M.Sengottaiyan v. The State Of Tamilnadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :
15..09..2023 Coram THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Writ Petition Nos.23441 of 2023, 3283, 4006, 6002 & 9919 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.22971, 22972, 22973 of 2023, 3412, 3413, 3414, 3415 4149, 4151, 4153, 4154, 6090, 6093, 6094, 6095, 6096, 9638, 9639, 9640, 9641 & 9642 of 2022 .....
W.P.No.23441 of 2023
1. M.Sengottaiyan
2. V.Gayathri Devi 3.N.Nithiyanandhan 4.D.Suganyadevi 5.R.Balasaravanan 6.J.Rekha 7.S.Kumar 8.N.Sivakumar 9.M.Sivaraman 10.M.Vanitha 11.D.Amudha 12.V.P.Luyusic Barathi
13.A.Balamurugan ..... Petitioners -Versus1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of School Education, Directorate of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai 600006.
3.Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
..... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent who is the appointment authortiy for the post of Post Graduate Assistant as per Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Education Service to issue appointment orders to the petitioners who wrote the PG TRB exam and attended the Certificate Verification pursuant to Notification No.10/2019 dated 12.0.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent as PG Assistants against the estimated vacancies for the year 2019-20 in the subjects Zoology (1), English (2), Mathematics (2) , Economics (1) and History (7) and consequently forbear the 3rd respondent from appointing candidates for the post of PG Assistants in School Education Department pursuant to Notification No.01/2021, dated 09.09.2021 before appointing the petitioners to the post of
Graduate Assistants pursuant to Notification No.10/2019, dated 12.06.2019 for the year 2019-20.
For Petitioner(s) : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel for Mr.Kanchi Kailasam in all WPs For Respondent (s) : Mr.P.Baladhandayutham, Special Government Pleader for RR1 & 2 in all WPs Mr.R.Neelakandan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.C.Kathiravan, Standing Counsel for R3 in all WPs
W.P.No.3283 of 2022 1.D.Paranthaman 2.R.Pandi 3.J.Sampath 4.M.Sudhakar 5.D.Mohana Sundaram 6.R. Revathi 7.N.Thilagavathi 8.S.P.Chitra 9.V.Shanthi 10.S. Revathi Subashini 11.P.Rajesh 12.P. Shanthi 13.K.Vanitha 14.P.Velanganni 15.G.Manigandan 16.T.Vikram 17.G.Abirami 18.M.Vashanthi 19.S.Sweety 20.M.Thangadurai 21.M.Maripandi Manikandan 22.S.Ahilandeswari 23.M.Subathirai 24.K.R.Rajakumari
25.N.Bharathi 26.T.Savitha 27.T.Premalatha 28.S.Sadhan Dhev 29.R.Sakthivel 30.C.Kamalesan 31.D.Linga Kumar 32.V.Shankar 33.S.Prabhu 34.R. Mohana 35.C.Revathy 36.V.Anitha 37.M.Senthil Kumar 38.P.Sonia 39.O.Lalitha 40.P.Myvizhi 41.D. Thenmozhi 42.D.Vasudevan 43.N.Malar 44.S.A.Buvanesshwari 45.R.Ambika 46.R.Tamizharasi 47.B.Vasanthi 48.C.Rajeswari 49.R.Vasanthakumari
50.T.Manjula 51.K.Velmurugan 52.G.Pargunan 53.M.Muthappan 54.P.Kavitha 55.V.Panneerselvam 56.K.Kohla 57.C Kalavathi 58.B.Gokulapriya 59.M.Jayapal 60.P. Priya Gandhi 61.M.Sudhakar 62.M.Deepanchakkravarthy 63.M.Thirumal 64.V.Nandhini 65.C.Clament Christanson 66.A.Sentamil Elakkia 67.S. Dinesh Kumar aged 68.M.Sureshkumar 69.S.Achudha 70.R. Sasikumar 71.N.Kasthuri Rachel 72.D.Chitra 73.B. Nithyadevi 74.R.Guruvalakshmi 75.A.Senthamil Elakkiya
76.A.Kowsalya 77.M.Thirumal 78.A.Thiyagu 79.S.Dhaarani 80.A.Sithara 81.S.Alosia Vimala Mary 82.M.Angeline Priyalatha 83.P.Rajalakshmi.
