J.Ramesh v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on 07.11.2019 Delivered on 14.11.2019 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.15963, 15964, 18856, 18858, 19496, 19497, 19509, 19510, 19957 and 19958 of 2019 W.P.(MD)Nos.19518 and 22085 of 2019:- J.Ramesh ... Petitioner in WP(MD)No.19518 and 22085 of 2019 vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai - 6.

3.The Director of Collegiate Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 6.

... Respondents in WP(MD)19518 and 22085 of 2019 Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for issuance of Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned G.O.(Ms)No.412, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 07.12.2009 as amended vide G.O.(Ms)No.32, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 08.03.2013, issued by the first respondent and consequential impugned Notifications issued by the second respondent vide Notifications No.12/2019, dated 28.08.2019 and 04.10.2019, quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the respondents to conduct a competitive examination for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors in Government Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges of Education for the year 2018-2019, by following the fair and 1/14

reasonable procedure in accordance with the UGC Notification, dated 18.07.2018, within the period that may be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.Ajmalkhan (WP(MD)No.19518 and 22085 of 2019) Senior Counsel for Mr.H.Mohammed Imran for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondents : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader W.P.(MD)No.22744 of 2019:- 1.V.Padmanaban 2.K.Baskaran ... Petitioners vs.

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

3.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai - 6.

4.The Director of Collegiate Education, 9th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maaligai, College Road, Chennai - 6.

5.The Director of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai - 6.

... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned Notification No.12/2019, on the file of the third respondent, dated 28.08.2019 and 04.10.2019, quash the same and further to direct the respondents to fix the ratio for being appointed as Assistant Professor in Government Colleges of Arts and Science, by transfer of service from the post of Headmaster in Government Schools.

2/14

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For Respondents : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader W.P.(MD)No.22757 of 2019:- 1.D.Muniyappan 2.R.Amirtharaj ... Petitioners vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai.

2.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai - 6.

3.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai - 6.

... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.412, Higher Education (F2) Department of the first respondent dated 07.12.2009 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.32, Higher Education (F2) Department of the first respondent dated 08.03.2013 and consequent Notification No.12/2019 of the second respondent dated 28.08.2019 and 04.10.2019 insofar as Clause 13 is concerned and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For Respondents : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader W.P.(MD)No.23236 of 2019:- S.Iyyappan ... Petitioner vs.

3/14

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

2.The Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, EVK Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned Notification issued by the second respondent herein in Advertisement No.12/2019, dated 28.08.2019 and 04.10.2019, quash the same and further direct the respondents herein to fill up the posts of Assistant Professors under Tamil Nadu Educational Service, by conducting necessary written examination and adopting other fair selection procedures. For Petitioner : Mr.E.V.N.Siva For Respondents : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader COMMON ORDER W.P.(MD)Nos.19518 and 22085 of 2019 have been filed seeking to quash G.O.(Ms)No.412, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 07.12.2009, as amended vide G.O.(Ms)No.

32, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 08.03.2013, issued by the first respondent and consequential impugned Notifications issued by the second respondent, vide Notification No.12/2019, dated 28.08.2019 and 04.10.2019, and a consequential direction to the respondents herein to conduct a competitive examination for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors in Government Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges of Education for the year 2018-2019, by following the procedures in accordance with the UGC Notification, dated 18.07.2018.

2.W.P.(MD)No.22744 of 2019 has been filed seeking to quash the impugned Notification No.12/2019 dated 28.08.2019 and 04.10.2019 and a direction to the respondents to fix the ratio for being appointed as Assistant Professor in Government Colleges of Arts and Science, by transfer of service from the post of Headmaster in Government Schools.

4/14

3.W.P.(MD)No.22757 of 2019 has been filed seeking to quash G.O. (Ms)No.412, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 07.12.2009, as amended vide G.O.(Ms)No.32, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 08.03.2013, and consequential impugned Notification in Notification No.12/2019, dated 28.08.2019 and 04.10.2019, insofar as Clause 13 is concerned.

4.W.P.(MD)No.23236 of 2019 has been filed seeking to quash the Notification in Notification No.12/2019, dated 28.08.2019 and 04.10.2019 and a direction to the respondents to fill up the posts of Assistant Professors under Tamil Nadu Educational Service, by conducting necessary written examination and adopting other fair selection procedures.

