Madras High Court
R.Mahalakshmi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 May, 2024
Author: R. Mahadevan
Bench: R.Mahadevan, Mohammed Shaffiq
W.A.No.2654 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.05.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Writ Appeal No.2654 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.22292 of 2023
1. R.Mahalakshmi
2. C.Amirtham .. Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. Teachers Recruitment Board,
Rep. by its Chairman,
4th Floor, Puratchi Talaivar,
Dr.M.G.R.Centenary Building,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
3. The Director of School Education,
(Higher Secondary School)
Chennai - 600 006.
(3rd Respondent was suo motu impleaded as
per the order of this Court dated 06.02.2023
made in W.P.No.1474 of 2023)
.. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside
the order dated 17.08.2023 made by the learned Judge in WP.No.1474 of 2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/13
W.A.No.2654 of 2023
For Appellants : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Advocate
for Mrs.C.Uma
For R1 : Mr.D.Ravichander,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.R.Neelakandan, Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.K.Sathish Kumar,
Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 17.08.2023 passed
by the learned Judge in dismissing the writ petition bearing no. 1474 of 2023
filed by the appellants / writ petitioners.
2. The aforesaid writ petition has been filed by the appellants for
issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to issue
appointment orders to the appellants herein who have secured 82.84 marks in the
written examination held on 23.06.2019 conducted by the second respondent for
the post of Computer Instructors Grade-I pursuant to Notification No.09/2019
dated 01.03.2019 under the Backward Class (BC) community category, on the
premise that two of the candidates who were already selected were found to be
not eligible to the post in question for want of equivalence certificate and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
therefore, the appellants herein, who were next in the line of selection under the
BC community category, should have been considered for appointment.
3. It was projected by the appellants before the learned Judge that the
appellants very recently came to know about the fact that two of the selected
candidates were found to be not eligible for want of equivalence certificate and
hence, they cannot be found fault with in approaching the Court belatedly.
4. Denying the allegations made in the writ petition, a counter affidavit
was filed by the second respondent, viz., the Teachers Recruitment Board (in
short, 'the TRB') before the writ Court, inter alia, stating that the appellants were
found to be not eligible for appointment to the post inasmuch as the degrees
obtained by them were found not equivalent. The entire selection process,
pursuant to the Notification of the year 2019 had attained finality. The remaining
unfilled vacancies and the withheld vacancies were carried forward to the
subsequent recruitment and the subsequent recruitment process, which was
commenced pursuant to Advertisement No.01/2021 dated 09.09.2021 for
recruitment in the year 2020-21 had also attained finality. The candidates who
were appointed pursuant to notification of the 2019 had, in fact, completed their
probation period. In the circumstances, the writ petition filed after a lapse of two
years is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. On hearing both sides, the learned Judge held that though two of the
candidates who had secured marks higher than the appellants were originally
selected for appointment, their results were withheld for want of equivalence
certificate and subsequently, they were not given appointment for want of
equivalence certificate and as such, those two vacancies were left unfilled; that
the vacancies notified in a particular notification must have been filled before the
subsequent notification is issued; and that if any vacancies were left out in the
earlier notification for some reasons, such vacancies must be carried forward to
the next recruitment process. It was further observed that the appellants having
missed the bus, now, cannot come around and say that they came to know about
the fact only recently and hence, it is too late on the part of the appellants to seek
for a mandamus. Having observed so, the learned Judge dismissed the writ
petition.
6. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this court with the
present appeal.
