Madras High Court
M.Sudha vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 August, 2024
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P.(MD) No.7586 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD) No.7586 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.5759 & 5760 of 2021
M.Sudha ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Secretary
School Education Department
Fort St.George, Chennai
2.The Teachers Recruitment Board
rep.by its Chairman
DPI Compound, Chennai
3.The Teachers Recruitment Board
rep.by its Member (School Education)
DPI Compound, Chennai
4.The Director of School Education
DPI Campus
Chennai ... Respondents
_______________
Page 1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.7586 of 2021
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the
impugned revised provisional selection list published by the third respondent
vide his proceedings Nil date 28.12.2020 (published in the official website of
TRB) insofar as the non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner is concerned
and the consequential impugned proceedings in R.C.No.8019/E6/2018, dated
23.03.2021, issued by the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and
consequentially to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post
of Computer Instructor Grade-I taking into consideration of the marks secured
by the petitioner and her qualification, within the time stipulated by this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Mohamed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjad Khan
Government Advocate for R1 & R4
Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
Standing Counsel for R2 & R3
_______________
Page 2 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.7586 of 2021
ORDER
The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is
whether the petitioner, who was eligible for selection to the post of Computer
Instructor Grade-I, was wrongfully denied selection, as seen from the
impugned selection list, on the ground that she produced the mark sheet
subsequent to the cut off date fixed under the recruitment notification.
2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent –
Teachers Recruitment Board would submit that the petitioner is not entitled to
be selected to the subject post, since she had submitted the mark sheet
subsequent to the cut off date fixed under the recruitment notification.
According to the Teachers Recruitment Board, it is mandatory for the
candidate to possess the relevant certificates prior to the cut off date.
3. For better understanding of the case, the following dates and
events pertaining to the petitioner's case are highlighted.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.No Date Details
Notification date for Computer Instructor Grade-I
1 01.03.2019 (PG cadre)
Notification No.09/2019, dated 01.03.2019
2 10.04.2019 Cut off date in Notification 10.04.2019
M.Sc., Computer Science final result published in
3 11.03.2019 the website of Bharathiar University, Coimbatore –
During PG Jan 2017 to Dec – 2018 Calender year
20.03.2019 to
4 Online Application filling date limit
10.0.2019
My Online Application submitted date. Result
5 24.03.2019 Published date mentioned in online application
software is upto March 2019 (31.03.2019)
Computer Based Examination Admit Card
6 16.06.2019
Published in TRB Website
I attend my computer based online Exam in KPR
7 23.06.2019
institute of Engineering & Technology, Coimbatore
8 25.11.2019 Computer Based Exam Result Published date
9 28.11.2019 cv list & Document uploaded details published
List of Documents to be uploaded in TRB Website
1.Additional Details (This online software also
10 05.12.2019 mentioned about Result published date but not
asked (mentioned) Certificate Issued date.
