The Joint Director Of School Education v. R. Balasubramanian

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 17.11.2021 C O R A M The Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana and The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy W.A.No.1481 of 2021 and C.M.P.No. 9429 of 2021

1. The Joint Director of School Education, (Higher Secondary) College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

2. The Chief Educational Officer, Erode District.

...Appellants/Respondents 1 & 3 vs

1. R.Balasubramanian,

2. The Chairman Teachers Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

...Respondents/Petitioner &

3. 2nd Respondent Prayer:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16007 of 2012, dated 22.01.2020.

Prayer in W.P.No.16007 of 2012:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent herein in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.51336/W3/E1/10 dated 13.03.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service together with all consequential service and monetary benefits to the petitioner.

For Appellants : Mr. C.Jayaprakash Government Advocate For Respondent-1 : M/s. Bala & Daisy

Judgment (Delivered by Krishnan Ramasamy,J.,) This is an intra Court Appeal filed against the order passed in Writ Petition No.16007 of 2012, dated 22.01.2020.

2. The appellants 1 and 2 herein are the respondents 1 and 3 respectively in the aforesaid Writ Petition; the first respondent herein is the writ petitioner and the second respondent in both the proceedings, (viz., Writ Appeal and Writ Petition) is the Teachers Recruitment Board (for short, 'TRB'). For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties shall be, hereinafter, referred to as per the rank in the Writ Appeal throughout this judgment.

3. The facts of the case, which led to the filing of this Writ Appeal are as follows:- i) The first respondent completed B.A. Degree (Economics), M.A. Degree (English) and B.Ed. qualification in the year 1996 and having possessed the said qualifications, he enrolled his name in the Employment Exchange register on 04.03.1997. The second respondent/TRB called for an appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant via. direct recruitment in the subjects for the academic year 2009-10. Based on the seniority, the first respondent's name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange to the second respondent/TRB and the second respondent/TRB vide memo, bearing No.2554/Aa1/2009, dated 03.03.2010, directed the first respondent to appear for certificate verification on 12.03.2010. After such verification, a provisional selection order was issued to the first respondent by the second respondent/TRB, vide proceedings dated 03.06.2010.

Subsequently, the first appellant, vide proceedings, dated 31.08.2010, appointed the first respondent to the post of P.G.Assistant and regularized his service on 23.09.2011. Later, the first appellant themselves, vide proceedings, dated 13.03.2012, terminated the service of the first respondent. Feeling aggrieved, the first respondent filed a Writ Petition, being W.P.No.16007 of 2012, for quashment of the said proceedings, dated 13.03.2012, and consequently, to reinstate him into service together with all monetary benefits. ii) The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, allowed the Writ Petition and directed the appellants to reinstate the first respondent into service within a specified time. Challenging the said order, the present Appeal.

4. Mr. C.Jayaprakash, the learned Government Advocate appearing for appellants herein (respondents 1 and 3) would submit that, as per the order passed by the Government, vide G.O.(Ms).No.361, School Education Department, dated 31.12.1999 (hereinafter, referred to as G.O.(Ms).No.361') only candidates, who possess both Bachelor Degree and Master Degree in the same subjects, or its equivalent, in respect of which, recruitment is made, with B.T. or B.Ed. qualification are eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant for the academic year 2009-10. As on date, on which, the name of the first respondent was registered with the Employment Exchange, the requisite qualification for the aforesaid post is Master Degree in the relevant subject with B.Ed qualification.

Subsequently, the said qualification was reviewed by the Government, and since the first respondent did not possess the requisite qualification, as per the amended Government Order, the first respondent is not eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of P.G.Assistant and this aspect was not properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. 4.1 The learned Government Advocate would further submit that the first respondent pursued M.A. and B.Ed simultaneously and completed the said courses in the same year 1996 and failed to complete B.A. degree (English) before obtaining M.A. Degree and completed the same within one year from the Alagappa University, which cannot be accepted, as three years duration of degree course alone can be treated as valid for gaining employment. Therefore, he contended that first respondent possessed B.

