P.Indira, v. The Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.08.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.NOS.9919 TO 9923 OF 2012 W.P.No.9919 of 2012:
P.Indira Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, Chennai - 6.
India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring the selection of 16,549 Part Time Instructors to the Abhiyan as null and void and ultra vires of G.O.Ms.No.177 dated 11.11.2011 and direct the respondent to carry out the selection in accordance to the G.O.Ms.No.177 dated 11.11.2011 and publish results District-wise in the order of marks scored.
W.P.No.9920 of 2012:
G.Paul Sathian Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, Chennai - 6.
in M.P.No.2/12 in W.P.Nos.9920 to 9923 etc. batch) of 1293 part-time Instructors in Vellore District to the Abhiyan in G.O.Ms.No.177, dated 11.11.2011 and quash the same and direct the 5th respondent to appoint the Petitioner as parttime Instructor in Vellore District. 4/12 in W.P.Nos.9920 to 9923 etc. batch).
W.P.No.9921 of 2012:
A.K.Sangeetha
Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, in M.P.No.2/12 in W.P.Nos.9920 to 9923 etc. batch) of 1293 part time instructors in Vellore District to the Abhiyan in G.O.Ms.No.177 dated 11.11.2011 and quash the same and direct the 5th respondent to appoint the Petitioner as part-time Instructor in Vellore District.
4/12 in W.P.Nos.9920 to 9923 etc. batch ).
W.P.No.9922 of 2012:
V.Yesudass
Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, in M.P.No.2/12 in W.P.Nos.9920 to 9923 etc. batch) of 1293 part time instructors in Vellore District to the Abhiyan in G.O.Ms.No.177 dated 11.11.2011 and quash the same and direct the 5th respondent to appoint the Petitioner as part-time Instructor in Vellore District.
4/12 in W.P.Nos.9920 to 9923 etc. batch ).
W.P.No.9923 of 2012:
D.Gokulakrishnan Sarva Siksha Abhiyan,
in M.P.No.2/12 in W.P.Nos.9920 to 9923 etc. batch,) of 1293 part-time Instructors in Vellore District to the Abhiyan in G.O.Ms.No.177 dated 11.11.2011 and quash the same and direct the 5th respondent to appoint the petitioner as part-time instructor in Vellore District.
4/12 in W.P.Nos.9920 to 9923 etc. batch).
For Petitioner in all W.Ps.
:
Mr.M.Selvam For Respondents in all W.Ps.
:
Mrs.P.Kavitha, Government Advocate COMMON ORDER Petitioners have come up with the present Writ Petitions challenging the impugned order passed by the 5th Respondent as regards issuance of appointment order to the list of candidates for selection of part-time Instructors in Vellore District to the Government Schools for Std. VI to VIII under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme in G.O.Ms.No.177 dated 11.11.2011 and for a consequential direction to the 5th Respondent to appoint them as Part-time Instructors in Vellore District.
2. When the Writ Petitions were taken up for hearing, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents, placing reliance on G.O.(Ms) No.177, School Education (C2) Department, dated 11.11.2011, submitted that, the issue in question is squarely covered by an order dated 06.09.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.722 of 2012. For better appreciation, relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:
"16. The G.O.(Ms)No.177 School Education (C2) Department, dated 11.11.2011, on which reliance has been placed, itself shows that no post of Agriculture Instructor was advertised or sanctioned by the Project Approval Board.
The petitioners, therefore, can have no grievance to non-inclusion of Agriculture in the advertisement. The petitioners also cannot have any grievance for not being called for interview, as they are not holding the qualification for the posts advertised by the Government.
18. This contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, is again misconceived. The petitioners have not been disqualified for being appointed as Part Time Instructors to allege discrimination. The petitioners were found ineligible to compete for this selection for want of vacancies in Agriculture. As and when the vacancies in Agriculture are advertised, the petitioners will be entitled to compete for the posts, where candidates with other qualifications in the Art and Music will not be eligible.
19. It is the settled law that equality cannot be claimed by unequality. The petitioners on the basis of having the qualification of T.T.C in Agriculture, cannot claim discrimination for appointment as Drawing Instructor with those who hold T.T.C in Drawing as they form a separate class.
20. This Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, cannot issue any direction to the respondents to create a particular post or to exclude a particular post, as it is the prerogative of the State Government to sanction and fill up the posts as per the requirements. The Courts have no role to play in this process.
21. The writ petition therefore not only lacks merit but is totally misconceived.
22. No merit. Dismissed."
In the light of the said decision, this Court is of the view that, no direction can be issued to the Respondents to create a particular post or to exclude a particular post, as it is the prerogative of the State Government to sanction and fill up the posts as per the requirements.
Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed, as they are devoid of merits. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar (aeb/jas) To:
Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, W.P.Nos.9919 to 9923 of 2012 JP & SS(CO's) CS/09/12/2020