D. Murugan, v. The Teachers Recruitment Board
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 3.10.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN W.A.No.210 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.3445 of 2017 D.Murugan Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
1. The Teachers Recruitment Board, rep. by its Member Secretary, EVK Sampath Maligai, 4th Floor, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
2. The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer, Tiruvannamalai District.
Respondents/Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 2.12.2016 passed in W.P.No.7243 of 2015 on the file of this court.
WP.No.7243/15:Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of the Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to Call for the records of the first respondent, dated NIL published in the Official Website so far as it declares that the petitioner (Registration No.14 PG 10250126) is not within the cut off zone and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent herein to award 2 marks to the petitioner to the post of PG Assistant (Commerce) in B.C. (General) Category/ Physically Handicapped Category in the selection pursuant to the Notification in Advertisement No.8 of 2014 dated 7.11.2014.
For appellant : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy For respondents : Mr.Venkatramani, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.R.Prathapkumar, AGP
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for either side for some time.
2. The writ appeal challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed challenging the selection process of the respondents for the post of PG Assistant (Commerce).
3. It appears that the appellant/writ petitioner competed for the above post and having prescribed qualification and after scoring 99 marks in the selection process, was waiting with the fond hope that he would be awarded with two marks for his teaching experience and thereby he would get appointment for the post, but, since the same was neglected on the ground that the experience certificate produced by him was not counter-signed by the authority concerned viz., Chief Educational Officer, he filed the writ petition. By an interim order passed by this court in the writ petition, one post was ordered to be reserved to accommodate the writ petitioner, if he succeeds. Subsequently, the writ petition came to be dismissed and hence, the present writ appeal is filed.
4. It appears that the appellant/writ petitioner had submitted an application in a computerised form indicating the experience as three years and three months and at the time of verification, for want of counter signature of the Educational Officer, the certificate could not be produced and the stand of the appellant/writ petitioner is that when he had attempted to get it counter-signed he could succeed in his attempts and for no fault on the part of the appellant, he had been denied the appointment.
5. The stand of the Department is that it is the responsibility of the appellant to get the experience certificate counter-signed and moreover, now, there is no vacancy and every vacancy had been filled up. It is further contended in their counter that the appellant had submitted a declaration format wherein against column No.12 viz., 'Teaching Experience', he had written NIL and therefore, he was not awarded any weightage marks for Teaching Experience.
6. In this situation, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner is that had the appellant been awarded two marks for experience, he could be passed through when there is no dispute with regard to the experience of the appellant and subsequently, it was counter-signed by the authority concerned, but, in the meanwhile, the declaration form was not filled by the appellant himself but, by the officials at the time of verification and hence, such fault cannot be attributed to the appellant.
7. Is not in dispute that in view of the interim order of this court to keep one post reserved to accommodate the appellant, it further appears that the appellant/petitioner is a physically challenged person and out of 135 vacancies originally notified, it appears from the counter filed by the Department that three vacancies were reserved for physically handicapped category and out of that, one vacancy was not filled up due to non-availability of suitable candidate.
8. Further, it appears from the materials available that on 16.3.2015 itself one post was directed to be kept reserved for contingency and though it is represented that provisional selection list was made ready on 25.2.2015 itself, it appears that subsequent verification had taken place on 10.4.2015 and by that time, six vacancies were left to be filled due to nonavilability of candidates in the communal roster and the appellant/petitioner had produced the experience certificate counter signed on 19.3.2015.
9. The above aspects reveal nothing but, inaction on the part of the Educational Officer in countersigning the experience certificate and such delay is not because of the candidate but, due to the act of omission on the part of the authority concerned in counter signing.
10. At this juncture, it is submitted on the side of the Department that the vacancies, if at all left out to be filled up, they belong to some other category and hence, the appellant could not be accommodated as against such vacancies.
11. Sofar as reservation policies are concerned, except the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, other categories are concerned, if they are not filled up for want of candidates, it need not be carried over subsequently. Therefore, there cannot be any impediment for the Department to accommodate the appellant/writ petitioner as against the vacancies notified for other categories. Therefore, we are of the opinion that as against the posts which are yet to be filled up, but, reserved for other category except for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, the appellant/writ petitioner can be accommodated by awarding two marks for the Teaching Experience, if he is otherwise, found eligible, which exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
12. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssk.
To:
1. The Member Secretary, The Teachers Recruitment Board, EVK Sampath Maligai, 4th Floor, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
2. The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer, Tiruvannamalai District.
+1cc to Mr.Dakshiyani Reddy, Advocate, S.R.No.71108 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 71193 W.A.No.210 of 2017 SKS(CO) GN(02/11/2017)