A. Degree (Economics); M.A. Degree (English) and B.Ed. Qualification, which were completed in the year 1996, however, failed to complete B.A. English as on the date on which, he enrolled his name in the Employment Exchange i.e. 04.03.1997, and the same was completed only in the year 2008. It is his further submission that since the name of the first respondent was registered with the Employment Exchange based on seniority, his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange to the second respondent/TRB, as the first respondent was eligible to the post of P.G. Assistant, he was called for interview/certificate verification and after such verification, he was appointed to the post of P.G. Assistant. It was subsequently found that the first respondent had not completed B.A. English before completion of M.A.

English and he had completed the same in the year 2008 only, that too, within one year duration. Therefore, the first respondent was not eligible to the said post and hence, the termination order was passed by the first appellant on 13.03.2012.

4.2 Further, the learned Government Advocate, in support of his contentions drawn our attention to a Division Bench judgment of this Court, in the case of The Chairman, TRB and

another Vs. A.Valarmathi and two others) in W.A.Nos.1496 to 1498 of 2015, wherein, at para No.13, a reference was made to a decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.30299 of 2012, in the case of S.Jagadeeswari Vs. The Chairman, TRB) (which was also confirmed in Writ Appeal No.845 of 2013 dated 07.01.2014), and the relevant portion reads as follows:- "Simultaneous acquisition of degrees or acquisition of a lower qualification after acquiring a higher qualification (reverse degree) cannot be recognized as a proper qualification for the purpose of appointment as B.T. Assistants."

Thus, by placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions, the learned Government Advocate prayed for interference of this Bench to set aside the impugned order.

5. M/s. Bala & Daisy, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent (writ petitioner) would submit that, since the first respondent possessed required qualification, he was called for certificate verification by the second respondent/TRB on 12.03.2010, and only after thorough scrutinization of the certificates, the first respondent was issued with a provisional selection order, dated 03.06.2010 , and that the first appellant, after having found that the first respondent was fully eligible to be appointed as P.G. Assistant, for the year 2009-10, issued the appointment order, dated 31.08.2010. By virtue of the said appointment order, the first respondent joined the service on 02.09.2010 and in fact, his service was also regularized by the first appellant on 23.09.2011. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned termination order passed by the first appellant, dated 13.03.2012, all of a sudden, without calling for first respondent's explanation is unsustainable.

` 5.1 The learned counsel for the first respondent would further submit that the qualification prescribed as on the date of registration of the first respondent's name with the Employment Exchange on 04.03.1997, for P.G. Assistant was PG degree in English with B.Ed/ B.T qualification, and since the first respondent possessed the requisite degree, he was allowed to register his name. Subsequently, the said qualifications were amended vide G.O.(Ms.) No.361, whereby, it was stated that the candidates should possess both P.G. and U.G. in the same subject with B.T./ B.Ed qualification. Therefore, the contention of the Learned Government Advocate that by virtue of amended Government Order, the qualification prescribed for the said post was changed, and as per the amended Government Order, the first

respondent is not entitled to the post of P.G. Assistant is not tenable, as it is not the fault of the first respondent, who mastered the degree. It is only the Government, which has changed the qualification norms in the year 1999 and the said change will in no way deprive the first respondent's seniority right based on registration of his name with the Employment Exchange on 04.03.1997 for the post of P.G. Assistant, as the M.A. English and B.Ed/B.T degree were the qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of P.G.Assistant till the date of issuance of G.O.(Ms)No.361, dated 31.12.1999. Even before the second respondent/TRB called for an appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant via. direct recruitment in the subjects for the academic year 2009-10, the first respondent has completed B.A.English in the year 2008.

Therefore, he contended that the first respondent is fully eligible for appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant in English and the impugned order is totally illegal, and considering all these aspects, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition, which does not warrant interference of this Bench. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Appeal.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials on records.