7. The learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that in the
revised Provisional List for direct recruitment for the post of Computer
Instructors Grade-I (Post Graduate Cadre) pursuant to Notification No.09/2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dated 01.03.2019, in Sl.No.382, the name of Shajina V.Vazhiyil and in
Sl.No.394, the name of Roselin Mary Clare Kulandairaj, both belonging to BC
community, were included against whose names the remark WH (withheld) was
notified. But, they were not immediately declared as ineligible. The appointment
orders were issued to eligible candidates in the list read with the addendum
Notification and the results of 42 withheld candidates, including the said two
candidates still remained under the withheld category and all 42 posts for whom
results were withheld, continued to remain vacant till end 2022. Therefore, the
statement in the counter affidavit in para 11 that appointment orders were issued
for eligible candidates except withheld candidates and the remaining vacancies,
including the withheld vacancies of candidates were not selected and those
vacancies were carried forward to the subsequent recruitment, is a wrong
statement. The above said two vacancies continued to remain vacant without
being carried forward and only on 26.08.2022, by G.O.Ms.No.169, Higher
Education Department, in Sl.No.25, the B.Sc. (Computer Science) and Computer
Applications degree awarded by Avinashilingam Institute for Home Science and
Higher Education for Women where the said two candidates had studied, was
declared as not equivalent to B.Sc. (Computer Science) for the purpose of
employment in public services. Even before issuance of G.O.Ms.No.169, supra,
the appointment orders to eligible candidates under Notification No.09./2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dated 01.03.2019 and Advertisement No.01/2021 dated 19.09.2021 for the post
of Computer Instructor Grade-I for the year 2020-21 were issued and recruitment
was finalized under the said Notifications. Thus, the two vacancies referred to
above were available only on 26.08.2022 on account of G.O.Ms.No.169, supra.
Hence, the statement that all vacancies were filled up and the recruitment under
Notification No.09/2019 issued by the second respondent dated 01.03.2019 was
completed and also the recruitment under Notification No.01/2021 dated
09.09.2021 has attained finality, is incorrect, since the said two vacancies became
available only on passing G.O.Ms.No.169, supra, which was much later to the
above said two notifications.
7.1. Adding further, the learned senior counsel for the appellants
submitted that soon after G.O.Ms.No.169 dated 26.08.2022 was issued, the above
said two candidates were declared ineligible for the post of Computer Instructor
Grade-I. Hence, the appellants addressed a representation dated 28.08.2022 to the
second respondent to issue appointment orders to them as those two candidates
were disqualified, but, the same was not considered. In the circumstances, the
appellants were not guilty of delay and laches in approaching this Court. It is also
submitted that none of the vacancies on account of the remark “withheld” was
carried forward and notified under Notification No.1/2021 dated 09.09.2021 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
they remained vacant almost till the end of 2022. The learned senior counsel
particularly stated that in Notification No.1/2021, no backlog vacancies were
notified for the post of Computer Instructor Grade-I and hence, the claim of the
second respondent in their counter affidavit that vacancies of withheld candidates
under Notification No.9/2019 dated 01.03.2019 were carried forward to the next
notification is totally false.
7.2. It is further pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the
appellants that the appellants were found to have the required qualification by
virtue of G.O.Ms.No.84, Higher Education Department dated 03.06.2022 in
Sl.No.45 and by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.65, Higher Education Department dated
24.04.2019 and the said two Government Orders were filed in the Court to
disprove the allegation in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit that the appellants
were not eligible for the post of Computer Instructor Grade-I since they did not
possess the eligible qualification as per G.O.Ms.No.361, School Education
Department dated 31.12.1999. Without considering all these aspects, the learned
Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. Stating so, the
learned Judge sought to allow this appeal by setting aside the order impugned
herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for
the second respondent submitted that the learned Judge has passed the order,
after taking note of the submissions made on the side of the respondents, before
the writ Court in a proper manner and hence, the same does not require any
interference at the hands of this Court.
9. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records
carefully and meticulously.
