fine Arts in Sculpture that was not one of the qualifications that
has been prescribed in the said notification, therefore, rightly her
candidature had been rejected. Hence, the learned Special Government
Pleader seeks indulgence of this Court to interfere with the order
impugned that has been passed by the Writ Court.
8. Heard Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the second respondent/Teachers Recruitment Board.
9. We have gone through the judgment impugned.
10. The learned Judge has taken much pain in dealing with every
aspect of the issue that has been projected before him. The qualification
of the writ petitioner/respondent was that, she completed her Bachelor
Degree Fine Arts in Sculpture in the year 1999 and she passed the degree
in First Class. Thereafter, the writ petitioner/respondent completed her
post graduation degree in Government College of Arts and Crafts,
Kumbakonam and also she passed the same with First Class in the year
2001 and her name was registered in the Employment Exchange. When
that being so, in 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 when special recruitment was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sought for, names have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange,
where the name of the respondent/writ petitioner also has been sponsored
under the category to selection and appointment to the post of Special
Teacher, Drawing.
11. After certificate verification, her candidature was rejected on
the ground that the degree obtained by the writ petitioner/respondent is
Bachelor degree Fine Arts in Sculpture, whereas the required
qualification as regard to the notification is Degree in Drawing or
Diploma in Drawing or Diploma in Fine Arts (5 years course) awarded
by Director of Technical Education or a Bachelor degree in Fine Arts
awarded by the Madras University or Bharathidasan University. Since
none of these qualifications, the writ petitioner/respondent was having,
her candidature was rejected that was the stand taken by the appellants
herein, who were the respondents before the Writ Court.
12. However, if we look at the qualification acquired by the
respondent/writ petitioner, which is one of the best and higher
qualification in the field of Arts and Culture, which includes Drawing.
Explaining this, the learned Judge has taken much pain as to how the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
qualification of the respondent/writ petitioner is more suitable for the
said post of Special Teacher, Drawing and he has stated the following in
paragraphs 7 and 8 of the order, which are extracted hereunder:
“7. The writ petitioner was called for verification of
certificates for the post of Special Teacher in Drawing
through employment exchange for the years 2010-2011 and
2011-2012 for Government, Corporation and Panchayat
Union – Middle School, High School and Higher
Secondary School by the second respondent, namely, the
Teacher Recruitment Board. The petitioner was qualified
with a degree of Bachelor of Fine Arts in Sculpture in
Government College of Fine Arts, Chennai and Post
Graduation Degree in Government College of Fine Arts
and Crafts in Kumbakonam. She had enrolled herself with
the employment exchange. She was not selected for the post
for the reason “Degree in Sculpture”. The petitioner had
undergone a 5 year course while qualifying for Degree in
Bachelor of Fine Arts. She claimed that the first 2 years
exclusively related to skills in Drawing. The specialisation
course in Sculpture started only from the third year. It was
further stated that the minimum qualification for
recruitment of Special Teacher in Drawing is a Diploma in
Fine Arts awarded by the Director of Technical Education
or a Degree in Fine Arts awarded by the Madras
University or the Bharathidasan University. Admittedly, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner had a Degree in Fine Arts. Her specialisation
was Sculpture. But that cannot take away the fundamental
fact that she had a Degree in Fine Arts.
8. It is trite to point out that before any Sculpture is
carved the outline Drawing must be done of the artefact to
be Sculpted and thereafter alone is the actual Sculpture
crafted. Consequently, every Sculpturor has to be well
qualified in Drawing. The reverse may not be true. A
person, who is skilled in Drawing alone, may not be a good
Sculpturor. The petitioner herein, who had qualified with a
Degree in Fine Arts with Sculpture as a specialisation
necessarily had to be skilled in Drawing. This is the
foundation for any Sculpturor. The petitioner had also
qualified herself in Post Graduation Degree from the
Government College of Arts and Crafts in Kumbakonam. I
hold that the respondents have taken a very narrow view to
the prejudice of the petitioner.”
13. Moreover, as per the notification under the Heading Drawing
Teacher various qualifications have been mentioned as technical
qualification, which include a Bachelor degree in Fine Arts awarded by
the Madras University or Bharathidasan University.
14. In this context, it is to be noted that, the Registrar of the
University of Madras had issued a letter to the Deputy Secretary to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Government with regard to the equivalence of the Bachelor degree of
Fine Arts awarded by the Madras University as well as the Diploma in
Fine Arts awarded by the Government College of Arts and Crafts,
Madras.
