Madras High Court

T.Gangeswari vs The State Rep By on 26 September, 2025

                                                                                       W.P.No.15235 of 2019

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                            RESERVED ON : 17.09.2025

                                         PRONOUNCED ON : 26.09.2025

                                                           CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

                                               W.P.No.15235 of 2019
                                             and WMP.No15225 of 2019

                     T.Gangeswari                                                            .. petitioner

                                                                 vs

                     1.The State rep by
                     The Secretary to Government
                     School Education Department
                     Fort St.George, Chennai – 600009.

                     2.The Member Secretary
                     Teachers Recruitment Board
                     EVK Sampath Buildings
                     DPI Compound
                     College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

                     3.The Commissioner
                     Employment and Training
                     Commissioner Office
                     Guindy, Chennai – 600092.

                     4.M.K.Ravichandran                                                … Respondents


                     Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                     praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records

                     1/18




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:52 pm )
                                                                                                     W.P.No.15235 of 2019

                     pertaining          to   the    order       passed         by       the   2nd   respondent       in
                     Na.Ka.No.8655/L2/2018 dated 25.03.2019 and quash the same and direct
                     the respondents to cancel the appointment of the 4th respondent and to
                     appoint the petitioner from the date on which the 4th respondent was
                     appointed as BT Assistant – Tamil and to confer all the consequential
                     benefits.

                                  For Petitioner      : Mr.V.Sivalingam
                                                           for M/s.C.S.Associates

                                  For Respondents : M/s.A.Bakkiyalakshmi, GA for R1.
                                                    Mr.C.Kathiravan, SC for R2
                                                    M/s.V.Yamunadevi, Spl.GP for R3.

                                                                 ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Advocate for R1, learned Standing counsel for R2 and the

learned Special Government Pleader for R3 and perused the records.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that she passed B.Lit in the

year 1987 and acquired B.Ed degree in 1991 and registered herself with

Employment Exchange on 06.11.1992; that as per the Government Orders

whenever vacancy arises for appointing BT Assistant, the said vacancy is to

be filled up according to the employment exchange seniority; that when her

turn for being selected as BT Assistant came, the respondents instead of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:52 pm )

appointing her in the said vacancy have appointed the 4th respondent to the

said post, even though, the said respondent is bestow her in employment

exchange seniority, having registered his name only on 26.04.1993.

3. It is further case of the petitioner that since, the respondents have

appointed the 4th respondent who is junior to her in employment exchange

seniority, she had submitted a representation dated 30.10.2012 specifically

pleading the aforesaid fact and since, no order has been passed thereon, the

petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition in WP.No.2765

of 2013, wherein the respondents by the Counter affidavit stated that the

employment exchange registration of 4th respondent to be 26.04.1992, as

such he being senior to the petitioner, and thus having been appointed in the

said vacancy; and that based on the said statement, this Court had dismissed

the writ petition on 28.07.2017.

4. Petitioner further contended that aggrieved by the aforesaid order

of dismissal, the petitioner had filed writ appeal vide WA.No.1826 of 2018,

wherein the Division Bench of this Court on the respondents making a

statement of she being selected as Graduate Assistant on 31.01.2012 had

directed the respondents 2 and 3 to verify as to whether the said order of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:52 pm )

appointment being communicated to her and she having not accepted the

said appointment, if so reject the case of the petitioner/appellant. Further,

this Court also held that if no such selection is made and communicated to

the petitioner at the relevant point of time, directed respondents 2 and 3 to

consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.10.2012 and do the needful

in accordance with the law within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of a copy of the order.

5. The petitioner contends that after this Court passing the order in

writ appeal on 27.08.2018 giving three months time to the respondents, the

respondents did not pass any order on the petitioner's representation and for

the said reason she had submitted representation dated 16.11.2018, followed

up by an Advocate notice dated 08.01.2019.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that though the respondents

acknowledged the receipt of the aforesaid representation and Advocate

notice, did not pass any orders forcing the petitioner to approach this Court

by filing contempt petition in Cont.P.No.431 of 2019; and that during the

pendency of the aforesaid contempt petition the respondents have passed the

order rejecting the claim made by the petitioner under representation dated

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:52 pm )

30.10.2012, claiming that the 4th respondent registered his name in

employment exchange on 26.04.1992, while the petitioner has registered her

name on 06.11.1992, being the reason for her not being selected to the

B.T.Assistant vacancy.