5.According to the petitioner in W.P.(MD)Nos.19518 and 22085 of 2019, the selection process is based on G.O.(Ms)No.412, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 07.12.2009 as amended by G.O(Ms) No.32, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 08.03.2013. The mode of selection is prescribed in Clause 13 of both the Notifications. As per Clause 13 of the Notification, 15 marks are allocated for teaching experience, 9 marks are allocated for qualification and 10 marks are allocated for interview. Further, according to the petitioner, 10 marks earmarked for interview works out to 29% of marks and as per well settled law, not more than 15% of marks can be allocated for interview. Similarly, for teaching experience, 15 marks are allocated, whereas, as per the Notification of University Grants Commission [UGC], dated 18.07.2018, only 10 marks can be allocated for teaching experience.

6.Mr.Ajmalkhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)Nos.19518 and 22085 of 2019 submitted that though the petitioner has raised issues with regard to written examination for selection in the Writ Petitions, the petitioner is not insisting on the said ground and is basing his claim only with regard to the marks being awarded for teaching experience and interview mentioned in the impugned Notification. 7.The learned Senior Counsel contended that the marks allocated in the Notification are in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which provides for equal opportunity in the matter of public employment. The regular recruitment should be made in accordance with Rule in open competitive process.

The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the impugned notification is as per the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service and same is not in dispute, but the impugned Notification and the impugned Government Orders are not in conformity with UGC Regulation 2018. The learned Senior Counsel referred to UGC Regulation of the year 2018.

pattern prescribed by the second respondent are inconsistent and not in conformity with UGC Regulations 2018. The maximum marks that could be given for interview is 15% of total marks. In the impugned Notification, out of 34 marks, 10 marks are earmarked for interview, which amounts to 29% of total marks for interview. 8.The learned Senior Counsel further contended that 15 marks out of 34 marks have been allocated for teaching experience i.e., 44% of total marks. The same is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, who are having less teaching experience, could not compete with the persons, who have long teaching experience and the second respondent, by awarding more marks for teaching experience is indirectly excluding the persons having less teaching experience though they are eligible and have better academic records.

9.The learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2011 (6) SCC 605 [Director General, Indian Council for Agricultural Research and others vs. D.Sundara Raju] and contended that awarding 29% of marks for interview is highly excessive and contrary to the ratio in the said judgment. 10.The learned Senior Counsel relied on the order of this Court dated 21.06.2019, made in W.P.(MD)No.18755 of 2013 etc. batch [B.Rajesh Vs. The Union of India and others] and contended that this Court held that the second respondent is bound to follow the UGC guidelines and prayed for allowing the Writ Petitions. 11.Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(MD)Nos.22744 and 22757 of 2019 after adopting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.

(MD)Nos. 19518 and 22085 of 2019, contended that as per the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service, the post of Assistant Professor can be filled up by following the modes:- (i) Direct recruitment; or (ii) Recruitment by transfer from among Tutors and Demonstrators in the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service; or (iii) Recruitment by transfer from the category of Headmaster in the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service. 12.A Headmaster working in the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service is also entitled to be appointed by transfer to the post of Assistant Professor. The petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.22744 of 2019 are working as Headmasters. They have avenue of promotion to the post of Assistant Professor.

The second respondent in spite of above Rule, has excluded in the Notification, the Headmasters, like that of the petitioners herein, for being appointed as Assistant Professors.

as Assistant Professors. The Notification for appointment of Assistant Professor by direct recruitment alone affects the opportunity available to the petitioners.

13.Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(MD)Nos.22744 and 22757 of 2019 further contended that teaching experience rendered by the petitioners in W.P.(MD) No.22744 of 2019 should also be taken into consideration while awarding marks for teaching experience. In the Notification, the marks are awarded only for teaching experience in Colleges, which is discriminatory. By awarding marks for teaching experience as mentioned in the impugned Notification would amount to regularizing the ad hoc and temporary Lecturers and prayed for allowing the Writ Petitions.