7. It is not in dispute that the first respondent was qualified in B.A. (Economics), M.A. (English) and B.Ed., when he enrolled his name in the Employment Exchange Register on 04.03.1997. Thereafter, in the year 2008, he qualified in B.A. (English). Similarly, it is not in dispute that, at the point of time, when the name of the first respondent was sponsored by the Employment Exchange to the second respondent/TRB for direct recruitment to the post of P.G. Assistant, he was found eligible for the said post and that is the reason why, he was selected and appointed by the appellants.

7.1 It is pertinent to mention here that, only in the year, 1999, the Government, vide G.O.(Ms).No.361, dated 31.12.1999 amended the qualification prescribed for recruitment to the post of P.G. Assistant in academic subjects, which is reproduced as under:

"Direct recruitment:

i) Must have obtained a Master's degree and Bachelor's degree in the same subject or its equivalent in respect of which recruitment is made;

and ii) B.T. or B.Ed. degree of a University in the State or a teaching degree of equivalent standard''

In the above said G.O., it has been clearly mentioned that the amendment hereby made shall come into force on 31st day of December, 1999.

7.2 Thus, it is clear that prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.361 dated 21.12.1999, the eligibility criteria for the P.G.Assistant post was U.G. degree in any subject and P.G.degree in the relevant subject with B.Ed./B.T. degree, which were admittedly possessed by the first respondent when he enrolled his name with the Employment Exchange in the year 1997, and thereby, he was found eligible for the post of P.G.Assistant. As such, his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange as per his seniority. In fact, it was the appellants, who thoroughly verified the certificates produced by the first respondent and selected him to the post of P.G. Assistant by issuing the appointment order, dated 31.08.2010. Contrarily, the appellants themselves have issued the order, vide proceedings, dated 13.03.

2012, terminating the service of the first respondent on the ground that first respondent had not completed B.A. (English) before completion of M.A. English and he had completed the same (B.A.English) in the year 2008 only, that too, within one year duration and by virtue of G.O.(Ms.)No.361, dated 31.12.1999, B.A. Degree (English) possessed by the first respondent is not valid.

7.3 Further, it is the specific case of the appellants that, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.361 dated 31.12.1999, the first respondent was found to be unqualified to the post of P.G.Assistant, as he was not in possession of UG degree and P.G. degree in the same subject, at the time of selection. 7.4 It has to be pointed out that, at the time, when the first respondent enrolled his name in the Employment Exchange register on 04.03.1997, he possessed requisite qualification for appointment to the post of P.G.Assistant. As noted above, the amendment in respect of the qualification prescribed for P.G. Assistant post was given effect to by the Government only from 31.12.1999. While so, the appointment of the first respondent made in the year 2010 was only after thorough scrutinization of the certificates produced by him.

Merely because, the Government had changed the qualification norms, that per se will not make the first respondent to become ineligible to the said post, on the ground that G.O.Ms.No.361, dated 31.12.1999 will take retrospective effect from 04.03.1997 by de-recognizing the B.A degree (English) on the ground that the said degree was pursued after the completion of M.A. Degree, and that, the B.A. degree already possessed by the first respondent was not in the same subject but in respect of Economics.

7.5 In service matters, de-recognition of the degree has to be distinguished carefully. The Government, depending

upon the changing circumstances, would either add/alter/remove the qualifications prescribed for recruitment to certain posts from the eligibility criteria, and when the same is exercised, it will not take away validity of the degree, which the candidate has pursued already, nor the candidate, who possess such degree can be disqualified on that ground. 7.6 In the present case, the existing rule position is that, when the first respondent completed his P.G. degree, any U.G. degree coupled with P.G. Degree, irrespective of whether U.G. and P.G. are in respect of same or different subject with B.Ed./B.T. was the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of PG Assistant. However, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.361, dated 31.12.1999, qualification required for the post of P.G. Assistant was amended/altered and as per the said amendment, the candidates should possess both UG and PG degrees in the same subject.