7. It is the further case of the petitioner that in response to RTI

application filed by her seeking information with regard to 4th respondent

registration with employment exchange, the District Employment Exchange

Officer, Ariyalur, furnished information, whereby it is claimed that the 4th

respondent has registered himself with the employment exchange on

passing of B.Ed only on 26.04.1993. Thus, the petitioner contends that the

respondents have deliberately manipulated the records correcting the date of

registration of the 4th respondent with the employment exchange to get order

of this Court and to favour the 4th respondent.

8. Further, the petitioner contends that the respondents have been

adopting different stands at different point of time, as at an earlier point of

time when the petitioner had approached this Court by filing writ petition

vide WP.No.2765 of 2013 and writ appeal in WA.No.1826 of 2018, it was

claimed that the petitioner was offered appointment as Graduate Assistant

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:52 pm )

by the Teachers Recruitment Board on 28.03.2012 and she did not avail the

said opportunity.

9. It is further contended that upon her denial of being issued with any

appointment order, this Court in writ appeal directed the respondents 2 and

3 to verify as to whether the said order of appointment was communicated

to her and she had refused to accept the same.

10. It is also further contended that in the earlier writ petition filed by

her vide W.P.No.2765 of 2013, the 3rd respondent therein viz., the

Commissioner, Employment and Training, Commissioner Office, Guindy,

Chennai by his counter affidavit had claimed of she being offered

appointment by the Teachers Recruitment Board on 28.03.2012 and she did

not avail the said appointment, due to which the respondents appointed the

4th respondent according to the seniority on the basis of his date of

registration with the employment exchange being 26.04.1992.

11. The petitioner contends that if the claim of the respondent of the

4th respondent being registered with employment exchange on 26.04.1992

and thus, being senior to petitioner is to be accepted as a correct statement;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:52 pm )

the statement made to the Court of the petitioner being offered the

appointment of Graduate Assistant on 28.03.2012 and she having not

accepted the same and thus, the said vacancy of B.T.Assistant being filled

up by the 4th respondent would be incorrect statement, as going by the date

of registration with the employment exchange, as claimed by the 2nd

respondent, the 4th respondent would be senior to the petitioner and would

get the 1st preference over the petitioner rather than he being treated below

the petitioner in Employment Exchange Seniority. Thus, the aforesaid stand

of the respondents itself falsifies their claim. Thus, the entire selection

process had done by manipulating the records (i.e,) by altering the date of

registration of the 4th respondent with the employment exchange to get over

the order of this Court and to favour the 4th respondent. Thus, the impugned

order dated 25.03.2019 issued under the signature of the 2nd respondent is

liable to be quashed.

12. Counter affidavit on behalf of the third respondent is filed.

13. The 3rd respondent by the counter affidavit filed while not

disputing the claim of the petitioner of the 4th respondent Employment

Exchange registration date being 26.04.1993, however claimed that the 4th

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:52 pm )

respondent was well within the ambit of selection with regard to cut off date

arrived for backlog vacancies, as the 4th respondent was not nominated

along with the petitioner and was nominated later against the backlog

vacancy received from second respondent vide letter dated 28.03.2012,

three years after sponsoring the petitioner with nomination ID.506BCGNP.

14. The respondent by the counter further claimed that they are not

aware of this Court order in WA.No.1826 of 2018 dated 27.08.2018,

wherein this Court had directed the respondents 2 and 3 therein to consider

the application of the petitioner and to do the needful and accordingly, the

3rd respondent had sent the order copy to the 2nd respondent on 20.11.2018

requesting them to take necessary action as they are the employer and the

order can be complied with only by them.