14.Mr.E.V.N.Siva, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.23236 of 2019 after adopting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(MD) Nos.19518 and 22085 of 2019 contended that even for basic posts, written examinations are conducted and to have transparency in selection, the Government should have conducted competitive examinations and should not make selection purely on collegiate basis.

15.Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that it is prerogative of the employer to fix the qualification necessary for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor and relied on the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1085 of 2017, dated 11.09.2017 [B.Deepan Kumar and others vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai and others], wherein at Paragraphs 4 to 6, it has been held as follows:- ''4.Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that selection is solely based on interview, is apparently not correct for the reason that out of 34 marks, Government have awarded, 15 marks for teaching experience, as stated supra, and for educational qualifications, awarded different marks, as stated supra.

5.Decision in Ajay Hasia's case is made applicable to the case on hand. Criteria stated supra is to all the candidates who have applied for the post of Assistant Professors in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service for appointment in Government Arts and Science Colleges.

Appellants/writ petitioners, have no right to insist that selection should be made through competitive examination, in consonance with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Prescription of educational qualifications and method of selection is purely the prerogative of the appointing authority. In the case on hand, all are treated equally and their inter se merit 7/14

is decided on the basis of their teaching experience, educational qualifications and interview.

Process of selection is not arbitrary.

6. As rightly observed by the writ Court, likelihood of unfairness in the matter of selection, cannot be a ground for a candidate, to suggest a different mode of selection, than the one prescribed by the Teachers Recruitment Board, the authority constituted for recruitment. There is no manifest error in the order, warranting interference. Writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.''

16.The learned Special Government Pleader further relied on the judgment of this Court, dated 11.01.2019, made in W.A.No.2698 of 2018 [Teachers Recruitment Board and another vs. K.Bommi], wherein at Paragraphs 21 and 31, it has been held as follows:- ''21.On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Writ Court has failed to appreciate the policy decision of the Government, in awarding weightage marks based on educational qualifications and experience in teaching, with higher educational qualifications. Prescription of qualifications, marks to be awarded based on comparative higher educational qualifications are purely the executive domain of the employer/Government.

Writ petitioner, who seeks appointment does not have a right to demand that irrespective of higher educational qualification possessed by a candidate, with teaching experience, he should be treated equally. It is the contention of the writ petitioner, that a candidate with a qualification of post graduation, SLET/NET, should be treated on par with a candidate, who possess Ph.d qualification, but does not posses SLET/NET certificate. In nutshell, thus the writ petitioner has alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

31. Giving due consideration to the policy decision of the Government, orders issued by the Government periodically, we hold that there is no arbitrariness or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in G.O.Ms.No.412, Higher Education Department, dated 07.12.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.32, Higher Education Department, dated 08.03.2013 respectively, to be declared as ultra vires of the Constitution of India.'' 17.The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that all the candidates are equally treated. The petitioners are challenging the Government Orders and Notifications, on mere apprehension and that the selection may not be made in fairness. The grounds based on which, the Government Orders and the Notifications are challenged are not valid. The selection is made as per the UGC norms. UGC norms are only procedure/mode for making selection and for short8/14

listing the candidates for interview. The said norms are not the minimum qualification prescribed by the UGC. The minimum qualifications prescribed by the UGC Regulation of the year 2018 have been adopted by the second respondent and there is no deviation in the qualification prescribed by the second respondent from that of UGC norms.

18.The learned Special Government Pleader contended that as per note mentioned in the UGC Regulation, the academic score specified in Appendix - II (Table 3-A) for Universities and Appendix - II (Table 3-B) for Colleges shall be considered for short-listing of the candidates for interview only and the selection shall be made only based on performance in the interview. This note shows that the procedure for short-listing the candidates for interview is not mandatory and it directs the authority to consider the said pattern. The respondents are following the UGC norms and the order of this Court, dated 21.06.2019, made in W.P.(MD)No.18755 of 2013 etc. batch [B.Rajesh Vs. The Union of India and others], is followed by the respondents.

19.The learned Special Government Pleader further contended that the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, total marks for interview cannot exceed 15% of marks, is not applicable to the present cases. In the said case, the selection was made through the written examination and interview. When 50 marks were given for interview, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that more marks cannot be given for interview. In the present case, the selection is made based on weightage system. This Court, for selection of District Judges, fixed 25 marks for interview out of 100 marks and this Court in the judgment reported in 2011 Writ L.R. 212 [P.Senthil Kumaran Vs. The Registrar General, High Court, Madras and others] upheld the same and dealt with importance of interview.

