Madras High Court
The Joint Director (Secondary ... vs R.Jayaprabha on 20 February, 2025
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: J. Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.A.(MD)No.2446 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.2446 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.16994 of 2024
1.The Joint Director (Secondary Education),
School Education Department,
Chennai.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
District Collectorate Campus,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Srivilliputhur,
Virudhunagar District. ... Appellants
Vs.
1.R.Jayaprabha
2.The Secretary,
Sri Rao Bahadur A.K.D.Dharma Raja Girls
Higher Secondary School,
Rajapalayam – 626 117. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order
of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.30434 of 2023, dated 20.12.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.A.(MD)No.2446 of 2024
For Appellants :Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
For R1 :M/s.H.Jasima Yasmin
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For R2 : No Appearance
***
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.SRIMATHY, J.)
This Writ Appeal is filed by the respondents in the writ petition
challenging the order dated 20.12.2023 passed in Writ Petition W.P.(MD)No.
30434 of 2023.
2.The Writ Petition was filed for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to
quash the impugned order, dated 15.09.2022 and consequently to direct the 2nd
respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the 4th Respondent
school with the effect from 15.04.2015 with all consequent attendant benefits with
arrears of salary.
3. The briefs facts as stated in the writ petition are that the 4th
respondent school is an aided non-minority school governed under the Tamil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act and the orders issued by the
government from time to time. The school in order to fill up the vacancy called for
applications vide proceedings dated 12.01.2015 through open market though
paper publications issued on 22.01.2015 and also called for a list from the
Employment Exchange. As per the said notification, two posts were notified for
the vacancy of BT Assistant (Tamil) and the communal roaster for said posts are
OC and SC (Arunthathiyar - under preferential basis). The petitioner belongs to
SC community and qualified to the said post and had participated in the selection
process. The School Committee selected the petitioner and appointed as BT
Assistant (Tamil) vide the order dated 13.04.2015 and the petitioner had joined
the duty on 15.04.2015. Initially the proposal was returned, citing the order in
W.P.(MD)No.2677 of 2014 dated 29.09.2014 setting aside G.O.Ms.No.25 dated
06.02.2014 granting relaxation of TET marks. However, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had uphold the said G.O. Pursuant to the said order, directions were issued
by the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 01.03.2017 to approve the
appointments as per G.O.Ms.No.25. Hence again the proposal was resubmitted on
14.03.2017 for approval of appointment, the 3rd respondent returned the said
proposal on the ground the communal roaster was not followed. The contention of
the writ petitioner is that since there were no suitable meritorious person available
from SC(A) category, the writ petitioner was appointed under the category of SC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The said issue was already decided by the Hon'ble Court in several writ petitions
and writ appeals. The government has also passed G.O.Ms.No.65, Personnel and
Administrative Reforms Department, dated 27.05.2005, clarifying if SC(A) is not
available, the said post can fill up SC. There is no impediment to approving the
appointment of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition was filed.
4. The appellants submitted that when the selection process was started,
when the school is aware that no SC(A) candidate is not available, then the school
ought to have submitted non-availability certificate along with a letter seeking
permission from the appellants to call for the candidates from SC category alone.
Thereafter ought to have conducted the selection process again.
5. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court has given its anxious
considerations. Under G.O.Ms.No.61, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (TD2)
Department, dated 29.05.2009, it has been stated under:
“The seats to Arunthathiyars shall be offered in the rotation 2,32 and
66”, the following expression shall be substituted namely:-
“The seats to be allotted to Arunthathiyars on preferential basis shall
be offered in the horizontal rotation such as 2,32 and 66. The
preferential seats if filled up, it does not mean that the other qualified
Arunthathiyars shall not compete with the rest of the Scheduled Castes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
members on inter-se available to fill up the preferential seats, it does
not mean that the vacancies so arising shall not be filled up by the
Scheduled Castes members on merit basis”.
When the said G.O., permits the school to appoint SC candidate, if SA(A)
candidate is not available, then the school is having right to appoint any SC
candidate. And the same is in accordance to the aforesaid G.O.
6. In the percent case, the school has called for applications from SC
and SC(A) category. In the paper publication it is mentioned as per rotation the
post is allotted to SC (Arunthathiyar - under preferential basis) and once it is
mentioned so then the same ought to be read along with G.O.Ms.No.61, which
had statutory force.
7. In the selection process three SC(A) candidates have applied,
however only one SC(A) candidate participated in the selection process namely
Nagajothi. And the other two SC(A) candidates were marked as “absent”. In the
selection process other SC candidates also participated. The cutoff mark
prescribed for SC/ST candidates was 82.5. The said SC(A) candidate Nagajothi
acquired only 60 marks, whereas the writ petitioner Jeyabrabha (SC) candidate
had scored 83 marks and has emerged as meritorious candidate. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
writ petitioner would be the successful candidate when she has scored 83 marks.
8. The Writ Court have considered all the grounds raised by the
appellants. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no
infirmity in the order passed by the Writ Court.
9. Hence the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[J.N.B., J.] [S.S.Y., J.]
20.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
Tmg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Joint Director (Secondary Education),
School Education Department,
Chennai.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
District Collectorate Campus,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Srivilliputhur,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and
S.SRIMATHY, J.
Tmg
20.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
