Madras High Court
Tmt.V.Mariammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 December, 2017
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.12.2017
(Reserved on 03.08.2017)
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.(MD).No.14770 of 2014
Tmt.V.Mariammal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Secretary (Higher Education Dept),
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.Teachers Recruitment Board,
E.V.K.Sampath Maligai,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai ? 6.
3.National Council for Teacher Education,
Rep. By its Chairperson,
Hans Bhawan Wing II,
1, Bahadhurshah Jafar Marg,
New Delhi ? 110 002. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records
relating to weightage of marks published on 10.08.2014 issued by the second
respondent indifferently, quashing the selection involving weightage of marks
having been given on 10.08.2014 indifferently and unscientifically and direct
the first respondent to consult the third respondent in the matter of giving
weightage for evolving a correct process where erosion of standard is least
involved.
!For Petitioner : Mr.S.K.Mani
^For R1 : Mr.D.Muruganantham, AGP
For R2 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, Spl.GP
For R3 : Mr.A.Sivaji
:ORDER
This writ petition is directed against the impugned communication dated 10.08.2014 issued by the second respondent / Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB), in and by which, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that she did not obtain required cut-off marks under BC category.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has obtained B.A. Degree in History and thereafter, she has also completed B.Ed. On completion of such degrees, she took part in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) conducted on 08.08.2013, whereby she was awarded 92 marks out of 150 marks. As she has secured 61.33% marks which is more than the required percentage of 60%, she was called for Certificate Verification on 24.01.2014. Thereafter, while she was expecting for posting order, the TRB issued G.O.Ms.No.29, School Education (TRB) Department, dated 14.02.2014, prescribing awarding of weightage marks. According to the petitioner, selection of those candidates under the guise of weightage method are illegal and unsustainable.
3. It is also his further contention that G.O.Ms.No.25, School Education Department, dated 06.02.2014, issued by the respondent TRB relaxing the passing marks by 5% in TET from 60% to 55% and thereby allowing large number of candidates who scored lesser marks to be considered for selection, depriving the rights of the petitioner, is illegal and therefore, the same cannot be sustained, hence, he pleaded, such approach adopted by the respondent TRB is liable to interfered with.
4. This Court is unable to accept the above said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, for, the issue of questioning the validity of G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 06.02.2014, and G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 14.02.2014, is no longer res-integra, as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V.Lavanya and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [(2017) 1 SCC 322] upheld the validity of the said Government Orders. For better appreciation, relevant portions of the said judgment are quoted below:
?33. Appellants appeared in the TET conducted on 17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013. Respondents were to select the suitable candidates. As per the selection criteria laid down in G.O. Ms. No. 252 that the candidates have to secure minimum 60% in TET so as to qualify the said exam. The weightage of the marks secured in TET was 60% and that of academic qualification was 40%.
It is true that the candidates who passed TET were called to attend certificate verification on 23.01.2014 and 24.01.2014; but the selection process has not been completed. Later on, G.O.Ms. No.25 dated 06.02.2014 was issued granting relaxation of 5% marks to SC, ST, backward classes, physically handicapped, de-notified communities etc. The purpose of relaxation was to increase the participation of candidates belonging to backward classes in States pool of teachers. The State Government merely widened the ambit of TET so as to reach out to those candidates belonging to the deprived section of the society who were not able to compete, inspite of possessing good academic records and qualifications. The change brought about in the selection criteria is Governments prerogative. In terms of their extant reservation policy, the State Government is free to take actions suitable to the socio- economic conditions prevalent in the State, especially with regard to selection of candidates belonging to reserved category to be employed in State Service. Merely, because the Government has widened the ambit of selection, so as to enable more and more candidates to take part in the selection process, the right of candidates who were already in the process cannot be said to have been adversely affected. It is in the interest of reserved category of candidates that more candidates take part in the selection process and best and most efficient of them get selected. This will not amount to change in the criteria for selection after the selection process commenced.
