Silintha. T v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED T.Silintha ... Petitioner vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Teachers Recruitment Board, represented by its Member Secretary, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai - 5.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Computer Instructors Grade I (PG Cadre)-2018-2019 on the basis of marks (11th Rank Place 31) obtained in the Teachers Recruitment Board Examination held on 23.06.2019 in respect of the Notification No.09/2019, dated 01.03.2019 issued by the second respondent for the vacancies of 814.

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Jeyasingh For R1 :Mr.F.Deepak Special Government Pleader For R2 :Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan ***** 1/6

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Computer Instructors Grade I (PG Cadre)-2018-2019 on the basis of marks (11th Rank Place 31) obtained in the Teachers Recruitment Board Examination held on 23.06.2019 in respect of the Notification No.09/2019, dated 01.03.2019 issued by the second respondent for the vacancies of 814. 2.The facts of the case in a nut shell, led to filing of this Writ Petition and necessary for disposal of the same, are as follows:- (a)The petitioner have applied for the post of Computer Instructors Grade-I (PG Cadre)-2018-19 vide Notification No.09/2019, dated 01.03.2019 issued by the second respondent for the vacancies of 814 and she obtained 95.89308987 and was selected in the provisional selection.

However, the respondents have not issued any appointment order to the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner had made several representations to the respondent. However, till date the same has not been considered by the respondents. In such circumstances, this Writ Petition has been filed seeking the relief as stated above.

2/6

3.Heard Mr.S.Jeyasingh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.F.Deepak, learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent and Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent.

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, submits that the petitioner has made several representations to decide the grievances and claim of the petitioner before the respondents, however, till date, no action was taken and the respondents have not decided the representation. Thus, he submitted that a positive direction may be given to the respondents to consider the representation and decide the same by way of a reasoned and speaking order on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

5.Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent submits that the petitioner's name was not found place in the merit list. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any action of the respondents, she may file a fresh representation before the second respondent and the same shall be considered by way of a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

3/6

6.The request of the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent appears to be genuine and justified. Accordingly, after considering the submissions made by the learned Counsels for both parties and perusing the records and averments made in the Writ Petition, this Court deems it appropriate that no useful purpose will be served in keeping this Writ Petition pending before this Court.

7.Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation before the second respondent detailing her claims and grievances within a period of four weeks from today. If any such representation is filed by the petitioner before the second respondent within the time stipulated by this Court, the second respondent is directed to consider the same and pass a reasoned and speaking order on merits and in accordance with law, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation. The second respondent shall communicate the order to the petitioner through Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD) within a period of two weeks from the date of passing the order.

8.With the above directions, this Writ Petition is finally disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

4/6

9.Registry is directed to issue copy of the order to Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent for its necessary compliance and information. Index :Yes / No 10.03.2025 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No cmr To The Principal Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

Copy to:

Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, Standing Counsel for the second respondent.

5/6

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

cmr 10.03.2025 6/6