Madras High Court
The Chairman vs A.Sumithra on 19 February, 2025
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
2025:MHC:502
W.A.No.892 of 2024
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.No.892 of 2024
and
C.M.P.No.6258 of 2024
The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, Puratchi Thalaivar
Dr.MGR Centenary Building,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai - 600 006. ... Appellant
versus
1.A.Sumithra,
D/o.B.Ayyappasamy,
No.3/973, Mahalakshmi Nagar,
N.S.Nadar Thottam,
Dindigul - 624 005.
2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai - 600 006. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside
the order passed in W.P.No.602 of 2021 dated 10.11.2022.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Neelakandan
Additional Advocate General
for Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
Standing Counsel
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.892 of 2024
For Respondents : Mr.G.Sankaran
Senior Counsel
for Mr.J.Jayamalan - R-1
Mr.U.M.Ravichandran
Special Government Pleader - R-2
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the Writ Court made in
W.P.No.602 of 2021 dated 10.11.2022.
2. The first respondent applied for the post of Computer Instructor
Grade-I (Post Graduate Cadre) in response to a Notification issued by the
appellant / Teachers Recruitment Board [hereinafter called as “TRB”] on
01.03.2019. The last date for submission of the application was on
10.04.2019. As per the Notification, a candidate must possess the required
qualification on the date of application. This is clear from clause 4(b)(viii)
which reads as follows:-
“(viii) The candidates not having prescribed
qualifications, as on the last date of submission of
filled-in online application, shall not be eligible to
apply. The candidates should satisfy themselves about
their eligibility before applying. It is to be noted that if
a candidate is allowed to appear for the examination it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
does not imply that the eligibility of the candidate is
verified. The eligibility shall be verified by the Board
only at the time of Certificate Verification.”
3. The note is appended in clause 8 which reads as follows:-
“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.”
4. The first respondent was successful in the written examination
and her name figured in the provisional list, she was called for certificate
verification. However, her name was left out in the revised provisional
selection list dated 28.12.2020. Contending that her exclusion is improper,
the first respondent came up with the writ petition, challenging the removal
of her name from the final list dated 28.12.2020 and sought for a mandamus
to restore her name and appoint her as Computer Instructor Grade-I (Post
Graduate Cadre) with all attendant benefits and seniority.
5. This claim of the first respondent was resisted by the TRB on
the ground that the first respondent had produced a consolidated mark sheet
in proof of her having acquired the required qualification and the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
consolidated mark sheet is dated 21.10.2019. Relying upon the note to
clause 8 which is extracted supra, the Board contended that since the proof
of the educational qualification has been obtained after the cut-off date,
namely 10.04.2019, the first respondent is rendered ineligible for
appointment.
6. The writ court rejected the said contention and concluded that
the claim of the Board is hyper technical. The writ court found that the first
respondent had acquired the minimum qualification required which is prior
to the cut-off date mentioned in the Notification namely 10.04.2019. Merely
because the consolidated mark sheet was issued on 21.10.2019, the first
respondent cannot be denied an opportunity of the employment. On the said
finding, the writ court allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved TRB is on
appeal.
7. We have heard Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional
Advocate General instructed by Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, learned Standing
Counsel, appearing for the appellant and Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Senior
Counsel instructed by Mr.J.Jayamalan, learned counsel, appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
first respondent and Mr.U.M.Ravichandran, learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the second respondent.
8. Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General
would reiterate the submissions that were made before the writ court to
contend that the first respondent is not entitled to an appointment since the
certificate obtained is after the cut-off date. Reliance is also placed on the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in The Secretary, Department
of School Education and others Vs. R.Vijayalakshmi and others dated
16.03.2020.
9. Contending contra Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the first respondent would submit that the claim of the TRB
that the certificate is issued after the cut-off date itself is incorrect. What is
produced at the time of certificate verification is a consolidated mark sheet
issued for all the three years and the said consolidated mark sheet itself
shows that the first respondent has appeared for the examinations between
December 2016 and January 2019 and she had secured a pass in all the
subjects.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. Therefore, it is clear that the first respondent has obtained the
qualification prior to the cut-off date and this very consolidated statement of
marks which was issued on 21.10.2019 provides ample proof for the fact
that the first respondent has acquired the qualification prior to the cut-off
date namely, 10.04.2019.
