Madras High Court
R.Borgia vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 January, 2024
2024/MHC/6162
W.P(MD)No.27930 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.01.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.P(MD)No.27930 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD)No.24027 of 2023
R.Borgia ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Secretary,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
College Road,
Chennai-6. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents to declare the petitioner as qualified in the Teachers
Eligibility Test conducted in the year 2012 for Paper II for post of
B.T.Assistant as per the decision of the Honble Apex Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan
For R1 : Mr.G.Suryaananth
Additional Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.P(MD)No.27930 of 2023
For R2 : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
Standing Counsel
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the
respondents to declare the petitioner as qualified in the Teachers
Eligibility Test conducted in the year 2012 for Paper II for post of
B.T.Assistant as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
2. The petitioner is fully qualified for the post of Secondary Grade
Teacher and B.T Assistant. The TET examination was conducted for the
post of Secondary Grade Teacher and B.T Assistant in the year 2012. In
which, the petitioner participated and secured 92 marks in paper I and 83
marks in paper II. He was declared qualified in paper I and not qualified
in paper II. It was fixed 90 marks as qualified out of 150 marks and 60%
was the pass percentage. While so, the Government decided to relax 5%
and accordingly, issued G.O.Ms.No.25 School Education (TRB)
Department, dated 06.02.2014 by relaxing 5% of marks and fixing 82 as
a pass mark for S.C., S.T., B.C., B.C.(M)., M.B.C., D.N.C., and persons
with disability for the test conducted in the year 2013 alone. Since 82
was declared as pass in the year 2013 contending that there is no bar to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
fix the same mark to the candidate who appeared for the examination in
the year 2012, this writ petition came to be filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in W.P(MD)No.2677 of 2014 has dealt
with a similar matter along with W.P(MD)No.4558 of 2014.
W.P(MD)No.4558 of 2014 was allowed and W.P(MD)No.2667 of 2014
was dismissed Against which, the 2nd respondent and private individuals
who participated in the examination independently filed several SLPs
before the Hon'ble Apex Court. All the cases were taken up together by
the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same was reported in 2017 (1) SCC 322
(Lavanya & Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its
Principal Secretary & Others and State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by
its Secretary to Government & Others & S.Vincent & Others). The
relevant portion of the same is extracted as follows:
42. The Madras High Court rightly rejected the
challenge to G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 06.02.2014 and
G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 30.05.2014, holding that as per the
NCTE Guidelines, the State Government has the power to
grant relaxation on the marks obtained in TET for the
candidates belonging to reserved category and the same is
affirmed. The Madurai Bench did not keep in view the NCTE
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Guidelines and the power of the State Government to grant
relaxation in terms of their extant reservation policy and
erred in quashing G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 06.02.2014 and
hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
43. The appeals filed by the State Government are,
accordingly, allowed and the impugned judgment of the
Madurai Bench is set aside. The impugned judgment of the
Madras Bench of the High Court is affirmed and all the
appeals preferred by the unsuccessful candidates are
dismissed.
4. The Hon'ble Apex Court observing the fact that G.O.Ms.No.25,
dated 06.02.2014 and G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 30.05.2014 were upheld by
the Principal Bench of this Court observed that the Madurai Bench
without keeping in view the NCTE Guidelines and power of State
Government to grant relaxation in terms of their extant reservation policy
erred in quashing G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 06.02.2014. A careful perusal of
the materials available on record and G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 06.02.2014
would reveal that the said Government Order itself was given
retrospective effect to the TET examination conducted in August 2013.
However, the benefit of the said relaxation was not extended to the
candidates who participated in the TET conducted in the year 2012.
Seeking the extend of the benefit of the same, one S.Vincent had filed
W.P(MD)No.2677 of 2014 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Division
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Bench of this Court. However, both the respondents have filed SLP
before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Though the Hon'ble Apex Court was
pleased to uphold G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 06.02.2014, nothing has been
decided considering the case of Vincent giving relaxation of 5%. But it is
brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that a contempt petition was later filed by the said Vincent.
The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent fairly
conceded that as a One Time Measure, the said benefit was extended to
the said Vincent alone. The writ petitioner seeking fruits of the benefits
availed by the said Vincent, has filed this writ petition seeking to extend
the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.25 and consider his case as qualified in the
TET conducted in the year 2012 for paper II for the post of B.T
Assistant. However, such an exercise has been undertaken by the
petitioner after a lapse of 6 years.
5. The learned Standing Counsel vehemently submitted that
selection process has been improved by introducing an additional
competitive examination vide G.O.Ms.No.149 School Education (TRB)
Department, dated 20.07.2018 requiring the candidates qualified in TET
to attend an additional competitive examination in addition to the
examination conducted by the 2nd respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. I am afraid to observe that consideration of the petitioner's case
to be declared as qualified in TNTET 2012 by relaxing 5% of marked for
paper II would open up a pandora box and flood gate of litigation by
similarly placed persons as that of the petitioner. Having slept over his
rights for more than 6 years since 2017, after a judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in 2017 (1) SCC 322, the petitioner has
filed this writ petition belatedly. In view of the same, on the basis of
delay and latches, I do not find any merits in this case.
7. Hence, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
02.01.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
gbg
To
1.The Secretary,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Secretary,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
College Road, Chennai-6.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
L.VICTORIA GOWRI,J.
gbg
Order made in
Dated:
02.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