10. The appellants have sought the relief before the writ court on the
ground that when two of the candidates who were already selected for the post of
Computer Instructors Grade-I pursuant to Notification No.09/2019 dated
01.03.2019 under the Backward Class (BC) community category, were found to
be ineligible for want of equivalence certificate, the appellants who were in the
next line of selection under the BC community category and possessing the
necessary qualifications, ought to have been considered for appointment to the
said post. However, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition mainly on the
ground of delay and laches on the part of the appellants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. The stand of the appellants herein is that the above said two
vacancies continued to remain vacant without being carried forward and only on
26.08.2022, by G.O.Ms.No.169, Higher Education Department in Sl.No.25, the
B.Sc. Computer Science and Computer Applications Degree awarded by
Avinashilingam Institute for Home Science and Higher Education for Women
where the said two candidates had studied, was declared as not equivalent to
B.Sc. Computer Science for the purpose of employment in public services and
hence, only from that point of time, the said two vacancies became vacant. It is
also their stand that none of the vacancies on account of the remark “withheld”
was carried forward and notified under Notification No.1/2021 dated 09.09.2021
and they remained vacant almost till the end of 2022. It is also specifically
submitted that they were having the required qualification as per the relevant
Government Orders and hence, it cannot be stated that they did not possess the
eligible qualification.
12. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent authorities that the
entire selection process, pursuant to the Notification of the year 2019 had
attained finality; the remaining unfilled vacancies and the withheld vacancies
were carried forward to the subsequent recruitment; and the subsequent
recruitment process had also attained finality.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. It is seen that the learned Judge in the order impugned herein, pointed
out that the vacancies notified in a particular notification must have been filled
before the subsequent notification is issued; that if any vacancies were left out in
the earlier notification for some reasons, such vacancies must be carried forward
to the next recruitment process; and that merely because the appellants are next
in the line with merits below the names of withheld candidates, it would not
enure any right to them to be considered for appointment. Ultimately, the learned
Judge dismissed the writ petition, observing that it is too late on the part of the
appellants to seek for a mandamus.
14. The fact remains that the 2019 recruitment process has been completed
long ago. Further, the subsequent recruitment process pursuant to Advertisement
No.01/2021 dated 09.09.2021 had also attained finality. It is also an admitted fact
that the candidates who were appointed pursuant to 2019 Notification had
completed their probation period. Had the appellants been aggrieved by the
selection process pertaining to the year 2019, they ought to have been more
vigilant and should have approached the Court at the right time. When the 2019
recruitment process and the subsequent recruitment process have attained finality
and the candidates who were appointed pursuant to 2019 Notification had also
completed their probation period, the appellants, having not acted with alacrity,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
but, slept over the matter for a very long period like Rip Van Winkle, cannot
come around and now, make a prayer to consider them for appointment for 2019
Notification. At this length of time, if the prayer of the appellants is entertained,
it is tantamount to derailing the entire recruitment process already made, which
will greatly hamper the existing and future recruitment process. At this juncture,
it will not be out of place to advert to the following sapient passage from the
judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal and another v Shiv
Charan Singh Bhandari and others1:
“27. We are absolutely conscious that in the case at hand the
seniority has not been disturbed in the promotional cadre and no
promotions may be unsettled. There may not be unsettlement of the settled
position but, a pregnant one, the respondents chose to sleep like Rip Van
Winkle and got up from their slumber at their own leisure, for some reason
which is fathomable to them only. But such fathoming of reasons by oneself
is not countenanced in law. Anyone who sleeps over his right is bound to
suffer. As we perceive neither the Tribunal nor the High Court has
appreciated these aspects in proper perspective and proceeded on the base
that a junior was promoted and, therefore, the seniors cannot be denied the
promotion.“
(emphasis supplied)
Hence, the contentions raised on the side of the appellants, cannot be
countenanced by this court.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the
learned Judge was justified in declining to grant the appellants / writ petitioners
the relief sought in the writ petition.
1 (2013) 12 SCC 179
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. In fine, the writ appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.M.D., J.] [M.S.Q., J.]
10.05.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
rk
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Higher Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, Puratchi Talaivar,
Dr.M.G.R.Centenary Building,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
3. The Director of School Education,
(Higher Secondary School)
Chennai - 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R. MAHADEVAN, J
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J
rk
and
10.05.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
