The Chairman v. S.Kannaki

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN W.A.(MD)No.2789 of 2025 & C.M.P(MD)No.15668 of 2025 The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, EVK Sampath Maaligai, 4th Floor, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

...Appellant - Vs. -

1. S.Kannaki 2.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

3.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters patent against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.13574 of 2018, dated 04.04.2022.

1/6

For Appellants : Mr.T.Amjadkhan Standing Counsel For Respondents : Mr.A.Manish Kumar For M/s.Ajmal Associates for R1 Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader for R2 & R3 JUDGEMENT (Judgement of the Court was delivered by C.KUMARAPPAN, J.) The present writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.13574 of 2018, dated 04.04.2022.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the learned single Judge did not consider the true intent of the notification dated 07.03.2017 and according to the above notification, they have given a chance to certain categories of persons and in that category, TPT mark was not included. He would further submit that according to the Government Order in G.O.(Ms)No.71, School Education (TRB) Department, dated 30.05.2014, B.Ed. is one of the qualifying 2/6

examinations to determine the weightage marks for selection of candidates. Therefore, the findings rendered by the learned single Judge towards the inclusion of TPT marks is contrary to the notification. Hence, prayed to interfere with the same.

4. Per contra, the above contention was objected by the learned counsel for R1 by contending that B.Ed and TPT are equivalent and when the notification stipulates that the additional qualification is a criteria to improve their rank, non-inclusion of marks obtained in TPT, which is equivalent to B.Ed, by the Authority, was rightly interfered by the learned single Judge. Hence, would submit that there are no valid grounds in the Writ Appeal and prayed to dismiss the same.

5. We have given our anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6. As rightly submitted by the learned standing counsel for the appellant, the Government Order in G.O.(Ms)No.71, School Education (TRB) Department, dated 30.05.2014, had stipulated as to how the 3/6

weightage mark is to be determined. While looking at the qualifying examinations, it only deals about higher secondary, degree, B.Ed. and TET. Admittedly, the first respondent scored only 64.34 marks, which is below the cut off marks qua 67.92.

7. But, the contention putforth by the learned counsel for the first respondent is that, in pursuance of the notification dated 07.03.2017, the first respondent updated her marks as she subsequently obtained a Certificate in Tamil Pandit Training (TPT), which is equivalent to B.Ed. According to the petitioner, if that mark is counted instead of B.Ed marks, she would come within the zone of consideration. But, we find it difficult to accept such contention, as the notification only dealt the additional degree.

8. Here, the first respondent admittedly did not get any degree, but only became qualified in TPT, which is equivalent to B.Ed. Therefore, the question of inclusion of TPT marks instead of B.Ed as additional degree does not arise. That being the case, the petitioner's mark was only 64.34, which is far below the cut off mark qua 67.92. Accordingly, the first 4/6

respondent did not come within the zone of consideration. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the non-selection of the first respondent. But the learned single Judge had treated TPT equivalent with that of B.Ed, which we could not accede to, as the same was not referred to anywhere in the notification dated 07.03.2017. Therefore, we find merits in the appellant's submissions. Hence, the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be interfered with.

9. In the result, the above Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. [A.S.M.,J.] & [C.K., J.] 14.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes mbi 5/6

DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.

AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

mbi 14.11.2025 6/6