11. The learned Senior Counsel would also draw our attention to
clause 5(b) of the notification which reads as follows:-
“(b). Evidence for claims made by the candidate while
applying online should be submitted by the candidate
at the time of Certificate Verification, if called for.”
12. Support is drawn from this clause by the learned Senior
Counsel to submit that if the candidate produces proof of claim made in the
online application at the time of certificate verification, her claim cannot be
rejected on a technical ground.
13. Reliance is also placed by the learned Senior Counsel on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India Vs.
Rimjhim reported in (2019) 5 SCC 793 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court
after referring to various other pronouncements on the issue held that such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
technical approach cannot be adopted and also made a distinction between
the existence of a fact and proof of a fact.
14. We have considered the rival submissions.
15. The facts are not in dispute. The first respondent had acquired
the required qualification prior to the cut-off date in the Notification. The
results of the last exam undertaken by her in January 2019 were declared on
15.03.2019. Therefore, on the date when she applied, she was qualified for
being appointed as Computer Instructor Grade-I (Post Graduate Cadre). She
had made a declaration in her online application to the effect that she has
completed the Post Graduate qualification on the date of the application.
When she was called for certificate verification, she had produced
consolidated mark sheet which is dated 21.10.2019. This is sought to be
taken advantage of the Board to reject the candidature of the first
respondent relying upon the note to clause 4(b)(viii).
16. We do not think that such rejection is acceptable. From the very
mark sheet that has been produced, it could be gathered that the first
respondent has cleared all the examinations by January 2019. What has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
issued on 21.10.2019 is a consolidated mark sheet. The first respondent has
also produced individual mark sheets which goes to show that the first
respondent has completed the course on 15.03.2019 itself.
17. In this context, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Food Corporation of India cited supra assumes significance. Para 13 of
the said judgment reads as follows:-
“13. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the FCI that a
candidate must and/or ought to have produced the experience
certificate along with the application is concerned, at this stage, a
decision of this Court in Charles K. Skaria v. C. Mathew [(1980) 2
SCC 752 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 305] and the subsequent decision of this
Court in Dolly Chhanda v. JEE [(2005) 9 SCC 779 : 2005 SCC
(L&S) 734 : 5 SCEC 475] are required to be referred to. In Charles
K. Skaria [(1980) 2 SCC 752 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 305], this Court
had an occasion to consider the distinction between the essential
requirements and the proof/mode of proof. In the aforesaid case, this
Court had an occasion to consider the distinction between a fact and
its proof. In the aforesaid case before this Court, a candidate/student
was entitled to extra 10% marks for holders of a diploma and the
diploma must be obtained on or before the last date of the
application, not later. In the aforesaid case, a candidate secured
diploma before the final date of application, but did not produce the
evidence of diploma along with the application. Therefore, he was
not allowed extra 10% marks and therefore denied the admission.
Dealing with such a situation, this Court observed and held that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
what was essential requirement was that a candidate must have
obtained the diploma on or before the last date of application but
not later, and that is the primary requirement and to submit the proof
that the diploma is obtained on or before a particular date as per the
essential requirement is secondary. This Court specifically observed
and held that “What is essential is the possession of a diploma
before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of
the qualification.” This Court specifically observed and held that
“To confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity.”
This Court further observed and held that: (Charles K. Skaria case
[(1980) 2 SCC 752 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 305] , SCC p. 762, para 20)
“20. … To make mandatory the date of acquiring the
additional qualification before the last date for
application makes sense. But if it is unshakeably shown
that the qualification has been acquired before the
relevant date, as is the case here, to invalidate the merit
factor because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a
few days later but before the selection or in a manner not
mentioned in the prospectus, but still above board, is to
make procedure not the handmaid but the mistress and
form not as subservient to substance but as superior to the
essence.”