84.K.Kalidas 85.S.Kalaiarasi 86.G.Elumalai 87.M.Poongodi 88.M.Varalakshmi 89.M.Priyanka 90.S.Sundaravadivel 91.K.Ramar 92.A.Ajithkumar 93.S. Antony Dominic Christopher 94.P.Ilamurugan 95.R.Kavitha 96.C.Mohanalakshmi 97.P.Arjunan 98.R.Neelamekam 99.A.Kohila 100.K.Ashok Kumar 101.S.Prema
102.P.Tamilselvi 103.C.Thirugnanamoorthi 104.J.Jeyamani 105.S.Ramkumar 106.G.Gnanaseviyar 107.K.Gawaskar 108.E.Babu 109.S.Vannimuthu 110.V.Arulselvi 111.M. Ramya 112.P.Balu 113.D.Rajpal 114.M.Balamurugan
115. P.Vasanthakumari 116.M.Raja Murugan 117.S.Vijayalakshmi 118.M.Sumathi 119.S.Parimala 120.V.Rajavelu 121.K.Kalavathi 122.K.Sathishkumar 123.A.Annadhajothi 124.A.Chinnadurai 125.P.Selvaraju 126.P.Arulselvi 127.J.Lalitha
128.S.Nagarajan 129.L.Packiyalakshmi 130.S.Rajamani 131.V.Premakumari 132.K.Krishnakumari 133.R.Deepa 134.Santhanalakshmi 135.L.Kavitha 136.S. Baby 137.S.Rajivgandhi 138.T.Chelladurai 139.K.Kumar 140.D.Maheswari 141.M.Manju 142.E.Sangeetha 143.R.Vijayarangan 144.Ravikumar 145.N.Kannan 146.A.Manimozhi 147.V.Shanmugaraju 148.K. Prakasam 149.R.Ramamoorthy 150.P.Karthikeyan 151.N.Vasudevan 152.A.Karthikai Lakshmi 153.R.Ayyappan
154.K.Pandiselvi 155.P. Prabhu 156.M.Nagoor Meera 157.R.Chitra 158.V.Pushpalatha 159.R.Sathish .. Petitioners vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of School Education, Directorate of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
3.Teachers Recruitment Board Rep. by its Chairman, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent who is the appointing authority for the post of PG Assistants as per Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Education Service to issue appointment orders to the Petitioners who wrote the PG TRB exam and attended the Certificate Verification pursuant to Notification No.10/2019 dated 12.06.2019 issued by the 3rd Respondent as PG Assistants against the estimated vacancies for the year 2019-20 and consequently forbear the 3rd Respondent from appointing candidates for the
post of PG Assistants in School Education Department pursuant to Notification No.01/2021 dated 09.09.2021 before appointing the Petitioners to the posts of PG Assistants pursuant to Notification No.10/2019, dated 12.06.2019 for the year 2019-20.
W.P.No.4006 of 2022 1.S.Muthuraj 2.K.Pandiselvi 3.S.Savuri 4.D.Kalaiselvan 5.P.Krishnaveni 6.R.Selvi Kumari 7.N.Senthilkumar 8.M.Umaselvi 9.S.Navaneetha Raja 10.M.Nirmaladevi 11.R.Saraladevi 12.D.Vimala 13.K Gunasekaran 14.R.Govindammal 15.A.Vanitha 16.A.Murugalakshmi 17.P.Logeshwari 18.P.Hemalatha 19.R.Vadivel 20.M.Akneeshwari
21.P.Gundurao 22.S.Sharrulathaa 23.S.Elamathy 24.P. Kavitha 25.K.Vediyappan 26.G.Bhuvaneswari 27.M.Prabhu 28.K.Jamuna 29.S.Subathra 30.N.Priya 31.V.Kalai Selvi 32.M.Nirmala 33.K.Periya Karuppan 34.R. Vimal 35.T.Rajeswari 36.K.Vasantha 37.D.Anandhi 38.S.Periyasamy 39.P.Savithiri 40.D.Vidhya
41. K.Vanitha 42.V.Rathika 43.V.Sangeetha Devi 44.G.Backiyalakshmi 45.M. Vasanthi 46.J.Ezhil
47.A.Venkatesan 48.R.Bharathi 49.A.Thirumurugan 50.S.Bhuvaneshwari 51.P.Pitchaiyammal Devi 52.R.Harigaran 53.P.Vimala 54.M.Kamarnabisha 55.S.Mynoortheen 56.M.Vedha 57.R.Subayadav 58.N.Dhanalakshmi 59.S.Nithya 60.S.Latha Shree 61.V.Thangamani 62.P.Asvini 63.U.Suganya Devi 64.V.K.Manimaran 65.P.Deepan 66.K.Savitha 67.N.T.Deepa 68.P.Srinivasan 69.K.Kalaiyarasi 70.P.Ashokan 71.S.Sivaprakash 72.Sakunthaladevi
73.D.Rubella 74.P.Karthika 75.N. Saranya 76.V .Karthik 77.K Palani 78.C.Tamizhselvan 79.M.Udayakumar 80.S.Hemalatha 81.N.Anitha 82.P.Seenidurai 83.R.Senthil Kumar 84.S.K.Vasantha Kumar 85.S.Sanjeevi 86.N.Nirmalkumar 87.A.Revathi 88.M.Anbarasan 89.P.Sathishkumar 90.C.Geetha 91.K.Palani 92.V.Indhumathi 93.M.Ezhilarasi 94.R.Kavitha 95.K.S.Sangeetha 96.M.Mugeshkumar 97.I.Sathya 98.G.Usha
99.G.Chitra 100.V.Jamunarani 101.R.Dhiwakar 102.M. Kanimozhi 103.S.Viji 104.A.Poobalan 105.S.Sathya 106.T.Sundari 107.S.Rajesh 108.A.Manjula 109.K.Punitha 110.M.Subbulakshmi 111.D.Senthil 112.N.Ambiga 113.N.Sambamoorthi 114.P.Saranya 115.S.Natarajan 116.J.Praveen Kumar 117.G Mari 118.V. Dhanabal .. Petitioners -Versus1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort. St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of School Education, Directorate of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3.Teachers Recruitment Board Rep. by its Chairman, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Campus,College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
.. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent who is the appointing authority for the post of PG Assistants as per Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Education Service to issue appointment orders to the Petitioners who wrote the PG TRB exam and attended the Certificate Verification pursuant to Notification No.10/2019 dated 12.06.2019 issued by the 3rd Respondent as PG Assistants against the estimated vacancies for the year 201920 and consequently forbear the 3rd Respondent from appointing candidates for the post of PG Assistants in School Education Department pursuant to Notification No.01/2021 dated 09.09.2021 before appointing the Petitioners to the posts of PG Assistants pursuant to Notification No.10/2019 dated 12.06.2019 for the year 2019 - 20.
For Petitioner : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel for Ms.C.Uma For Respondent (s) : Mr.P.Baladhandayutham, Special Government Pleader for RR1 & 2 Mr.R.Neelakandan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.C.Kathiravan, Standing Counsel for R3 W.P.No.6002 of 2022 1.R.Jayapriya 2.M Palanichamy 3.M.Vijayaprabhakar 4.P.Suguna 5.L.Chandra 6.V.Nandhini 7.B.Manjula 8.S.Anandha Murugan 9.A.Arokkiya Selvaraj 10.T.Kiruba 11.M.Sudhakar 12.V. Elumalai 13.M.Gracy 14.P.Vasanthi 15.G.Mayakrishnan
16.M.R.Suhitha 17.D.Jayaprakash 18.M.Mohammad Shakul 19.B.Anandhi 20.S.Radha 21.V.Rukmani 22.C.Ambika 23.R.Rajasekar 24.P.Subramani 25.M.Selvaraj 26.V.Nandhakumar 27.R.Nagalakshmi 28.S.Saranya 29.F.George Anand 30.N.Babu 31.S.Sathishkumar 32.R.Shanmugam 33.S.Priya 34.V Sathish Kumar
35. R.Paneerselvam 36.P.T. Suvarna Kumar 37.V.Yasotha 38.J.Sampath 39.K.Murugavel 40.S.K.Vivetha 41.N.Sakthinathan
42.B.Aneeba 43.B.Senthilkumar 44.K Manikandan 45.S.Sathiskannan 46.S Kanniyappan 47.D.Selvarani 48.G.Anguraj 49.M Nithya 50.D.Kavitha 51.R Jayalakshmi 52.R.Ayyappan 53.S.Sakkanan 54.I.Anitha 55.L.Kanagumani 56.M.Prakash 57.S.Mahendran 58.S.Dharani 59.R.Tamilarasan 60.T.Balasubramaniyam 61.R.Elavarasan 62.S.Santhi 63.M.Viswanathan 64.P.Anbu 65.C.Senthil Kumar 66.R.Murugan 67.K.Gopalakrishnan
68.K.N.Abirami 69.V.Shankar 70.N.Bharathi 71.C. Ponnusamy 72.R.Velayutham 73.V.Hemalatha 74.K.Selvam 75.P.Manimekalai 76.D.Latha 77.K.L Keerthana 78.A Balamurugan 79.P.L.Meenakshi 80.K.Prabu 81.S.Kumaravel 82.G.Muthusamy 83.C.Adhikalaivani 84.S.Arivazhagan 85.V.Kumar 86.K.Poongodi 87.J.Rohini 88.M.Vijayaragavan 89.A Jayashri 90.P.Sivaranjini 91.A.Sugumar 92.R.Vidya 93.M.Kasirajan
94.K.Venkatesan 95.D.Archana 96.M.Ramya 97.A.Poornima 98.N.Kavitha 99.D.Nirmala 100.K.Saranya 101.K. Mahesh Ramu 102.R.Dhanasekari 103.T.Ramachandran ... Petitioners -Versus1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of School Education, Directorate of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
3.Teachers Recruitment Board Rep. by its Chairman, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
.. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent who is the appointing authority for the post of PG Assistants as per Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary
Education Service to issue appointment orders to the petitioners who wrote the PG TRB Exam and attended the Certificate Pursuant to Notification No. 10/2019 dated 12.06.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent as PG Assistants against the estimated vacancies for the year 2019-20 and consequently forbear the 3rd respondent from appointing candidates for the post of PG Assistants in School Education Department pursuant to Notification No.01/2021 dated 9.9.2021 before appointing the petitioners to the post of PG Assistant pursuant to Notification No.10/2019 dated 12.06.2019 for the year 2019 - 20. For Petitioner : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel for Ms.C.Uma For Respondent (s) : P.Baladhandayutham, Special Government Pleader for RR1 & 2 Mr.R.Neelakandan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.C.Kathiravan, Standing Counsel for R3 W.P.No.9919 of 2022 1.V.Durgadevi 2.K.Nirmala 3.V.Hariharasuthan 4.N.Murali 5.M.Kasirajan 6.G.Sureka 7.S.Venkateshwari 8.J.Parameshwaran
9.A.Jayanthi 10.S.Nithyapriya 11.S.Paramasivan 12.A.Jothi 13.R.Rajadurai 14.L.Kayamboomeni 15.M.Nithya 16.V.Nithya 17.S.Veerapandiyan 18.R.Kalavathy 19.C.Chithra 20.R.Manikumari 21.R.Pachaiyappan ..... Petitioners -Versus1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of School Education, Directorate of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3.Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
..... Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent, who is the appointing authority for the post of PG Assistants as per Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Education Service to issue appointment orders to the Petitioners who wrote the PG/TRB exam and attended the Certificate Verification pursuant to Notification No.10/2019 dated 12.06.2019 issued by the 3rd Respondent as PG Assistants against the estimated vacancies for the year 201920 and consequently forbear the 3rd Respondent from appointing candidates for the post of PG Assistants in School Education Department pursuant to Notification No.01/2021 dated 09.09.2021 before appointing the petitioners to the posts of PG Assistants pursuant to Notification No.10/2019 dated 12.06.2019 for the year 2019-20.
For Petitioner : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel for Ms.C.Uma For Respondent (s) : P.Baladhandayutham, Special Government Pleader for RR1 & 2 Mr.R.Neelakandan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.C.Kathiravan, Standing Counsel for R3
COMMON ORDER These writ petitions seek a mandamus directing the Commissioner of School Education, Directorate of School Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, who is the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioners herein as Post Graduate Assistants under the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Education Service based on the examination conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) pursuant to the Notification No.10/2019 dated 12.06.2019 as against the estimated vacancies for the year 2019-20 in various subjects.
