P.Mohanarasu v. M.Gopidas And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Cont.P.No.1885 of 2024 and and W.M.P.No.9230 of 2024 Cont.P.No.1885 of 2024 P.Mohanarasu ....
Petitioner Vs
1. M.Gopidas, Joint Director of School Education,
2. Dr.C.Usharani, Member Secretary, The Teachers Recruitment Board, ....
Respondents Prayer:- Contempt petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, praying to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of order dated 25.03.2024 passed by this Court in W.M.P. No.9230 of 2024 in W.P. No.8277 of 2024.
P.Mohanarasu ....
Petitioner Vs 1.The Joint Director of School Education,
2. The Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, ....
Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent dated 15.03.2024 having Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.009472/W2/ E1/2024 and quash the same in so far as the appointment of the petitioner as PG Assistant in Physics in Government Higher Secondary School, Karapattu, Thiruvannamalai District has been cancelled without following the procedure established by law and consequently issue a direction to the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to continue to work as PG Assistant in Physics in Government Higher Secondary School, Karapattu, Thiruvannamalai District as per the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 08.03.2024 having Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.009472/W2/E1/2024.
(In both W.P. and Cont.P) For Petitioner : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram Senior Counsel for Mrs.C.Uma For R1 : Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru Special Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.R.Neelakanden Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.C.Kathiravan Standing Counsel COMMON ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 15.03.2024, thereby cancelling the order of appointment to the post of PG Assistant.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
3. The petitioner is qualified with an M.Sc., in Physics. She is also qualified with B.Ed. While being so, the second respondent issued Advertisement No.01 of 2021, dated 09.09.2021, thereby inviting applications from eligible candidates for direct recruitment to the post of PG Assistants, among other posts, in school education and other
departments for the year 2020-2021. The petitioner is qualified for the post of PG Assistant in Physics and applied for the same. The petitioner belongs to the MBC (V) communal category and secured 99 marks in the written examination. Accordingly, the petitioner was selected and issued appointment order on temporary basis as PG Assistant in the Physics Department on 05.03.2024. After her appointment, the joining report was also duly communicated to the first respondent. While being so, the first respondent passed an order dated 15.03.2024, thereby cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as PG Assistant.
4. A perusal of the counter filed by the first respondent and the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General reveals that the petitioner was selected and appointed to the post of PG Assistant in the Department of Physics. Admittedly, while scrutinizing the records by the second respondent, it was identified that the candidate named M.Preetha should have been selected instead of the petitioner in the MBC category based on seniority by date of birth, since both candidates obtained same marks in the competitive examination. The petitioner's date of birth is 07.07.1988, whereas M.Preetha's date of birth is 03.06.1988. Therefore, the second respondent cancelled the temporary
selection of the petitioner and selected the senior candidate M.Preetha to the post of PG Assistant. Due to inadvertence, the petitioner was erroneously issued an appointment order as if she had been selected for the post of PG Assistant.
5. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned in this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
6. In the light of the dismissal of the main writ petition, the contempt petition is closed.
25.09.2024 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Lpp
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Lpp To 1.The Joint Director of School Education,
2. The Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Cont.P.No.1885 of 2024 and and W.M.P.No.9230 of 2024 25.09.2024