2.Upload documents
11 03.01.2020 Certificate Verification Call letter published date
12 03.01.2020 Rejection list published before CV
I attend my CV in Govt. G.hr.Sec.School,
13 08.01.2020
Chennai-600083
14 11.01.2020 Ineligible list published after CV
Provisional selection list published date (My name
15 11.01.2020
appear in Row no:
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
One man public notice w.p.no.35198/2019
16 17.12.2020
Published
Revised provisional selection list (My Name not
17 28.2.2020
appear in the whole list)
18 29.12.2020 I submitted my request letter to TRB office
I submitted my request letter to TRB office through
19 31.01.2020
courier
07.01.2020 Judgment copy
I submitted my first case judgment copy to TRB
20 08.02.2020
Office
TRB refused to the judgment letter from Madurai
21 23.03.2021
High Court Order
22 07.07.2021 RTI – Bharathiar University
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this
Court to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court, dated 22.09.2021, passed
in W.A.No.237 of 2021, in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu and others
vs. M.Sankar and others pertaining to a different recruitment notification,
but involving a similar issue. Relying upon the said judgment, learned
counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner was eligible
and fully qualified to apply for the subject post as per the recruitment
notification prior to the cut off date, her recruitment cannot be rejected, on the
sole ground that she produced the mark sheet only on 16.04.2019, which is
subsequent to the cut off date i.e. 10.04.2019. He would submit that a similar
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid
decision and the Division Bench of this Court has held that even though the
relevant document was submitted beyond the cut off date and the candidate
was fully qualified and eligible, he could not be deprived of his selection.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this
Court to another Division Bench Judgment of this Court, dated 25.08.2023,
passed in W.A.(MD) No.1339 of 2023, in the case of the Secretary to
Government and others vs. Minor S.Priyadharshan and others and would
submit that the Division Bench, in the aforesaid decision, has observed that
there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will
not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains to the domain of
procedure and therefore, applying the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of
this Court in the aforesaid decision, the respondents ought to have selected
the petitioner for the post of Computer Instructor Grade-I, as she is fully
eligible and qualified to be appointed to the said post. He also distinguished
the Judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court on
05.02.2021, in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.266 of 2020 etc., in the case
of S.Sindhu vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and another, wherein, the writ
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitions were dismissed, by submitting that the facts and circumstances of
that case are different from the facts and circumstances of the instant writ
petition. He would submit that the petitioners therein were not eligible to be
appointed to the subject post and on that ground, the writ petitions came to
be dismissed.
6. On the other hand, Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondent – Teachers Recruitment Board, would
submit that since the petitioner has not challenged the recruitment
notification, which makes it mandatory for the candidates to have the required
documents / certificates prior to the cut off date, the respondents have rightly
excluded the name of the petitioner from the selection list, as she did not have
the mark sheet prior to the cut off date, but she produced the same only at the
time of verification of documents. He would also rely upon the Judgment
rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 05.02.2021, referred to
supra, which was distinguished by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and
would submit that since the petitioner was not eligible as per the recruitment
notification on or before the cut off date, her name has been rightly excluded
from the selection list.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was fully qualified
and eligible to be appointed as Computer Instructor Grade-I, as per the
recruitment notification issued by the respondents. The cut off date, as per
the notification dated 01.03.2019, is 10.04.2019. The petitioner has satisfied
all the educational requirements as per the recruitment notification dated
01.03.2019 prior to the cut off date. Her M.Sc., Computer Science final year
results were published in the Website of Bharathiar University, Coimbatore,
on 11.03.2019 i.e. prior to the cut off date. It is not in dispute that the
educational qualifications prescribed under the recruitment notification have
been satisfied by the petitioner. However, the respondents rely upon the
“Note” mentioned in the educational qualification column, which is re-
produced hereunder, to support their contention that the name of the
petitioner has been rightly excluded from the selection list.
“Note: All qualifying / equivalent certificates
should have been obtained prior to the last date for
submission of filled-in online applications, announced in
the recruitment notification.”
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. In the instant case, M.Sc., Computer Science final year results
were published only in the month of March, 2019. Therefore, it is impossible
for the petitioner to obtain the mark sheet, provisional certificate and degree
certificates on or before the cut off date, though she is fully qualified and
eligible for appointment to the post of Computer Instructor Grade-I, as per the
recruitment notification. Admittedly, the petitioner was directed to produce
the documents for verification only in the month of January, 2020.
Admittedly, on that date, the petitioner had produced all the relevant
documents required to be produced as per the recruitment notification.
9. A Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider a
similar “Note”, as extracted supra, in its Judgment dated 22.09.2021, passed
in W.A.No.237 of 2021, though it pertains to a different recruitment
notification. The Division Bench of this Court has held that the above “Note”
found in the notification is not mandatory. It is only directory in nature as it
cannot be read in isolation without reference to the entire educational
qualification as what is required is that the candidate must possess the
qualification as per the notification on the date or before the last date of
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
submission of application through online mode. The Division Bench of this
Court, in the aforesaid decision, had also followed the decision of the
Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India vs.