7.7 A candidate, who pursues PG course in 1997, pursues the same with an assurance that his UG course in any subject would be sufficient and he cannot be expected to anticipate that, in future, UG degree undergone by him would be undervalued or understimated. Thus, one has to intelligibly differentiate these two category of candidates i.e. the candidates, who have completed UG and PG degree as per the 1997 requirement, and those who have completed their UG and PG degree as per the 1999 requirement. These two categories of candidates are two separate classes and they cannot be demanded to possess the same educational qualification in UG and PG degree, inasmuch as, the first category are duly qualified based on the qualification required in 1997 and the second category are qualified based on the requirement in 1999.

7.8 The aforesaid two categories of candidates are duly qualified candidates, and the first category of candidates, who possess UG and PG degree in different subjects based on the 1997 requirement, cannot be placed on a different pedestal for the above stated reason. Normally, the qualification criteria for employment would keep on changing every year based on State's whims and fancies, and these changes cannot be allowed to operate retrospectively, and make a candidate, who was found 'earlier to be duly qualified' and become 'disqualified in future'. If the same is permitted, it would amount to egregious violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 14, and this Court would only deprecate and condemn such practice. 7.9 In the light of the above, we are not inclined to take a different view that, G.O.Ms.No.361 dated 31.12.1999 would apply retrospectively. If applied so, certainly, the candidates, who are eligible to the post of P.G. Assistant based on any

Master's degree with B.Ed qualification, would loose their fundamental rights on par with the other candidates, who got qualified in U.G and P.G. and enrolled their names with the Employment Exchange on or after the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.361 dated 31.12.1999.

7.10 At the risk of repetition, we would like to say that, the fundamental right of a candidate cannot be taken away by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.361 dated 31.12.1999, and if the same is allowed to take retrospective effect, certainly, it would take away the fundamental right of equality, guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.

7.11 A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "E.P. Royappa versus State of Tamil Nadu" reported in AIR 1974 SC 555, has classically remarked about the pivotal importance of Article 14 of the Constitution in the following words: "Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be "cribbed cabined and confined" within traditional and doctrinaire limits."

7.12 Therefore, equality before law and equal protection of law stemming from Article 14, has to be construed as a basic expectation of a citizen, to which, he is entitled to legitimately.

7.13 Thus, having analyzed this case from all genres, we are inclined to hold that, when a candidate is qualified as a Post Graduate in English with B.Ed/B.T. degree, he/she is eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant based on the U.G. degree in other subjects and the Government Order, dated 31.12.1999 passed subsequently, changing the qualification norms will not deprive the right of the candidate (first respondent, in this case) who was already found eligible for appointment to the post as P.G. Assistant based on UG and PG degree irrespective of the fact whether the candidate possessed UG and PG in the same or any other subject. 7.14 Thus, we are of the view that the changes brought out in the qualification norms by way of the subsequent Government Order, viz., G.O.(Ms.)No.361, dated 31.12.

1999 has to be applied only prospectively and cannot be allowed to take retrospective effect. Hence, the first respondent is qualified to be appointed to the post of P.G. Assistant as on the date of his enrollment in the Employment Exchange Register on 04.03.1997 and his seniority starts from 04.03.1997.

7.15 Insofar as the UG degree requirement, as demanded by the appellants is concerned, cannot be considered as an

essential or additional qualification, because, the candidates, who possess PG degree prior to 1997 were given an option to pursue UG degree in any other subject. Subsequent changes made vide Government Order, dated 31.12.1999 that the candidates should possess UG+ PG degree in the same subject, would not affect the candidates, who have completed their UG degree (in any other subject) prior to such change.

7.16 The qualification norms set out in G.O.(Ms.)No.361, dated 31.12.1999 that the candidates should possess UG in the same subject as done in P.G. Degree would only apply to those candidates, who are registering their names in the employment exchange after 1999.