15. By the counter affidavit, it is further claimed that the 4th

respondent had been appointed only against the backlog vacancy notified by

the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 28.03.2012, three years after sponsoring

the petitioner and thus, it is well within the ambit of selection of the cut off

date for back log vacancy.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:52 pm )

16. The respondent by enclosing the copy of the counter affidavit

filed by them along with the material papers in writ petition in WP.No.2736

of 2018 to the counter affidavit filed in this writ petition, contended that

since, the vacancy to be filled up is BC (Gen) non priority, the cut off date

was notified as 16.02.1994 and since, the 4th respondent is well within the

cut off date against the notified backlog vacancy, the 4th respondent has

been selected.

17. Though no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 2nd

respondent is filed, the counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent

submitted that since, the employment exchange seniority of the 4th

respondent is mentioned as 26.04.1992, he was selected against the vacancy

of BT Assistant excluding the petitioner, as such the action of the second

respondent in excluding the petitioner who is junior to the 4th respondent

does not call for any interference.

18. The 4th respondent despite entering appearance through counsel,

no counter affidavit has been filed nor the counsel appeared before the

Court today to advance the arguments.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:52 pm )

19. In the aforesaid back drop, this court proceeded to consider the

respective contentions urged by the counsel appearing for the parties.

20. The short point that falls for consideration in this writ petition is

whether the 2nd respondent could have excluded the petitioner from the zone

of consideration and consider the 4th respondent for appointing him to the

post of BT-Assistant reserved for BC(Gen), pursuant to the vacancy notified

on 28.03.2012.

21. Though, the second respondent had categorically claimed that the

selection of the 4th respondent is on account of his Employment Exchange

seniority, the 3rd respondent who is the competent authority to certify the

actual date of registration with the employment exchange, having stated that

the registration of the 4th respondent to be on 26.04.1993, the 2nd respondent

could not have considered the registration one year prior to the actual date

of registration (i.e, 26.04.1992) thereby placing the 4th respondent in

seniority over the petitioner, who was registered with the employment

exchange on 06.11.1992. If the actual date of registration of the 4 th

respondent with the employment exchange is taken into consideration, the

4th respondent would be junior to the petitioner by nearly six months. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:52 pm )

2nd respondent instead of placing the 4th respondent as junior to the

petitioner, however chose to place the 4th respondent as senior to the

petitioner by six months, and appointed him to the post of BT Assistant over

looking the petitioner's seniority. The fact of 2nd respondent not filing the

counter, justifying their stand and on the other hand the 3 rd respondent by

the counter affidavit seeking to justify the action of the 2nd respondent in

appointing the 4th respondent claiming that the appointment of 4th

respondent is against the backlog vacancy notified by the 2nd respondent

vide letter dated 28.03.2012, three years after sponsoring the petitioner's

name, would not by itself confer any right on the respondent to exclude the

name of the petitioner, unless and until it is shown that the petitioner having

either been selected for some employment or on being offered employment

having rejected to take up the said employment.

22. It is for this reason, the Division Bench of this Court in

WA.No.1826 of 2018 had specifically noted the submission made by the

respondent, of the petitioner being offered employment earlier, directed the

respondent to verify as to whether such appointment having been

communicated to the petitioner and petitioner having refused to join the

aforesaid appointment. However, before this Court to substantiate the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:52 pm )

aforesaid submission made before the Division Bench of this Court in order

to deny the claim of the petitioner. On the other hand, the 3 rd respondent

sought to shirk from its responsibility claiming that they have addressed a

communication to the 2nd respondent to look into the matter and the 2nd

respondent on the other hand by remaining silent on this aspect and also

having not filed any counter affidavit, would only go to show that the claim

made by them earlier before the Division Bench of this Court was only to

get away from this Court examining the matter in detail and to get the matter

closed by making some statement which is not backed by any evidence.

