Madras High Court
Teachers Recruitment Board vs K.Sudarmathi on 16 September, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A No. 2744 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-09-2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A No. 2744 of 2025
and
CMP.No. 22035 of 2025
Teachers Recruitment Board,
(Recruitment of Secondary Grade Teachers
for Elementary Schools)
College Road,
Chennai-600006. ..Appellant
Vs
1.K.Sudarmathi
2.The Secretary,
Department of Education,
Government of Tamilnadu,
St.Geroge Fort, Chennai.
3.The Director,
Directorate of Elementary Education,
Chennai-600006.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )
W.A No. 2744 of 2025
4.The Commissioner for Welfare of Differently Abled,
State Commissionerate for Welfare of Differently Abled,
No. 5, Kamarajar Salai,
Lady Willington College Campus,
Chennai-600005.
5.The District Officer for Disabled Personnel,
The District Disabled Personnel Office,
District Collectorate Office,
Dharmapuri -636705. ..Respondents
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the
order dated 21.12.2023 passed in W.P.No. 21040 of 2009.
For Appellant: Mr. R.Neelakandan, AAG
Asst. by Mr C. Kathiravan, Standing Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.S.Sathiaseelan – R1
Mr.J.C. Durairaj, AGP – R2 & R3
Mr. E.Vijay Anand, R4 & R5
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )
W.A No. 2744 of 2025
JUDGMENT
(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.)
This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 21.12.2023
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 21040 of 2009. By the said
order, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to select and recommend
the name of the first respondent/writ petitioner to the third respondent, and in
turn, the third respondent was directed to appoint the first respondent/writ
petitioner to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal are as follows. Pursuant to the
notification dated 12.01.2009 issued by the appellant, the first respondent/writ
petitioner submitted her application seeking consideration for selection and
appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher under the 1% reservation
provided for the hearing impaired category. On learning that similarly situated
candidates had been selected and appointed, the writ petitioner made several
representations to the appellant requesting selection and appointment to the said
post. However, no orders were passed on her request. The writ petitioner,
asserting that she was fully qualified and eligible for appointment, approached
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )
this Court by filing W.P. No. 21040 of 2009 seeking a writ of mandamus, which
was allowed by the learned Single Judge under the impugned order.
3. Mr. R. Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the appellant, submitted that the first respondent/writ petitioner does not
satisfy the eligibility criteria as per the guidelines issued by the Department of
Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities vide notification dated 05.01.2018,
published in the Gazette of India. It was contended that in view of the said
guidelines, the learned Single Judge erred in directing the appointment of the
writ petitioner, and therefore, the impugned order is not legally sustainable.
4. Per contra, Mr. S. Sathiaseelan, learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent/writ petitioner, submitted that the recruitment notification was
issued in 2009 and therefore the rules and criteria applicable at that time alone
are relevant. The writ petitioner, who is suffering from 60% hearing
impairment, was fully qualified and eligible to be considered under the 1%
quota reserved for hearing impaired persons under the Persons with Disabilities
(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
The learned counsel further submitted that the guidelines issued in 2018 cannot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )
be applied retrospectively, and therefore, the learned Single Judge had rightly
held that the writ petitioner was entitled to appointment. It was thus contended
that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or
infirmity warranting interference by this Court.
5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials placed on record.
6. It is not in dispute that the appellant issued a notification dated
12.01.2009 inviting applications for recruitment to 5773 posts of Secondary
Grade Teachers in the Tamil Nadu Elementary Educational Subordinate
Services for teaching Standards I to IV in Elementary and Middle Schools,
covering all mediums of instruction including Tamil medium. The writ
petitioner, who possessed the requisite qualifications, applied under the 1%
quota reserved for candidates suffering from hearing impairment. Her
candidature, however, was not considered, which compelled her to approach
this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )
7. The learned Single Judge relied upon Section 2(t) of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)
Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1995”), which defines a “person
with disability” as a person suffering from not less than forty percent of any
disability as certified by a medical authority. The Act, 1995 provides for 3%
reservation in favour of persons with disabilities, out of which 1% is earmarked
for hearing impaired persons. The writ petitioner produced a disability
certificate issued by the competent authority certifying that she suffers from
60% hearing impairment.
8. Before the learned Single Judge, the learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the State did not dispute the fact that the writ petitioner
was suffering from 60% hearing impairment. He, however, raised a doubt as to
the genuineness of the disability certificate. To resolve this, the certificate was
referred to the Commissioner for the Welfare of Differently Abled, who
submitted a report affirming its genuineness.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )
9. Upon considering all these aspects, the learned Single Judge concluded
in paragraph 28 of the order as follows:
“28. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is
eligible for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher
for the following reasons:
(i) The petitioner suffers from 60% hearing impairment.
(ii) 1% of the total posts are reserved for the hearing impaired
category.
(iii) The petitioner’s application was duly accepted by the
Teachers Recruitment Board.
(iv) The petitioner successfully completed the two-year teacher
training course, including teaching practice.
(v) If the petitioner was not eligible for appointment, the
respondents ought not to have admitted her to undergo the
training course for two years.”
10. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the reasoning of the
learned Single Judge. The recruitment notification was issued in 2009, long
before the issuance of the 2018 guidelines. The eligibility of the writ petitioner
must therefore be determined with reference to the rules and statutory
provisions applicable at the relevant time, namely, the Act, 1995. The writ
petitioner, having been certified to suffer from 60% hearing impairment, clearly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )
fell within the ambit of “person with disability” under Section 2(t) of the Act,
1995. The denial of appointment to her despite her qualification and eligibility
is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of her statutory rights.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion
that the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition and
directing the appointment of the writ petitioner. We find no illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference in this appeal.
12. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and is dismissed. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(R.S.K.,J) (H.C., J)
16.09.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )
To
1.The Secretary,
Department of Education,
Government of Tamilnadu,
St.Geroge Fort, Chennai.
2.The Director,
Directorate of Elementary Education,
Chennai-600006.
3.The Commissioner for Welfare of Differently Abled,
State Commissionerate for Welfare of Differently Abled,
No. 5, Kamarajar Salai,
Lady Willington College Campus,
Chennai-600005.
4.The District Officer for Disabled Personnel,
The District Disabled Personnel Office,
District Collectorate Office,
Dharmapuri -636705.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
ak
16.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )
