Madras High Court
A.Belinda vs Teachers Recruitment Board on 19 December, 2007
Author: N.Paul Vasanthakumar
Bench: N.Paul Vasanthakumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19/12/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P.(MD)No.2329 of 2006 and M.P.No.2553 of 2006 A.Belinda ... Petitioner Vs. Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep.by Member Secretary, Chennai-600 006. ... Respondent PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Junior Grade Graduate Teacher in Mathematics pursuant to proceedings in No.1829/Aa2/2005 dated January 2006. !For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Saravanan for Mr.R.Subramanian ^For Respondent ... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, G.A. :ORDER
The prayer in the Writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Junior Grade Graduate Teacher in Mathematics pursuant to the proceedings dated January 2006.
2.The case of the petitioner is that she passed Post Graduate in Mathematics with B.Ed., Degree and registered her name in the Employment Exchange on 01.10.1996 with Registration No.1996F07293 and it is renewed from time to time. The respondents invited applications for 3177 vacancies for the post of Middle Graduate Teachers. The petitioner applied for the said post and she was called upon for written test and she attended the written test and on getting good marks in that test, she was called upon to produce certificate for verification on 10.02.2006. The petitioner belongs to Most Backward Community. On 10.02.2006, the petitioner produced all the original certificates for verification and even thereafter, there was no intimation from the respondent and on enquiry the petitioner came to know that she secured 86 marks and the cut off marks for Most Backward Community candidates for the post of Middle Graduate Teacher (Mathematics) was fixed as 82 marks. The petitioner submitted a representation on 07.03.2006 and no reply having been received she filed the above Writ petition.
3.For the said Writ petition, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that on 09.02.2006 the petitioner was called upon for certificate verification as a Most Backward Community woman candidate. The Employment card produced by the petitioner at the time of verification was damaged, the name, the date of birth, the employment registration number, date of registration, qualifications could not be seen and due to the said reason, no mark was given. It was not found possible to verify the candidate's claim with regard to the registration in the Employment Exchange in the relevant subject. The Community certificate produced by the petitioner for Most Backward Community was obtained on 20.01.2006. The said date falls after the cut off date fixed under the notification i.e., on 12.09.2005. Hence, the card could not be taken into account for the said recruitment. Therefore, the petitioner was considered as a open competition candidate and not as a Most Backward Community candidate. The cut off marks for open competition candidate being 98 out of 150 and the petitioner has secured 86 out of 150 she was not selected.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner actually obtained a Community certificate from the Tahsildhar, Vilavancode on 18.10.1988 to the effect that she belongs to Mukuvar Community which is a Most Backward Class Community and the said certificate was eaten away by which ants and the petitioner applied for duplicate certificate before the Tahsildhar, Vilavancode and on 20.01.2006 the duplicate certificate was issued bearing the community certificate number 586302 and the said certificate was produced before the respondents at the time of verification of the Community certificate on 10.02.2006 and therefore, the petitioner satisfied the conditions contained in the instructions to candidates and the said certificate cannot be treated as a new certificate and therefore, the petitioner is bound to be considered under the Most Backward Class category, as the petitioner secured 86 marks out of 150 and the cut off marks being 82 out of 150, the petitioner is bound to be selected.
5.The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that in the instructions to candidates, it is stated that all the certificates except teaching experience should have been issued prior to the last date for submission of the application form. Certificates issued after the cut off date will not be considered. Relying upon the said clause in the instructions to candidates, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner having produced the duplicate Community certificate dated 20.01.2006, she was rightly not considered under the Most Backward category and the petitioner was considered under the open category.
6.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.
7.The point in issue is whether the petitioner is a Most Backward Class candidate and produced certificate to prove that she belongs to Most Backward class candidate prior to the cut off date fixed under the notification. Admittedly, the cut off date fixed under the notification is 12.09.2005. The petitioner has obtained community certificate from the Tahsildhar, Vilavankodu on 18.10.1988 and the said certificate having eaten away by ants, she applied for a duplicate certificate and the same was issued on 20.01.2006. In the said certificate, clear endorsement is made stating "duplicate of certificate No.586302". From the perusal of the copy of the said original certificate, it could be seen that the certificate is dated 18.10.1988.
8.Further, the petitioner has obtained the duplicate certificate prior to the date of verification of community certificate i.e., 10.02.2006. Hence, the respondents are not justified in treating the petitioner as belonging to other community, particularly when the petitioner has produced the duplicate certificate, the original of which was issued on 18.10.1988. Admittedly, the petitioner has secured 86 out of 150 marks that is 4 marks higher than the cut off marks is fixed for Most Backward class candidates. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to for selection as Middle Graduate Teacher (Mathematics). Mandamus is issued to the respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner as belonging to Most Backward class candidate and the selection order should be communicated to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9.The Writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.
nbj To The Member Secretary, Teachers' Recruitment Board, Chennai-600 006.