The learned Special Government Pleader contended that grading system adopted by the second respondent was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2017 (1) SCC 322 [V.Lavanya and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others] and relied on Paragraphs 37, 39 and 40 of the said judgment, which read as follows:- ''37.The appellants have also challenged GOMs No. 71, which was issued by the respondents pursuant to the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court. As already noted before, the Single Judge while declining the challenge to GOMs No. 252 and GOMs No. 25 had set aside the grading system adopted by the Government vide GOMs No. 252. The Single Judge observed that the grading system adopted in GOMs No. 252 lacks rationality as it places candidates with the difference of 1 to 9 percentage in the same basket.

Accordingly, vide GOMs No. 71 the Government came up with the grading methodology as indicated supra in para 9. The appellants have not only challenged the new grading system introduced by GOMs No.

but they have also challenged the weightage of marks of 40% earmarked for academic performance. It is their contention that the Government has blindly accepted the recommendation of the Single Judge without application of mind.

39. The second aspect of challenge relates to the grading system adopted by the respondents. The respondents have acted as per the directions of the Single Judge of the High Court. The Single Judge in his judgment dated 29-4-2014 [P. Jayabharathi v. State of T.N., 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 1116] while declaring the slab system irrational, suggested a scientific rational method for award of weightage marks with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate in HSc/DTEd/DEEd/BEd/TET for Secondary Grade Teachers/Graduate Assistants as the case may be and accordingly make selections. This was accepted by the Government in GOMs No. 71 dated 30-52014 and the respondents have thus come up with the present awarding of weightage marks with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate which is more scientific and appropriate and as compared to the previous grading system contained in GOMs No. 252 which had put candidates obtaining 1-9% marks on the same footing.

40. We hold that it is the prerogative of State authorities to formulate a system whereby weightage of marks is decided with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate. In the present case, as no arbitrariness is proved on the part of the respondents in formulating the grading system we cannot interfere with the same. '' 20.As far as appointment of Headmaster by transfer to the post of Assistant Professor is concerned, in the Rule, different modes are mentioned and it is open to the first respondent to adopt any one of the modes and entitled to formulate a ratio for each category for the said recruitment. In the absence of any ratio in respect of three categories, the mode of direct recruitment adopted by the respondent is as per Rules and the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.

22744 of 2019 cannot contend that their opportunity of being appointed as Assistant Professor is lost. The recruitment is for the post of Assistant Professor in Colleges. Therefore, teaching experience in the Colleges alone was taken into consideration. 21.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents further contended that the mode prescribed for recruitment can be subject to judicial review only if the said mode is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or patently arbitrary or vitiate by mala fide and relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2008 (10) SCC 1 [Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others].

22.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 10/14

respondents contended that the written examination is not necessary in view of the qualification fixed by the second respondent in the Notification dated 04.10.2019. As per the Notification, a candidate must have P.hd. in concerned subject, M.Phil or P.G. with NET/SLET/SET. The candidates to be eligible must have passed with P.G. or M.Phil. qualification. In view of the fact that the candidates have already passed NET/SLET/SET examination, there is no necessity to hold written examination.

23.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)Nos.19518 and 22085 of 2019, in reply, has contended that the judgment dated 11.01.2019, made in W.A.No.2698 of 2018, is not applicable to the present case, as in the said case, the petitioner sought for Mandamus, whereas in the present cases, the petitioners are seeking to quash the Government Orders in G.O.(Ms)No.412, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 07.12.2009 as amended vide G.O.(Ms) No.32, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 08.03.2013. 24.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 25.The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)Nos.19518 and 22085 of 2019 that the judgment dated 11.01.2019 made in W.A.No.

2698 of 2018 is not applicable on the ground that the relief sought for therein is only for Mandamus, is without merits. From the said judgment dated 11.01.2019, it is seen that originally, the Writ Petition was filed for Mandamus. Pending Writ Petition, the prayer was amended to quash G.O.Ms.No.412, dated 07.12.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 08.03.2013 and consequently, sought for appointment in the post of Assistant Professor. The claim of the petitioner therein for the very same relief was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench declined to quash the Government Orders impugned in the present Writ Petition.

