B.Soundararajan v. The Member Of Secretary
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 31.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P.(MD)No.6864 of 2023 B.Soundarajan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Member Secretary, Teacher Recruitment Board, EVK Sampath Building, Chennai - 600 006.
2.Expert Committee, Teacher Recruitment Board, EVK Sampath Building, Chennai - 600 006.
... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to award marks to the petitioner in respect of Question paper A series exam held on 17.09.2006 to the 1st respondent notification 01/2006-2007 for post graduation Teacher in Economics 2006 and forbearing examination held on Feb 2022.
1/4
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Soundarajan, Party-in-person.
For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, Standing Counsel.
* * *
O R D E R
Heard the petitioner in person and the learned standing counsel for the respondent board.
2.The petitioner is unable to come to terms with the fact that he was not properly dealt with in the examination held in the year 2006. The petitioner was an aspirant for the post of Post Graduate Teacher in Economics. He however was not successful. The petitioner is of the view that the marks were not correctly awarded. The petitioner's grievance might as well be justified. But on account of sheer efflux of time, I am not in a position to grant relief to the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(MD)No.22562 of 2022. Vide order dated 26.09.2022, it was dismissed in the following terms:- 2/4
"3. It is not in dispute that the teaching posts in Corporation Schools are filled up through the selection process conducted by Teacher Recruitment Board. Therefore, the petitioner cannot expect the Corporation to regularise his service. The petitioner took part in the recruitment process on as many as three occasions but for reasons that are not quite clear, the petitioner was not successful. Now age bar has also set in. I am not in a position to grant relief.
4. The fourth respondent had rightly taken the stand that the Corporation is not in a position to consider the petitioner's request. The impugned order does not call for interference. It is sustained. This writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs." 3.I am not in a position to take a different view. The petitioner is now aged 57 years. The Government had introduced upper age limit as
45. No purpose will be served in considering the petitioner's contentions. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
31.03.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ias 3/4
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
ias 31.03.2023 4/4