Madras High Court
Saravanavalli vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By on 30 October, 2024
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.No.30124 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.30124 of 2024
and W.M.P.Nos.32828, 32829, 32831 & 32834 of 2024
Saravanavalli .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep by,
The Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
School Education Department,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Teacher's Recruitment Board,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records leading to the
publication of provisional selection list to the post of Graduate Teacher
(Tamil) on the basis of notification No.03/2023, dated 25.10.2023
published on 23.08.2024 by the 3rd respondent and quash the same in so
far as the petitioner for her non selection.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/15
W.P.No.30124 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kamalanathan
For RR 1 & 2 : Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru
Special Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.M.Alagu Goutham
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the provisional
selection list published on 23.08.2024 by the 3rd respondent in so far as
not including the name of the petitioner in the selection list pursuant to
the Notification dated 25.10.2023.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent issued a
Notification dated 25.10.2023 for recruitment of teachers including
Graduate Teacher (Tamil). According to the petitioner, she possessed all
the qualifications and she was also called to write the written
examination. The petitioner secured 86 marks in the written examination
and after adding weightage marks, the petitioner secured a total of 91
marks. The further case of the petitioner is that she comes under the SC
category and is also entitled for reservation in the sub-category as
women. Thereby, the petitioner should have been placed in Sl.No.220 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the provisional selection list. However, the name of the petitioner was
not included in the provisional selection list. It is under these
circumstances, the present writ petition came to be filed before this
Court.
3.When the matter came up for hearing on 28.10.2024, the
position note was filed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
(TNPSC). It was stated that the petitioner did not fulfill the qualification
prescribed under clause 6(b) of the Notification and the petitioner did not
have the B.Ed qualification which was essential to consider the selection
of the petitioner.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has in fact completed the B.Ed and when she attempted to give
the certificate at the time of certificate verification, the same was refused
to be accepted. Therefore, a specific stand has been taken to the effect
that the petitioner possesses all the essential qualifications prescribed
under clause 6(b) of the Notification.
5.In the light of the above submission, this Court directed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
learned counsel for the petitioner to produce the B.Ed certificate issued
in the name of the petitioner and accordingly directed the matter to be
listed for hearing today.
6.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned
counsel for the petitioner produced the B.Ed degree certificate issued to
the petitioner by the Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University,
Chennai, dated 15.02.2018.
7.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Teachers
Recruitment Board (TRB) submitted that the certificate that has been
placed before this Court today was neither uploaded at the time of
submitting the application nor was submitted at the time of certificate
verification. What was actually uploaded by the petitioner and was
produced at the time of certificate verification was the Tamil Pandit
training certificate which cannot be considered on par with the B.Ed
certificate.
8.On carefully considering the submissions made on either side
and the materials available on record, the only issue to be considered is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
as to whether the petitioner possess all the essential qualifications
prescribed under the Notification.
9.The petitioner has completed the B.Ed. course and a degree
certificate has also been issued by the concerned University on
15.02.2018. However, by the time, the petitioner completed the B.Ed
course, the petitioner had already passed the TET. Therefore, since TET
was completed before obtaining the B.Ed degree, the prevailing website
will not accept the certificate and therefore, the petitioner cannot upload
the B.Ed certificate. In the certificate verification, the petitioner will be
allowed to produce only those certificates which were uploaded along
with the application.
10.The issue regarding completing the TET before getting the
B.Ed qualification was dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.29849 of
2024. By order dated 04.10.2024, the writ petition was allowed and the
relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
“8.The issue involved in the present writ
petition is squarely covered by the earlier order
passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.18386 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18389 of 2024, dated 02.08.2024. The relevant
portions are extracted hereunder:
8. The above
clarification has been
consequent to the order made
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
(arose from S.L.P.
(C).No.16698 of 2018 and it
was disposed of on
16.07.2019. In fact, the
subject matter of the above
proceedings is the
interpretation for the word
“pursuing” adopted in similar
such Notification issued by
the State of Punjab. A doubt
was raised by some of the
candidates with regard to the
word “Pursuing”. While
disposing of those
litigations, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has given the
following order:
“Para 8.3 ... as per
dictionary meaning, the word
“Pursuing” means undergoing
and / or proceeding further.
Therefore, a candidate who
has been admitted in any of
the TTC and undergoing the
teacher training course (TTC)
can be said to be “Pursuing”
such teacher training course
and shall be eligible to
appear in the TET
examination, irrespective of
the fact that whether, by the
last date specified for
filling up the online form
for TET examination, he has,
in fact, appeared in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
examination of the concerned
teacher training course and
the result is awaited.
“Pursuing” the requisite
teacher training course is
sufficient to make such a
candidate eligible to appear
in the TET examination.
Therefore, on a fair reading
of Clause 5(ii) of the NCTE
guidelines, a person who has
been admitted in TTC and is
pursuing, he / she can appear
in the TET examination”
.... Para
8.4......Therefore, it is
clear that the respective
appellants herein whose
appointments were challenged
were eligible to appear in
the TET examination at the
time they were “Pursuing” the
concerned TTC. Thus, we hold
that the decision of the High
Court, to the aforesaid
extent, is not sustainable.
