V.Bhuvaneswari v. The Chairman And Director

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 30.07.2018 Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.VENUGOPAL and The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR W.A.No.1612 of 2018 V.Bhuvaneswari ..

Appellant / Writ Petitioner Vs.

The Chairman and Director, Teachers Recruitment Board, IV Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

..

Respondent/Respondent Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 19.08.2014 and made in W.P.No.30042 of 2012 by the learned Judge of this Court.

W.P.No.30042 of 2012 Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the representation submitted on 25.10.2012 by the petitioner with reference to subsequent representation dated 29.10.2012 for inclusion of the petitioners name in the Tentative Provisional List of Candidates called for Certificate verification for the Recruitment of post physical Education Director Grade I for the year 2011-12 pursuant to the release of the selection list dated 23.10.2012 of the 1st respondent For Appellant :

Ms.V.Vanitha J U D G E M E N T [Judgment of the Court was made by M.VENUGOPAL, J.] The Appellant/Petitioner (as an aggrieved person) has preferred the instant Writ Appeal as against the order dated

19.08.2014 in W.P.No.30042 of 2012 passed by the Learned Single Judge in disposing of the Writ Petition.

2.Earlier, this Court, while passing the impugned order in W.P.No30042 of 2012 on 19.08.2014 (filed by the Appellant/Writ Petitioner) at paragraphs 4 and 5 had observed the following: "4.It is now stated by the Learned Government Advocate that the entire selection was over and appointments were made and therefore, the Petitioner's prayer to direct the Respondent to consider her representation to include her name in the provisional selection list would not arise.

5.It is unfortunate that this matter was not disposed at the earliest occasion. Now, the selection itself is over. Hence, the Petitioner has remedy only by way of questioning the selection, if she is so advised. Therefore, I am not inclined to issue direction to the Respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation for inclusion of her name in the provisional selection list. However, this could not preclude the Petitioner from challenging the selection to the post of Physical Education Director, Grade-I for the year 2011-12."

and ultimately disposed of the Writ Petition without costs. 3.Assailing the correctness, legality and validity of the impugned order dated 19.08.2014 in W.P.No.30042 of 2012 passed by the Learned Single Judge, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Appeal by taking a plea that the Learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that the Appellant is the only candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe, who secured 73 marks and as such, the Appellant would have been selected if the representation dated 25.10.2012 was directed to be considered.

4.The Learned counsel for the Appellant projects an argument that even a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribe (Arundhadiyer-Woman) who secured 65 marks, below the marks secured by the Appellant, was called for certificate verification for the recruitment as Physical Education Director, Grade-I. Yet another contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant is that merely because of the selection itself was over, the representation of the Appellant/Petitioner for inclusion of her name in the provisional list ought not to have been negatived.

5.Lastly, it is the stand taken on behalf of the Appellant that if the representation of the Appellant/Petitioner dated 25.10.2012 is taken into consideration by the Respondent, certainly, her name will have to be necessarily included in the List for the year 2011-12.

6.In this connection, a perusal of the representation of the Appellant/Petitioner dated 25.10.2012 addressed to the Respondent shows that the Appellant had mentioned in the said representation that she had secured 73 marks in the mark list published by the Teachers' Recruitment Board on 18.10.2012 but in the list of marks in respect of Physical Education Director, Grade-I which was published on 23.10.2012, her name was omitted. Hence, the Appellant in her representation had sought for inclusion of her name in the selection list for the year 2011-12 and further, to appoint her as Physical Education Director, Grade-I.

7.Considering the fact that selection itself was over, this Court is of the considered view that the view taken by the Learned Single Judge in not issuing the direction to the Respondent to consider the Appellant's representation dated 25.10.2012 for inclusion of her name for the provisional selection list does not suffer from any material irregularity or patent illegality in the eye of Law. Apart from that, on perusal of the impugned order dated 19.08.2014 in W.P.No.30042 of 2012 passed by the Learned Single Judge, this Court is of the earnest opinion that the Learned Single Judge while disposing of the Writ Petition gave an option/liberty to the Petitioner to challenge the selection to the post of Physical Education Director, Grade-I for the year 2011-12. Looking at any angle, the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.30042 of 2012 is free from any legal flaw. Consequently, the Writ Appeal fails.

8.In fine, the Writ Appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar DP

To The Chairman and Director, Teachers Recruitment Board, IV Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

+1cc to Mr.C.Johnson, Advocate, S.R.No.51460 W.A.No.1612 of 2018 SJ(CO) GSP(10/08/2018)