7.17 We have no hesitation to hold that when a candidate possesses an educational qualification in a particular year, and if he is found eligible for a particular post based on the said qualification, any changes made subsequently in the qualification norms, cannot be allowed to take retrospective effect, unless and otherwise, if any other additional qualification is prescribed, if allowed so, it would cause great prejudice to the candidates, who were already selected and appointed.

7.18 Though the learned Government Advocate relied on a decision rendered in S.Jagadeeswari's case (cited supra) in support of his contention that simultaneous acquisition of degrees or acquisition of a lower qualification after acquiring a higher qualification (reverse degree) cannot be recognized as a proper qualification for the purpose of appointment as P.G. Assistants, the said decision is of no assistance to him, for the reasons assigned by this Court, in the above paragraphs. 7.19 Hence, we are of the firm view that the first respondent is qualified to the post of P.G. Assistant and by virtue of the subsequent G.O.(Ms) No.361, dated 31.12.1999, earlier entitlement of the first respondent to the said post cannot be usurped away.

7.20 Thus, all these aforesaid aspects were duly taken note of by the learned Single Judge in a proper perspective and in fact, considering the first respondent's qualification in a right way by the Certifying Authority, appointment order has been issued and the service of the first respondent has also been regularized, and at this juncture, terminating the service of the first respondent is totally unsustainable and it amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In fact, the learned Judge observed that the termination will cause severe consequences, for, the name of the first respondent would be permanently removed from the register of Employment Exchange

and he would not get any future employment from being sponsored by Employment Exchange and further, he had given up his selection to the post of BRTE by the first appellant vide his proceedings, dated 15.10.2010.

7.21 Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the Writ Petition.

8. In the result, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.

My learned Brother Judge had undertaken the task of writing the judgment dealing with all the relevant aspects. While agreeing and concurring with the conclusion arrived at by my learned Brother Judge, I would like to record the following few lines.

2.

The first respondent, who had been appointed as P.G. Teacher on 31.08.2010, was terminated on 13.03.2012 on the basis that he had obtained B.A. Degree in English, after obtaining the Post Graduation in English. Further, he was holding a B.A. Degree in Economics and he has also obtained B.Ed. Degree. The termination is based on G.O.Ms.No.361, School Education Department, dated 31.12.1999, which mandates the candidate to obtain a Master's degree and Bachelor's degree in the same subject or its equivalent in respect of which, the recruitment is made.

3.

The question as to whether reverse degree is acceptable has been decided by Coordinate Benches and learned Single Judges of this Court in various judgments. 4.

We had an occasion to touch upon the said issue vide the judgment dated 02.09.2021 made in W.A.No.1863 of 2021. Even in the said appeal, reliance was placed on the judgment of a learned Single Judge in S.Jagadeeswari Vs. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai, in W.P.No.30299 of 2012, wherein, it was held that simultaneous acquisition of degrees or acquisition of a lower qualification after acquiring a higher qualification cannot be recognised as a proper qualification for the purpose of appointment as B.T. Assistants. The said order of the learned Single Judge was affirmed in W.A.No.845 of 2013. 5.

Yet another judgment in R.Thirunavukkarasu V. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2012 (5) CTC 129, this Court condemned the

shortcut methods adopted by the candidates, who got recruited as teachers.

6.

While the legal position remains as above, in the instant case, the learned Single Judge has approved the appointment of the writ petitioner, by quashing the order impugned therein, as the writ petitioner/the first respondent herein had no fraudulent intention to get an appointment through a crooked method. The first respondent had cleared the examination conducted by the second respondent/TRB successfully and after the document verification was done by the TRB, the appointment order was issued to him on 31.08.2020 and his services was regularized on 23.09.2011. In the counteraffidavit filed in the writ petition also, it has been admitted that the regularization was done only after verification of the educational qualification of the first respondent by the appellants herein. It was specifically stated in the affidavit that during the document verification, the above facts were not noticed, which cannot be said to be the fault of the first respondent.

