The Chairman v. Alagulakshmi

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated 01.11.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI in WA.(MD) No.549 of 2023 The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 3rd Floor, Puratchi Thalaivar Dr. MGR Centenary Building, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai.

.. Applicant

Versus

1. Alagulakshmi

2. The Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai 600009.

3. The Director of Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai 600 025.

.. Respondents Page No.1 / 6

PRAYER: Review Application is filed under Section 47 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC read with Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code to review the order passed by this Court in W.A.(MD) No.549 of 2023, dated 06.06.2023. For Applicant : Mr.R.Neelakandan, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan For Respondents for R1 : Mr.S.Sivaprakash for RR2 & 3 : Mr.Senthil Ayyanar, G.A.

ORDER

(The Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J) Review is sought of the order dated 06.06.2023 on the ground that the petitioner in the Writ Petition even in her application failed to state that she has no teaching experience and therefore, the window for uploading the experience certificate was not available to her.

2. Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the review petitioner would submit that though notification is Page No.2 / 6

so worded that it confines 2 years teaching experience on full time basis in the Government / Aided / Self-financing Polytechnics or Engineering Colleges or 4 years teaching experience on part time basis in the Government / Aided / Self-financing Polytechnics or Engineering Colleges, clause 12(d) refers to Annexure 3, which is the format of experience certificate and the said annexure 3 makes the provision for issuance of experience certificate for experience in Government / Aided / Self-financing Arts and Science Colleges and Universities. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, the error was on the part of the first respondent in saying "No" to the requirement of experience found in the application.

3. Contending contra, Mr.S.Sivaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner would submit that a reading of the notification found at page 55 of the paper book would show that the teaching experience is confined only to Polytechnics or Engineering Colleges and it does not extend to Aided Colleges. The Format itself cannot be the basis for denying an opportunity to the writ petitioner. Page No.3 / 6

4. The learned counsel also pointed out that by the subsequent publication dated 11.03.2022, the TRB has made it clear that experience certificate for work experience in Government / Aided / Self-financing Arts and Science Colleges should be obtained from the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education. After the publication, the first respondent has sought for a window to upload her certificate, but she was unable to upload the same. The learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition permitting her to produce certificate at the time of certificate verification. We upheld this order.

5. No doubt, there is some force in the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General. However, once it is shown that the main notification is little misleading, prima-facie, it appears to confine her experience only to Polytechnics or Engineering Colleges. The fact that the Annexure of the format in which certificate is to be issued, includes Arts and Science Colleges also, which will not cure the defect. Page No.4 / 6

6. The first respondent has gone by the body of the notification and has bonafidely believed that teaching experience in Arts and Science College is not eligible for weightage marks. Once it was shown that teaching experience in Arts and Science College is also eligible for weightage, the first respondent had produced certificate at the time of certificate verification and hence, denying an opportunity of employment to the respondent, is not correct. We therefore, do not see any merit for reviewing the earlier order. The Review Application stands dismissed. It is made clear that this order shall not be treated as a precedent in any other cases. No costs.

(R.S.M.J.,) (L.V.G.J.,) 01.11.2023 Speaking order: Yes/No Index : Yes/No pvs To

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai 600009.

2. The Director of Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai 600 025.

Page No.5 / 6

R.SUBRAMANIAN , J.

and L.VICTORIA GOWRI , J.

pvs in WA.(MD) No.549 of 2023 01.11.2023 Page No.6 / 6