Madras High Court
T.Kalayarasi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 September, 2023
W.P(MD)No.2592 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
W.P.(MD)No.2592 of 2017
and
W.M.P(MD)No.2158 of 2017
T.Kalayarasi ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 09.
2.The Secretary,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
EVK Sampath Maligai,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai -06. ....Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call
for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Rc.No.8758/PG/2014
dated 09.12.2014 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same
as illegal and consequently to direct the second respondent to provide
appointment to the post of Graduate Assistant in Economics under Persons
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1
W.P(MD)No.2592 of 2017
Studied under Tamil Medium (PSTM) Category by holding that
non-inclusion of the petitioner in the new select list of candidates is illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr. G.Karthik
For R-1 : Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar,
Government Advocate
For R-2 : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government
Advocate for the first respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the
second respondent and perused the records.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner submitted an
application for written examination for the Post of Post Graduate
Assistant/Physical Education Directors Grade-I pursuant to the notification,
dated 09.05.2013, issued by the second respondent. She appeared for the
written examination and she secured 97 marks. Thereafter, she was called for
certificate verification under General Women Tamil Medium Category
(PSTM category) on 04.08.2012. The said certificate verification for
PSTM Category was adjourned. Again on 27.05.2013, the certificate
verification was conducted. As the petitioner failed to produce Tamil Medium
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2592 of 2017
Certificate for B.Ed., degree course, her result was withheld. Subsequently, the
petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University and
obtained Medium of Instruction Certificate. Subsequently, the petitioner
submitted several representations to the second respondent, but she did not get
any response. Therefore, she filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.10332 of
2014. The said writ petition was disposed of on 11.09.2014, directing the
second respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated
28.05.2014. Pursuant to said order, the second respondent has passed the
impugned order, dated 09.12.2014, rejecting the request of the petitioner on the
ground that the selection process was already over. Aggrieved by the same,
the present writ petition is filed.
3. On behalf of the second respondent, a counter affidavit has been
filed. In the counter affidavit, it is averred that the petitioner was called for
certificate verification on 04.08.2012 and at the time of certificate verification,
she did not produce the B.Ed., certificate from the competent authority to the
effect that she studied the degree course in Tamil Medium. However, the
Board conducted certificate verification for the second time for those
candidates, who applied under Tamil Medium, on 27.05.2013 for the subject
Economics. After verification, the merit list was prepared from the eligible
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2592 of 2017
candidates, who studied P.G., and B.E., degree courses in Tamil Medium and
final selection list of candidates were published by the second respondent on
03.02.2014. The petitioner has furnished certificate of B.Ed., degree course in
Tamil Medium, only on 27.05.2014. As such, the petitioner’s case is not
considered.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court by
order, dated 11.09.2014 in W.P(MD)No.10332 of 2014, directed the second
respondent to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the
petitioner on 28.05.2014, in the light of the order, dated 27.11.2013 in
W.P(MD)No.17802 of 2013, which was confirmed by the Division Bench of
this Court in A.Akila and Others vs. P.Mariammal and others, reported in
2014(2) CWC 251, within a period of six weeks.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
second respondent rejected the representation of the petitioner without
considering the order, dated 27.11.2013 in W.P(MD)No.17802 of 2013 and the
judgment of the Division Bench in A.Akila’s case (supra). As such, the
impugned order is unsustainable and sought to allow the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2592 of 2017
6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent
would submit that the second respondent will consider only the certificate
produced at the time of certificate verification. As the petitioner did not
produce the certificate of B.Ed., degree in Tamil Medium at the time of
certificate verification held on 04.08.2012 and 27.05.2013, she is entitled for
the relief sought for in the writ petition.
7. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that the judgments
referred to in the order in W.P(MD)No.10332 of 2014 are also considered by
the second respondent and recorded a finding in the impugned order stating that
the judgments referred to cannot be made applicable to the case of the
petitioner and as such, the contention of the petitioner, is wrong on the aspect
that the rejection order is passed without considering the judgments referred to.
8. Having regard to the submissions of the respective counsels and
upon perusal of the materials available on record, it is an admitted fact that the
petitioner did not produce the relevant certificate of B.Ed., degree course in
Tamil Medium, in the certificate verification held on 04.08.2012 and
27.05.2013. She produced that certificate only on 27.05.2014 after the
publication of results.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2592 of 2017
9. It appears that the second respondent has completed the selection
process for that relevant period and also conducted subsequent selection for the
year 2012-2013 and they issued notification for the year 2013-2014 also. The
petitioner herself is responsible for non-production of the relevant certificate at
the time of certificate verification. Under these circumstances, it appears that
the petitioner’s claim is rejected by the second respondent.
10. In my considered view, there is no irregularity or illegality in
passing the impugned order by the second respondent to reject the
representation of the petitioner.
11. For the above mentioned reasons, this writ petition is dismissed.
12. No costs.
13. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.09.2023
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
PM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2592 of 2017
To,
The Principal Secretary,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 09.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2592 of 2017
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
PM
W.P.(MD)No.2592 of 2017
01.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
