S. Glan Dinesh Kumar vs The Secretary
2023 Latest Caselaw 14621 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 14621 Mad
Judgement Date : 23 November, 2023

Madras High Court

S. Glan Dinesh Kumar vs The Secretary on 23 November, 2023

Author: M.S.Ramesh

Bench: M.S. Ramesh

    2023:MHC:5197




                                                                              W.P.No.32358 of 2023


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 23.11.2023

                                                       CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

                                                 W.P.No.32358 of 2023
                                              and W.M.P.No.31978 of 2023


                       S. Glan Dinesh Kumar                                ... Petitioner

                                                         Vs.

                       The Secretary,
                       Teachers Recruitment Board,
                       4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai,
                       DPI Campus, College Road,
                       Chennai – 600 006.                                  ... Respondent


                       PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                       India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to
                       issue Teacher Eligibility Test pass certificate to the petitioner which
                       was conducted on 18.08.2013 and consequently to allow the petitioner
                       to apply for the post of Graduate Teachers/Block Resource Teacher
                       Educators (BRTE) issued in the Notification No.03/2023 dated
                       25.10.2023.

                                      For Petitioner   : M/s.S. Ilamvaludhi


                       1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  W.P.No.32358 of 2023


                                        For Respondent     : Mr.M. Algau Gowtham,
                                                             Government Advocate


                                                           ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the

learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

2. The claim of the petitioner for issuance of Teacher Eligibility

Test (TET) pass certificate and the consequential permission to apply

for the post of Graduate Teacher/Block Resource Teacher Educator

(BRTE), has already been considered by this Court in the case of

'Vimalraj.P Vs. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board' passed

in WP.No.26678 of 2023 on 15.11.2023 and one additional mark has

been granted to the Teachers who had appeared for TET on

18.01.2013. The relevant paragraphs of the order reads as follows:-

“The petitioner had participated in the Teachers Eligibility Test [TET] conducted by the respondent on 18.08.2013, in which he had secured 89 marks. In the said test, he had questioned the correctness of the final answer key for Question

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

No.107 (D-type) in Paper -2, which question and answer key read as follows:

“ In which language the song “vande Matharam” was written first a. Bengali c.Urdu b. Marathi d.Sanskrit”

2. The petitioner had opted for choice '(a) Bengali'. However, the final answer key showed '(d) Sanskrit' to be the correct answer. The issue was challenged by one K.Veeramani before a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.32316 of 2013 and the writ petition came to be allowed, as against which the Teachers Recruitment Board has preferred an intra-court appeal in W.A.No.1040 of 2017 and by a judgment dated 12.10.2017, the order of the learned single Judge was upheld and a direction was issued to Teachers Recruitment Board to award one additional mark to the candidates who opted either choice (a) or choice (d) for Question No.107. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:

'6. In such view of the matter, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that both the answers viz., “Bengali” (Option A)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

and “Sanskrit” (Option D) are correct. Therefore, the respondent-Board shall award one mark to the candidates, who answered it as “Bengali” as well as to the candidates who answered it as “Sanskrit”.'

3. Though Hon'ble Division Bench had directed Teachers Recruitment Board to award one mark to the candidates who had participated in the TET examination of the year 2013 but such a mark was not awarded to the petitioner, which had prompted him to file the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the direction of Hon'ble Division Bench, the petitioner is entitled for award of one additional mark.

5. The learned Government Advocate would submit that though the order of the Division Bench was passed way back in the year 2017, the petitioner had belatedly approached this Court. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

6. Admittedly, the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in K.Veeramani's case has become final and in view of the directions given therein, all

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the candidates who opted either Choice (a) or Choice (d) to Question No.107 would be entitled for one additional mark. There was no reason for the Board to expect all the candidates to approach them seeking for such additional mark. As a matter of fact, the direction of the Bench was to the Board to award one additional mark for the candidates who had participated and attempted Question No.107 in the Teachers Eligibility Test conducted by them on 18.08.2013. If that be so, the delay and laches is attributable to the Board only and not to the petitioner. This apart, the failure to award one mark to the petitioner is also in violation of the directions of Hon'ble Division Bench.

7. In view of the laches on the part of the Teachers Recruitment Board, the petitioner was deprived from participating in 2017 recruitment, apart from his seniority being affected. Of course, the decision of the Division Bench, which later culminated into awarding of one mark, was pending at that point of time.

8. Thus, I am of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to one additional mark and if that one mark is awarded, the petitioner's total score

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

would be 90 marks and accordingly, he would have been declared as a successful candidate in the TET in the year 2013 itself.

9. In the light of the above observations and findings, this writ petition is allowed and there shall be a direction to the respondent Board to pass appropriate orders by awarding one additional mark for the petitioner in the test conducted on 18.01.2013 and declare the petitioner as having qualified in the 2013 test itself and revision of his seniority. Such order shall be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.”

3. The petitioner is also similarly placed to that of the Teacher

who had filed the aforesaid Writ Petition and therefore, he sought for

one mark and the consequential declaration.

4. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondent

herein, to award one additional mark for the petitioner in the Teachers'

Eligibility Test conducted on 18.01.2013 and to declare that the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

petitioner had already qualified in TET in the year 2013 itself. Such

order shall be passed at least within a period of eight (8) weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In view of such declaration,

the petitioner would be entitled to apply for the post of Graduate

Teacher/Block Resource Teacher Educator (BRTE) under the

Notification No.03/2023 dated 25.10.2023.