26.From the materials on record, it is seen that the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the respondents have not followed the UGC norms while prescribing the qualification of candidates. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the marks awarded for teaching experience as well as interview are excessive and contrary to the norms prescribed by the UGC as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that there are two stages in the selection process. One is educational qualification and other one is short-listing of candidates for interview. As per UGC Notification 2018, Educational qualification is fixed in Clause - I of Rule 4.1. The second respondent has followed the said educational qualification prescribed by the UGC. As far as the marks to be awarded for teaching experience is concerned, as per 11/14

Appendix-II, Table 3-B, the UGC has prescribed marks on various heads for academic records. The second respondent in the Notification has prescribed marks for teaching experience for qualification and for interview, totaling 34 marks. The criteria of marks prescribed in UGC norms is consisting of eight items, which has been shortened to three items in the notification considering the eight items.

27.The second respondent in Clause 13 of the notification prescribed selection procedure, which is as per G.O.(Ms)No.412, dated 07.12.2009. The validity of G.O.(Ms)No.412 as well as G.O. (Ms)No.32, dated 08.03.2013, along with notification issued earlier on the same lines of present notification was challenged by some of the persons, who participated in the selection process. This Court upheld the validity of the Government Orders and also upheld that the procedure adopted for selection of candidates is policy decision of the Government and it is prerogative of the employer to fix the qualification for appointment.

28.The judgment dated 11.09.2017 in W.A.No.1085 of 2017 and the judgment dated 11.01.2019 made in W.A.No.2698 of 2018 are squarely applicable to the facts of the case. Further, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2008 (10) SCC 1 [Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others], the decision of the employer prescribing the mode of recruitment can be reviewed by the Courts only when the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provisions or patently arbitrary or vitiated by mala fide. In the present case, none of the said conditions exist warranting judicial review of both Government Orders and impugned Notification to set aside the same. 29.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.

22744 of 2019, by adopting direct recruitment, the Headmasters, who are working in High School are deprived of their right to be appointed as Assistant Professor by transfer. This contention is not acceptable. As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader that the Assistant Professor in Arts Colleges can be appointed by any one of three methods, which includes recruitment by transfer from the category of Headmaster in Tamil Nadu School Educational Subordinate Service. It is open to the Government to adopt any one of the methods as the Government has not framed any Rules regarding ratio for appointment by transfer of Headmaster or Tutors and Demonstrators. In view of the same, the method adopted by the respondents does not suffer any infirmity.

The Government has taken policy decision to give marks for teaching experience only to the persons, who have such experience in University and Colleges. The said policy decision cannot be reviewed to include the teaching experience of persons rendered in the School.

12/14

30.The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.23236 of 2019 that the selection must be made by written examination for transparency in the selection, is without merits. This issue was considered by the two Division Benches of this Court and by the judgments dated 11.09.2017 made in W.A.No.1085 of 2017 and 11.01.2019, made in W.A.No.2698 of 2018 and held that it is for the employer to decide the mode of selection and it is prerogative of the employer to fix the mode of selection. The very same Government Orders prescribing the very same marks for short-listing the candidates and for the marks to be awarded in the interview were considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the above two judgments and had held that the same is valid and dismissed the claim of the petitioners therein.

Further, a person to be appointed as Assistant Professor must possess Post Graduate qualification in relevant subject with NET/SLET/SET or Ph.d. As the candidates have already passed out NET/SLET/SET or are in possession of Ph.d., there is no necessity to subject them for further written examination.

31.In the result, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Higher Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai - 6.

3.The Director of Collegiate Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 6.

13/14

4.The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

5.The Director of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai - 6.

6.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Higher Education, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

+4 CC to M/s.AJMAL ASSOCIATES, Advocate ( SR-98338[F] dated 14/11/2019 ),98339 + 1CC TO MR.E.V.N.SIVA, ADVOCATE, SR.NO.98769 14.11.2019 KK/SAR/18.11.2019/14P-12C/ 14/14