← Library
Madras High CourtWP/4608/2011dismissed

M.Rajarajeswari v. The Chairman

2022-01-07Honourable Mr Justice D. Krishnakumar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.01.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR W.P.NO.4608 OF 2011 AND M.P.NO.2 OF 2011 M.Rajarajeswari ... Petitioner .Vs.

The Chairman, The Teachers Recruitment Board, Government of Tamilnadu, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

... Respondents PRAYER:- The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records comprised in the order dated 17.02.2011 passed in respect of registration No.B34291107 for Direct Recruitment of Assistant Professors in Government Arts and Science Colleges 2009-2010 on the file of the respondent quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor Business Administration in the Direct Recruitment of Assistant professor in Government Arts and Science Colleges in Tamilnadu Collegiate Education Service. For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Bharanidharan For Respondent :

Mr.C.Kathiravan Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

According to the petitioner, pursuant to the notification issued by the respondent Board calling for applications to fill up vacancies for the post of Assistant Professors in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Education Service, the petitioner had applied for the

post of Assistant Professor (Business Administration) before the respondent Board. The petitioner satisfied all the requirements to qualify for selection to the post of Assistant Professor. It was informed by the respondent Board that the petitioner was not having prescribed qualification. Hence, she was not called for certificate verification. On 6.6.2010 the petitioner noticed that the respondent published notification dated 2.6.2010 in their website wherein a list of candidates provisionally selected was published calling for certificate verification. She found that the petitioner's name was not included in the selection list. On verification, the petitioner came to know that one V.Shenbagapriya with Registration No.B3429100 who had also applied under the B.C. Women quota and secured 28 marks was selected for the very same subject.

Further, she also found that one S.Sheelarani with Registration No.B34291056 who had applied under the General Turn Women quota and secured 28 marks also got selected. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the candidates who had secured very same 28 marks got selected, whereas the petitioner was not selected for the reason best known to the respondent. Hence, she filed the present writ petition before this Court.

2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent wherein it is stated that the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Business Administration) as per the notification issued by the respondent Board. The petitioner belongs to backward community and she was called for certificate verification. At the time of certificate verification, she was awarded weightage marks as follows:

a) For qualification :

9 Marks b) Teaching experience :

15 Marks c) Interview :

4 Marks ---------------- 28 Marks ---------------- In sofar as the allegation of the petitioner that one candidate by name V.Shenbagapriya got selected in B.C. Turn with 28 marks, her date of birth is 22.5.1973, whereas the petitioner's date of birth is 25.12.1975. Since she was senior in date of birth than the petitioner, she was selected. In sofar as the other candidate by name, Dr.S.Sheela Rani whose date of birth is 28.10.1963 and scored 28 marks got selected. Therefore, the other two candidates who secured very same 28 marks are seniors in date of birth, got selected.

3. In view of the specific stand taken by the respondent Board in the counter affidavit filed that the other two candidates who obtained 28 marks like petitioner got selected on the basis of marks and taking into consideration of the date of birth as per the notification. Therefore, allegation of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. Further, the petitioner has not challenged the provisional list of selected candidates published by the respondent board by impleading necessary parties in the writ petition. As such, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as there is no merit in the writ petition.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No cost. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vaan To The Chairman, The Teachers Recruitment Board, Government of Tamilnadu, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

+1cc to Mr.C.Kathiravan, Advocate, S.R.No.1479 W.P.NO.4608 OF 2011 AND M.P.NO.2 OF 2011 GSM(CO) PBS/31/01/2022