Rimjhim [2019 (5) SCC 793] as well as the Division Bench Judgment of this
Court in the case of the Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board vs.
B.Jaiwanth and others, rendered on 23.12.2020, passed in W.A.(MD) No.
1058 of 2020, and observed that a narrow interpretation to the “Note” cannot
be given when there is no condition prescribed in the notification that if the
certificates are not uploaded before the last date of submission of application,
the candidature will be rejected.
10. In the case on hand also, under the recruitment notification,
there was no condition imposed that in case the candidate does not possess
the required certificates, though he is otherwise fully eligible and fully
qualified on or before the cut off date, his candidature can be rejected.
Therefore, the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the
aforesaid decision squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the
instant case, as a similar “Note” to the one, which is the subject matter of
consideration in this writ petition, was held to be directory and not mandatory
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and it was held that the rejection of the candidature of the candidate only due
to the fact that the candidate did not have the certificates prior to the cut off
date is not proper.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner had also relied upon
another Division Bench Judgment of this Court, dated 25.08.2023, passed in
W.A.(MD) No.1339 of 2023, referred to supra, and even in the said decision, it
was held that there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of
proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains to the
domain of procedure. It was also observed that every infraction of the rule
relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of
candidature.
12. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent –
Teachers Recruitment Board placed reliance on the Judgment rendered by a
learned Single Judge of this Court on 05.02.2021 in a batch of writ petitions
in W.P.No.266 of 2020 etc. batch, in the case of S.Sindhu vs. Government of
Tamil Nadu and another and would submit that the learned Single Judge
had dismissed the batch of writ petitions, on the ground that the petitioners
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
therein were not eligible and qualified on the cut off date, as per the
recruitment notification. He would draw parallel to the facts of the present
case and would submit that since the petitioner herein was not possessing the
mark sheet prior to the cut off date, she is not eligible or qualified to be
appointed as Computer Instructor Grade-I, as per the recruitment notification,
dated 01.03.2019. In the decision relied upon by the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondent – Teachers Recruitment Board, as seen
from the facts and circumstances of the case, the candidates were not eligible
or qualified prior to the cut off date, whereas, in the instant case, the
petitioner is qualified and eligible to be appointed to the subject post as per
the recruitment notification.
13. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent –
Teachers Recruitment Board had also submitted, while relying upon the
decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.266 of 2020 etc.,
batch, referred to supra, that the petitioner ought to have challenged the very
recruitment notification, which contains the said “Note”. According to him,
having not challenged the same, the petitioner is not entitled to file this writ
petition.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision
relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the “Note” is only
directory in nature and it is not mandatory. It is also to be noted that it would
have been impossible for the petitioner to possess the mark sheet prior to the
cut off date, since her M.Sc., Computer Science final year results were
declared only in the month of March, 2019. Within a span of few days, no
University will issue the mark sheet / provisional certificate / degree
certificates from the date of publication of the results. Therefore, being only
directory in nature, the “Note”, referred to in the recruitment notification, has
to be interpreted only in favour of the petitioner by holding that it is not
mandatory for the petitioner to possess the mark sheet prior to the cut off
date. The petitioner has produced all the documents, as per the recruitment
notification, when she was called upon to produce the same by the
respondents at the time of verification of documents.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the respondents, by non-
application of mind, have erroneously excluded the name of the petitioner
from the selection list for the post of Computer Instructor Grade-I, as per the
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
recruitment notification. In view of the same, the writ petition will have to be
allowed.
16. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed by directing the third
respondent to send a revised selection list to the fourth respondent by
including the name of the petitioner in the selection list to the post of
Computer Instructor Grade-I, within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of a copy of the same, the fourth
respondent shall issue an appointment order to the petitioner for the subject
post, within a period of four weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
06.08.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Secretary,
School Education Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus,
Chennai.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
krk
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.5759 & 5760 of 2021
06.08.2024
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