23. If only the statement made before the Division Bench of this

Court was correct, the respondent ought to have put the said fact as ground

with evidence while rejecting the claim of the petitioner by the impugned

order. Instead the respondent chose altogether a different ground to deny

the claim of the petitioner. This only goes to show that the stand taken by

the respondent to deny the claim of the petitioner is not genuine but is

invented to suit their convenience, which in the considered view of this

Court cannot be countenanced.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:52 pm )

24. The 2nd respondent being a State ought to conduct itself in a fair

and transparent manner by affording opportunity to all the eligible

candidates to fulfil aspirations of securing a Government job, instead of

showing favouritism or bias in favour of any particular candidate by

adopting modus operandi as resorted to by the 2nd respondent by altering the

year of registration of the 4th respondent with employment exchange,

advancing by an year, would only go to show that undue favouritism has

been shown to the 4th respondent in getting him selected to the post of BT

Assistant as against the eligible candidate including the petitioner.

25. Further it is to be noted with regard to the cut off dates, each of

the respondents took a different stand. The second respondent in the

counter affidavit filed in WP.No.2765 of 2013 had stated that in respect of

the backlog vacancy 2010-2011 last candidate selected in BC (Grl) and BC

(W) communal turn for BT Assistant (Tamil) are 30.09.1992 and

29.09.1992 respectively.

26. The 3rd respondent by the counter affidavit filed in the said writ

petition had claimed that cut off date for BC (Grl) non priority to be

16.02.1994. After this Court passing the order in WA.No.1826 of 2018

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:52 pm )

dated 27.08.2018 directing the respondents to consider the representation of

the petitioner dated 30.10.2012, the respondents in the impugned order had

come up with new cut off date, wherein it has been mentioned under :-

“In the case filed by the petitioner, the Teacher

Recruitment Board examined the employment registrations for

the year 2010-2011 on the basis of seniority, with respect to the

cut-off dates for candidates selected under the Backward Class

category for the post of B.T. Assistant (Tamil). According to the

records, only those registered with the Employment Exchange

up to the following dates were selected: BC (General) -

08.09.1992, BC (Women) - 14.09.1992, GT (General) -

02.09.1992, and GT (Women) - 11.09.1992.”

27. The respondents on the basis of the aforesaid cut off date, claimed

that since, the employment exchange seniority of the petitioner is dated

06.11.1992 she would not fall within the zone of consideration, while the 4th

respondent whose date of registration with the employment exchange is

stated as 26.04.1992 eligible to be selected, it is to be noted that the claim of

the 2nd respondent by the impugned order being contrary to the actual date

of registration of the 4th respondent with the employment exchange as

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:52 pm )

indicated by the competent authority i.e., 3rd respondent, by its counter

affidavit, the impugned order rejecting the representation of the petitioner

claiming the action of the 2nd respondent in appointing the 4th respondent

overlooking the seniority of petitioner cannot be held to be valid, for the

reason the 2nd respondent having varied their stand from time to time to suit

their convenience.

28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan

vs.Indraj Singh Etc reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 518, it is held in

paragraph No.10 of the judgment as follows:

“10. In India, the reality is that there are far more takers of Government jobs than there are jobs available. Be that as it may, each job which has a clearly delineated entry process - with prescribed examination and/or interview process, has only to be filled in accordance thereof. Absolute scrupulousness in the process being followed instills and further rejuvenates the faith of the public in the fact that those who are truly deserving of the positions, are the ones who have deservedly been installed to such positions. Each act, such as the one allegedly committed by the respondents represent possible chinks in the faith of the people in the public administration and executive.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:52 pm )

29. Thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the entire selection

process followed to by the 2nd respondent in selecting the candidate for the

post of BT Assistant, smacks of transparency and that the 2nd respondent had

acted in utter disregard to the fairness which is required to be exhibited by

2nd respondent while dealing with public appointments.

30. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the claim of the

respondent of the selection process having been held in accordance with the

procedure cannot be accepted as valid claim for it to receive stamp of

approval from this Court.

31. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned

proceedings dated 25.03.2019 by which claim of the petitioner is rejected, is

set aside and the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to appoint the petitioner to

the post of B.T.Assistant with effect from the date when the 4th respondent

is appointed to the said vacancy. No order as to costs. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

26.09.2025

tsh

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:52 pm )

Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

To