15. This also has been taken into account by the learned Judge in
paragraph 15 of the order, which reads thus:
“15. Though not directly germane to the issue, it
must be also pointed out that the petitioner belongs to the
Scheduled Caste category and having married a Backward
Clause person, she also came under the 'priority' list in
appointment. Refusal to accommodate her goes against the
very tenants of providing opportunity for the upliftment of
an unpriviliged section of people, who deserve such
appointment. Even as early as 09.03.1993, the Registrar,
University of Madras had issued a letter to the Deputy
Secretary of Government Education (TES-II) Department,
which letter is extracted below for better appreciation:-
“I am to inform you that the Syndicate
considered the recognition of Diploma in Fine
Arts (5 years) awarded by the Government
College of Arts and Crafts, Madras and has
decided that the Diploma in Fine Arts awarded by
the Government College of Arts and Crafts,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Madras be considered as equivalent to the
Bachelor of Fine Arts (B.F.A.) Degree of this
University for purposes of appointment.”
16. Therefore, the very Madras University has certified that the
Diploma awarded by the Government College of Arts and Crafts, Madras
is equivalent to the degree of Bachelor in Fine Arts i.e., B.FA awarded by
the University of Madras, which is one of the recognized qualification
for the appointment to the post of Special Teacher, Drawing as per the
notification of the Teachers Recruitment Board.
17. That apart, the Principal of Government College of Fine Arts
by letter dated 16.08.2016 has given syllabus component of a Bachelor
degree in Fine Arts and this has also been taken note by the learned
Judge in paragraph 16 of the order, which reads thus:
“16. Actually, the letter had recognised a Diploma
course as equivalent to the Degree course. In the present
case, the petitioner had also possessed Post Graduation
Degree. Further, the Principal of Government College of
Fine Arts had given a letter on 16.08.2016 and it is as
follows:-
“TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
This is to certify that any candidate who has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
qualified and completed B.F.A (Bachelor in Fine Arts)
degree in any following disciplines, drawing is
fundamental unit of the syllabus.
1. BFA (Painting)
2. BFA (Sculpture)
3. BFA (Visual Communication Design)
4. BFA (Ceramic)
5. BFA (Textile)
6. BFA (Print Making) ”
18. Therefore, it has become quite clear that the respondent/writ
petitioner having completed the Bachelor degree in Fine Arts, Sculpture,
is well-versed in drawing, without the drawing skill no one can become a
sculpture and can be qualified to hold the degree of B.FA. This position
has been established by various communications issued by the concerned
institutions viz., University of Madras as well as the Government College
of Fine Arts.
19. Therefore, the respondent/writ petitioner definitely was having
one of the essential qualification in fact having the more qualification in
that field as the degree awarded by the Government College of Arts and
Crafts is equivalent to the degree being awarded by the University of
Madras and this has been admitted by the very Registrar of the Madras
University himself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20. When that being so, as per Clause (iv) (b) of the qualifications
prescribed by the TRB in its notification for the post of Special Teacher,
Drawing since has been fulfilled by the respondent/writ petitioner, her
candidature ought not to have been rejected. However, for the reasons
best known to them since the candidature has been rejected she had
rightly approached the Writ Court, where the learned Judge allowed the
said writ petition on 16.04.2019, absolutely there is no infirmity in the
said decision of the learned Judge and we are fully agreeing with the
view expressed by the learned Judge.
21 Resultantly, this appeal fails therefore it is liable to be rejected
and accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed without costs.
Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22. In view of the dismissal of this appeal confirming the order
passed by the Writ Court dated 16.04.2019, the respondent/writ
petitioner is entitled to get appointment to the post of Special Teacher,
Drawing and such a selection and appointment shall be given by the
respondents i.e., respondents 2 and 1 respectively within a period of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
23. However, no seniority can be claimed by the respondent/writ
petitioner because of the delayed recruitment and appointment as the
delay is caused due to the litigation and since the respondent/writ
petitioner had not been selected and appointed, the past service cannot be
counted in the account of the respondent/writ petitioner, therefore, for the
said reasons she cannot claim any seniority or even notional appointment
from the date of original recruitment, where other selectees were selected
and appointed by the appellants.
(R.S.K.,J.) (G.A.M., J.)
21.11.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
mp
21.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