34. As discussed earlier, by virtue of NCTE Guidelines No.9 dated 11.02.2011, the State Government was already empowered to grant relaxation to under-privileged candidates and only in exercise of that power, G.O.Ms.No.25 was issued to create a level-playing field. Further as noted earlier, in TET- I conducted in 2012, 7,14,526 candidates had appeared and only 2448 (0.3%) had qualified. In the subsequent TET, around 6 lakhs candidates had appeared and only 20,000 i.e. 3% candidates could clear the test. Even in third TET with which we are concerned only 16,392 candidates had qualified. In that scenario to provide a level-playing field to persons belonging to SC/ST/OBC, denotified communities, differently-abled persons etc., State Government relaxed 5% marks to enable them to compete with others. It was the prerogative of the State Government to relax the passing marks with respect to reserved category candidates so that more qualified candidates could come up and participate in the selection process. In fact, even after grant of relaxation of 5% marks, many posts of reserved categories are remaining unfilled. State has placed the figures before us to show that even after granting relaxation of 5% marks, many posts of SCs/STs and other backward categories in various subjects are remaining unfilled.
40. 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 29.04.2014 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 H.Sc./D.T.Ed./D.E.Ed/B.Ed/TET for Secondary Grade Teachers/ Graduate Assistants as the case may be and accordingly make selections. This was accepted by the government in G.O.(Ms.) No.71 dated 30.05.2014 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 G.O. No. 252 which had put candidates obtaining 1-9% marks on the same footing.
41. The appellants have maintained that while prescribing the marks for performance in Higher Secondary Examination, the respondents have failed to take into account different Education Boards (CBSE, ICSE, State Boards etc.) conducting Higher Secondary Examination and difference in their marks awarding patterns. As also, the appellants have alleged that respondents failed to consider different streams of education while formulating the grading pattern. It is submitted that unless and until the respondents take note of difference in marking scheme of Education boards, as also the marking scheme of different streams such as Arts, Science etc. a valid grading system cannot be formulated. Equivalence of academic qualifications is a matter for experts and courts normally do not interfere with the decisions of the Government based on the recommendations of the experts (vide University of Mysore v. CD Govinda Rao (1964) 4 SCR 575 and Mohd. Sujat Ali v. Union of India (1975) 3 SCC 76). We hold that it is the prerogative of State- Authorities to formulate a system whereby weightage 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. We cannot be expected to go into every minute technicalities of decision taken by the experts and perform the job of the respondent-State. Moreover, the High Court has also noted that submission of learned Advocate General that almost all the appellants have completed their High Secondary examination from the State Boards.
42. The contention that different Boards of Examination have different standards and the examiners who evaluate the scripts are in some places more liberal than others and that the candidates who acquired qualifications decades back had to suffer strict evaluation as compared to the candidates who have qualified in the recent past facing liberal evaluation criteria, are all hypothetical arguments without any pleading and supporting material disclosed in the Writ Petitions. As noted earlier, weightage of marks for academic performance and TET fixed vide G.O.(Ms.) No.252 dated 05.10.2012 continues to be the same even after issuing G.O.(Ms.)No.71 dated 30.05.2014. Having taken up the examination as per G.O.(Ms.) No.252, the appellants cannot challenge the award of weightage for the distribution of marks for academic performance with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate. The appellants are not justified in challenging every rational decision taken by the respondents to make the selection process more fair and reasonable merely because the outcome does not favour the limited individual interests of the appellants.
43. The Madras High Court rightly rejected the challenge to G.O.(Ms.) No.25 dated 06.02.2014 and G.O.(Ms.)No. 71 dated 30.05.2014, holding that as per the NCTE Guidelines, the State Government has the power to grant relaxation on the marks obtained in the TET for the candidates belonging to reserved category and the same is affirmed. The Madurai Bench did not keep in view the NCTE Guidelines and the power of the State Government to grant relaxation in terms of their extant reservation policy and erred in quashing G.O.(Ms.) No.25 dated 06.02.2014 and hence the same is liable to be set aside.
44. The appeals filed by the State Government are, accordingly, allowed and the impugned judgment of the Madurai Bench is set aside. The impugned judgment of the Madras Bench of the High Court is affirmed and all the appeals preferred by the unsuccessful candidates are dismissed.?
5. By following the above said judgment, I have also dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the validity of G.O.Ms.No.25, School Education (TRB) Department, dated 06.02.2014, vide W.P.(MD).Nos.14083 to 14087 of 2014, etc. (batch cases), dated 01.08.2017 (K.Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu and another).
6. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid well settled principles, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed as devoid of any merit. No Costs. M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2014 is closed.
To
1.The Secretary (Higher Education Dept), Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.Teachers Recruitment Board, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai ? 6.
3.The Chairperson, National Council for Teacher Education, Hans Bhawan Wing II, 1, Bahadhurshah Jafar Marg, New Delhi ? 110 002.
.