7.

The first respondent has been in continuous service from the date of appointment, though his termination was under challenge. If G.O.Ms.No.361, dated 31.12.1999, specifically prescribed the qualification for direct recruitment, it is for the appellants authorities to have taken due care to verify the same, even before issuing the appointment order. The TRB had conducted the examination and given the list of successful candidates to the appellants, who should have verified it at least before regularising the services. Having failed to do so, the appellants are estopped from issuing the order of termination by taking advantage of their own mistake. 8.

Though this Court is not approving the conduct of the writ petitioner/the first respondent herein, when it was permissible and the Universities were offering such cross major degrees or even the reverse degrees, the entire blame cannot be attributed on the first respondent.

9.

The learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 23.09.2019 made in W.A.Nos.3066 and 3235 of 2019 (The Director of School Education, Chennai V. S.Aruna) in the impugned order to allow the writ petition. The Division Bench dealt with a similar issued in the said judgment and placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukh Bilash Thakur V. Bihar State Electricity Board and Others, 2019 (4) SCC 258 held that when there is no deliberate intention of malpractice or gaining entry through the back door, the blame cannot be attributed on the employee. It is apposite to extract paragraph 26 and 27 of the

said judgment, which are as follow:

"26. Even in the decision, Sukh Bilash Thakur's case [quoted supra] relied on by Ms.Dakshayani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent in WA No.3066 of 2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while finding that there was no case of suppression or fraud, interfered with the order of reversion of the appellant therein and since the appellant therein viz., Sukh Bilash Thakur, had retired from service, while setting aside the order of reversion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed pensionary and other retiral benefits be paid to the appellant therein with interest.

27. It is not the case of the appellants that the respondents have misrepresented, at the time of securing appointment. Allegation of malpractice has not been substantiated. There is an inordinate delay of 12 years in verifying the details of the educational qualifications. Performance of the respondents were found to be good, to be precise, it is more than 100% in subject mathematics, for the last five years. By considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and on the facts and circumstances of the case, writ Court has rightly rejected the contention of the appellants herein and issued directions to reinstate the respondents in service and grant them all consequential monetary and attendant benefits to which the respondents are entitled." The said Division Bench judgment was also upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C)No.27188 of 2019 on 22.11.2019. Applying the said judgment, the learned Single Judge rightly allowed the writ petition.

10.

Hence, I am of the view that the mistake of the appellants, which is admitted by them, cannot be allowed to jeopardise the interest of the first respondent. Therefore, while expressing my view, as above, I agree with the conclusion of the appeal arrived at by my learned Brother Judge in confirming the order of the learned Single Judge.

11. It is made clear that this judgment should not be cited as a precedent seeking to quash the order of termination, if the same is passed following the due process of law. 12.

Before parting with this matter, it may be necessary to state that it is high time for the education department as well as the TRB to draw guidelines for its officials to take all earnest efforts to verify the certificates of the candidates properly fixing responsibility, in case of any lapse and thereafter only they should recommend the candidates to the concerned authorities, who, in turn, before making appointment, should verify the correctness and also the genuineness of the

certificates of those candidates, if their rules mandate such verification. If that task consume sometime, which would go adverse to the interest of the students, at least, the authorities should get the certificates verified in a shorter span of time, which in no circumstance should cross the probation period of the teachers. If there are lapses, the authorities should take suitable action in accordance with law within a reasonable period and definitely, it cannot be allowed to be undertaken after the completion of probation period or declaration of probation or after regularization of the teachers. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gg/sd To

1. The Joint Director of School Education, (Higher Secondary) College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

2. The Chief Educational Officer, Erode District.

3. The Chairman Teachers Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

Copy to :

1. The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

2. The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.63834 W.A.No.1481 of 2021 & C.M.P.No.9429 of 2021 VB-II(CO) SU(07/01/2022)