2. The background of the facts which led to the filing of these writ petition in brief are as under:- The petitioners are Post Graduates in different subjects with B.Ed. degree. They are qualified to apply for the post of Post Graduate Assistants of their respective subjects. The Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) by Notification No.10/2019 dated 12.06.2019 invited applications from the eligible candidates for direct recruitment to the post of Post Graduate Assistant in various subjects and Physical Education Directors Grade-I in School Education Department for the year 2018-19. There were 2144 vacancies notified in the said recruitment process. The petitioners are the unsuccessful
candidates in the said recruitment process.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that as per proceeding dated 08.01.2021, the Department of School Education, though 578 numbers of backlog vacancies were available, they were not included in the notification. If those backlog vacancies were included they would have been selected in the said Notification itself.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The learned senior counsel would submit that if the backlog vacancies
(578) were included in the Notification No.10/2019, they would have been selected as PG Assistants in their respective subjects. Non-inclusion of such backlog vacancies had taken away the rights of the petitioners to be considered for appointment.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader would, on the other hand, contend that after the recruitment process to fill up the vacancies for the year 2018-19, vide Notification No.10/2019 dated 12.06.2019 was over and vacancies were filled up, at the instance of the State, recruitment process to fill up the vacancies for the year 2020-21 Advertisement No.01/2021 dated 09.09.2021 to fill up 2207 vacancies including 247 backlog vacancies was issued. That recruitment process was also over and and no addendum was
issued at the relevant point of time. The petitioners cannot as a matter of right seek for appointment.
7. The learned standing counsel for the TRB would submit that they are only a recruiting agency and they had no role in the matter of identifying the vacancies.
8. This court has considered the rival submissions and perused the records carefully.
9. Now, the petitioners seek appointment to the post of PG Assistants in various subjects in the Higher Secondary Schools as against 578 backlog vacancies which were estimated and available then, but were left to be included in the recruitment process conducted for the year 2019-20 through Notification No.10/2019 dated 12.06.2019. Admittedly, there had been a subsequent Notification issued on 09.09.2021 through Advertisement No.01/2021, whereunder 2207 including 247 backlog vacancies were sought to be filled up and the recruitment process was completed with the selection of the candidates for all such vacancies.
10. It is settled law that an aspirant does not have a vested right to the post for which he was admitted to sit for the examination. Having failed to get through in the examination, the petitioners cannot say that had the backlog
vacancies been included in the recruitment process 2018-19 they would have been selected. It is for the government to notify the vacancies and send requisition for any post which has been identified for selection on the said post through the regular recruitment or special recruitment for backlog vacancies through TRB. The Supreme Court has consistenly held that that recruitment of candidates in excess of the notified vacancies, will be violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. As such no direction can be given for appointment of any individual on any post which has not been notified nor requisitioned by the State for the said post.
11. In the case of Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi, (2010) 2 SCC 637, the Supreme Court has held as under:- "7. It is a settled legal proposition that vacancies cannot be filled up over and above the number of vacancies advertised as "the recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution", of those persons who acquired eligibility for the post in question in accordance with the statutory rules subsequent to the date of notification of vacancies. Filling up the vacancies over the notified vacancies is neither permissible nor desirable, for the reason, that it amounts to "improper exercise of
power and only in a rare and exceptional circumstance and in emergent situation, such a rule can be deviated from and such a deviation is permissible only after adopting policy decision based on some rationale", otherwise the exercise would be arbitrary. Filling up of vacancies over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of future vacancies and thus, is not permissible in law. (Vide Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri [1992 Supp (3) SCC 84 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 999 : (1992) 21 ATC 851] , Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Assn. v. State of Gujarat [1994 Supp (2) SCC 591 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1159 : (1994) 28 ATC 78] , State of Bihar v. Secretariat Asstt. Successful Examinees Union 1986 [(1994) 1 SCC 126 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 274 : (1994) 26 ATC 500 : AIR 1994 SC 736] , Prem Singh v. Haryana SEB [(1996) 4 SCC 319: 1996 SCC (L&S) 934] and Ashok Kumar v. Banking Service Recruitment Board [(1996) 1 SCC 283 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 298 : (1996) 32 ATC 235 : AIR 1996 SC 976] .)
12. Recently in the case of Gajanan Babulal Bansode v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 4 SCC 494, the Supreme Court has held
14. The impugned GR seeks to fill up double the number of vacancies which were notified for the LDCE2016 by the Circular dated 27-6-2016. It is well-settled in service jurisprudence that the authority cannot fill up more than the notified number of vacancies advertised, as the
recruitment of candidates in excess of the notified vacancies, would be violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India.
13. In the light of the settled legal position referred to above and the facts and circumstances of the case, no direction as prayed for by the petitioners in the writ petitions can be granted and the writ petitions deserve only to be dismissed.
In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WMPs are closed.
15..09..2023 Index : yes / no : yes / no Speaking / Non Speaking Order kmk To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of School Education, Directorate of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai 600006.
3.The Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
N.SATHISH KUMAR.J., kmk Writ Petition Nos.23441 of 2023, 3283, 4006, 6002 & 9919 of 2022 15..09..2023