The impugned orders of the
High Court are accordingly
modified to the aforesaid
extent....”
9. The National Council
for Teachers Education has
accepted the clarity given by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the above said order,
wherein, it is clarified that
‘pursuing’ can only mean
undergoing or proceeding
further. So, it is further
clarified that a limited
interpretation that the
candidate who is pursuing the
requisite course should be in
the final year examination,
cannot be given. So a person
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
who is undergoing the course
can also appear in TET
Examination. In similar
lines, a clarification has
been issued by NCTE to the
Directorate of Education
stating that the person who
has been admitted in the
training course and pursuing
can appear in the TET
Examination. When the
National Council for Teacher
Education itself has given
the above clarification, to
the terms of the Notification
issued by the TRB, the
Government of Tamil Nadu
should also need to read it
in the same spirit. Even by
looking at the apparent terms
under 3(b) of the
Notification, seven
educational requirements are
contemplated. One of the
criteria is graduation with
at least 50% marks and pass
or appearing in final year
B.Ed., (Special Education)
and another option is that
any candidate having
qualified B.Ed., programme
recognized by the NCTE and
they are eligible to appear
for Tamil Nadu Teacher
Eligibility Test (TET).
10. A special reference
has been made about the above
clarificatory note issued by
the National Council to the
Guidelines issued by the NCTE
and it is stated that a
person who is pursuing any of
the Teacher Education course
recognized by NCTE or the
person who has been admitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in Teacher Training Course,
as the case may be, is also
qualified to appear in the
TET examination. So, these
petitioners, who have been
undergoing the Teacher
education course either by
pursuing B.Ed., (Special
Education) or any other
B.Ed., programme (which is
recognized by the NCTE) are
also eligible to appear for
TET
11. Even if the
candidates who cannot fit
themselves under the sixth
eligibility stated in the
Notification can find
themselves fit under the 7th
eligibility. These
petitioners having themselves
found in one of the
eligibility criteria had
appeared for TET examination
and got it cleared. There is
no dispute with regard to
their TET pass. The only
objection is that at the time
when they appeared for TET
they have been pursuing
second year teacher education
course and not in the final
year.
12. The very purpose of
giving a clarificatory note
issued by the National
Council for Teacher
Education, dated 04.08.2022,
only to allege the above said
doubt and in which has has
been made very clear that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that the candidate
should have pursued the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Teacher Education Course
irrespective of the year in
which the candidates happened
to appear for the TET
Examination is eligible. The
TRB has misconstrued its
Notification and has
interpreted the same without
aid of the clarificatory note
also given by the National
Council for Teacher Education
on 04.08.2022 and also the
judgment given by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.5564 of 2019 (arose from
which was disposed of on
16.07.2019) and rejected
these candidates on the
premises that they were not
in the final year of the
Teacher education course when
they appeared for TET.
9.In the case in hand, the petitioner had
earlier participated in the selection in the year
2017 and at that point of time, since the
petitioner had an arrear in one of the subject in
B.Ed., the petitioner was not able to produce
the B.Ed., Certificate and the candidature was
rejected. This decision taken by the respondent
was perfectly in order, since the petitioner only
had a TET Certificate and did not have a B.Ed.,
Certificate. Thereafter, the petitioner has
completed B.Ed., during May 2018.
10.When the petitioner attended the
certificate verification, the petitioner had
submitted all the certificates. The petitioner
admittedly had completed the minimum
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
educational qualification and had also
completed B.Ed., and also had cleared TET.
The fact that the petitioner had cleared TET in
2017 and B.Ed., in 2018 does not take away the
right of the petitioner to participate in the
selection. This is in view of the fact that the
candidate is permitted to take TET examination
even during the final year of B.Ed., degree. The
issue has been discussed in detail in the
judgment referred supra.”
11.This Court has categorically held that the fact that the petitioner
had cleared TET even before getting the B.Ed degree, does not take
away the right of the petitioner to participate in the selection. This is in
view of the fact that the candidate is permitted to take the TET
examination even during the final year of B.Ed degree.
12.In the light of the above discussion, this Court holds that the
petitioner possesses all the essential qualifications prescribed under the
Notification. Hence, the petitioner must be permitted to submit the B.Ed
degree certificate and the name of the petitioner must also be included in
the provisional selection list for the post of Graduate Teacher (Tamil)
and proceeded further in accordance with law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13.Even if there are no vacancies as per the provisional selection
list, which every candidate has secured lesser marks than the petitioner
should be informed that his / her candidature cannot be considered, since
the petitioner has secured more marks. Ultimately, the provisional
selection list is only in the realm of selection and the real appointment is
yet to take place. Therefore, the respondents can always resort to this
procedure.
14.In the result, this Writ Petition stands allowed with the above
directions. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed. No costs.
30.10.2024
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep by,
The Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
School Education Department,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Teacher's Recruitment Board,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
krk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
30.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