While observing and holding so, in paras 20 and 24, this Court
observed and held as under: (Charles K. Skaria case [(1980) 2 SCC
752 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 305] , SCC pp. 762-63)
“20. There is nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in
adding 10 marks for holders of a diploma. But to earn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
these extra 10 marks, the diploma must be obtained at
least on or before the last date for application, not later.
Proof of having obtained a diploma is different from the
factum of having got it. Has the candidate, in fact,
secured a diploma before the final date of application for
admission to the degree course? That is the primary
question. It is prudent to produce evidence of the diploma
along with the application, but that is secondary.
Relaxation of the date on the first is illegal, not so on the
second. Academic excellence, through a diploma for
which extra mark is granted, cannot be denuded because
proof is produced only later, yet before the date of actual
selection. The emphasis is on the diploma; the proof
thereof subserves the factum of possession of the diploma
and is not an independent factor. … Mode of proof is
geared to the goal of the qualification in question. It is
subversive of sound interpretation and realistic decoding
of the prescription to telescope the two and make both
mandatory in point of time. What is essential is the
possession of a diploma before the given date; what is
ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To
confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred
perspicacity. To make mandatory the date of acquiring
the additional qualification before the last date for
application makes sense. But if it is unshakeably shown
that the qualification has been acquired before the
relevant date, as is the case here, to invalidate this merit
factor because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a
few days later but before the selection or in a manner not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
mentioned in the prospectus, but still above board, is to
make procedure not the handmaid but the mistress and
form not as subservient to substance but as superior to
the essence.
***
24. It is notorious that this formalistic, ritualistic,
approach is unrealistic and is unwittingly traumatic,
unjust and subversive of the purpose of the exercise. This
way of viewing problems dehumanises the administrative,
judicial and even legislative processes in the wider
perspective of law for man and not man for law. Much of
hardship and harassment in administration flows from
overemphasis on the external rather than the essential.
We think the Government and the selection committee
rightly treated as directory (not mandatory) the mode of
proving the holding of diplomas and as mandatory the
actual possession of the diploma. In actual life, we know
how exasperatingly dilatory it is to get copies of degrees,
decrees and deeds, not to speak of other authenticated
documents like mark-lists from universities, why, even
bail orders from courts and government orders from
public offices. This frustrating delay was bypassed by the
State Government in the present case by two steps.
Government informed the selection committee that even if
they got proof of marks only after the last date for
applications but before the date for selections they could
be taken note of and secondly the Registrars of the
Universities informed officially which of the candidates
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
had passed in the diploma course. The selection
committee did not violate any mandatory rule nor act
arbitrarily by accepting and acting upon these steps. Had
there been anything dubious, shady or unfair about the
procedure or any mala fide move in the official exercises
we would never have tolerated deviations. But a
prospectus is not scripture and common sense is not
inimical to interpreting and applying the guidelines
therein. Once this position is plain the addition of special
marks was basic justice to proficiency measured by
marks.”
(emphasis in original)
A similar view is taken by this Court subsequently in Dolly Chhanda
[(2005) 9 SCC 779 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 734 : 5 SCEC 475] , relying
upon the aforesaid decision of this Court in Charles K. Skaria
[(1980) 2 SCC 752 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 305] .”
18. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the fact that the
first respondent has acquired the qualification is not in question. It is only
the method of proof and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had made it very clear
that the candidature should not be rejected on hyper technical grounds
particularly when it relates to proof of a fact and not the existence of a fact
itself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19. The judgment that is referred to by the learned Additional
Advocate General arose in totally different facts. That was a case where the
candidates claimed quota reserved for persons studied in Tamil medium and
the production of certificate along with the application to the effect that they
are studied in Tamil medium was mandatory.
20. In such circumstances, the Division Bench said non-production
of the certificate would entirely amount to disqualification. So the said
judgment of the Division Bench cannot be a precedent to justify the hyper
technical approach adopted by the appellant Board.
21. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Writ
Court. Hence, the Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(R.S.M., J.) (G.A.M., J.)
19.02.2025
Speaking order
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
sri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.A.Sumithra,
D/o.B.Ayyappasamy,
No.3/973, Mahalakshmi Nagar,
N.S.Nadar Thottam,
Dindigul - 624 005.
2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
sri
and
19.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
