Madras High Court
G. Shanmugameenachi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 March, 2020
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
W.P(MD)No.4746 of 2014 and
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.03.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P(MD)No.4746 of 2014 and
M.P(MD).Nos. 1 and 2 of 2014
G. Shanmugameenachi Petitioner
vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
School of Education Department,
St. George Fort,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Teachers Recruitment Board,
E.V.K. Sampath Maligai,
DPI Compound,
Chennai.
3.The Director of School Education,
Chennai. Respondents
PRAYER:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
relating to the impugned government order issued by the first respondent
vide. G.O.No.25, dated 06.02.2014 and quash the same as illegal as it does
1/12
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.4746 of 2014 and
not provide for relaxation in respect of candidates belonging to the other
communities (OC) and consequently, to direct the respondents to extend
the relaxation in respect of a candidates belonging to the other
communities as well.
For Petitioner : Mr. A. Arumugam
For R1 & R3 : Mrs. S. Srimathy
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr. V.R. Shanmuganathan
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide. G.O.No.25, dated 06.02.2014 as it does not provide for relaxation in respect of candidates belonging to the other communities (OC) and consequently, direct the respondents to extend the relaxation in respect of a candidates belonging to the other communities as well.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner aged about 30 years, has studied +2 Course and Teacher Training Course at Teacher Training Institute Theivika 2/12 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.4746 of 2014 and Thirumagan Pasumpon Thevar Teacher Training Institute, Virudhunagar and she wanted to become a Teacher at Government School or Private School. She has applied for Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test for the year 2013. She belonged to other community. Whiles so, Government has issued G.O relaxing 5% marks. The said G.O.No.25 is issued fairly to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Backward Class (Muslim), Most Backward Classes, De-notified Communities and differently abled persons except the other community category. The pass percentage for clearing the Teachers Eligibility Test was fixed at 60% of this 150 marks (90 marks out of 150 marks). The petitioner secured 84 marks out of 150 marks in the said test. If the Government had extended the said G.O to categroy namely other category also, the petitoner would be treated as passed in the said test and she could have got an employment. She further submitted that the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Backward Class (Muslim), Most Backward Classes, De-notified Communities and differently abled persons cannot be treated as belonging to one category or group or class and given relaxation. They fall under different categories and the social status are also different. Hence, the candidates belonging to 3/12 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.4746 of 2014 and Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes are naturally poorer and socially and educationally more backward than the Backward Class people canot be accepted. All these persons were put in a single category for the purpose of relaxation and people belonging to other communities are denied the benefit of relaxation in appointments. This is a discrimination and she prays to quash the said impugned G.O issued dated 06.02.2014.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the said impugned order is against violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constiution of India. The impugned Government order placing candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classe (Muslim), Most Backward Classes in a single category and placing other community people alone in another category is unjust and patently discriminatory. The relxation of marks should be given to all candidates irrespectice of their community to which the candidates belonged. The relaxation of marks and reservation do not go together. She further submitted that the number of candidates appointed from other communities will be reduced and the prospects of selecting other community candidates will be adversely affected on account of reservation 4/12 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.4746 of 2014 and and failure to extend relaxation of marks to other community would be discriminated. She further contended that the interest of some communities were pampered, protected and enhanced at the cost of remaining communities and it is completely against the social engineering. It is also submitted that if the said G.O is implemented, she will put to irreparable loss and her right of being considered for the post of teacher will be lost and hence, she prays for setting aside portion which deny the extension benefit to the other community people and to extend the benefit to the other community people also.
4. No counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that many Writ Petitions were filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.252, dated 05.10.2012, G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 06.02.2014 and G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 14.02.2014 on different grounds and the same have been disposed of by upholding the validity of G.O.Ms.No.25 and setting aside the grading system adopted by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.252 dated 05.10.2012 observing that it lacks rationality as it places a candidate 5/12 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.4746 of 2014 and with the difference of 1 to 9 marks in the same bracket. The said order challenged before the Division Bench of the Principal Seat at Madras as well as Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. The said Writ Appeals were dismissed, by the Principal Seat, whereas, the Madurai Bench quashed the relaxation given to reserved cateogry candidates. Challenging the said two contradictory decisions, the SLPs were filed. The issues that arose for consideration were:
(i) Competency of State Government to grant relaxation of 5% marks in TET and consequent justicibility of G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 06.02.2014;
(ii) Having regard to the stand of the Government in the earlier round of writ petitions i.e., in Writ Petitons Nos.30426 of 2012 and 22407 of 2013, not to relax the qualifying marks for Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), whether the Government is estopped from granting relaxation?
(iii) Whether providing relaxation of 5% marks in 6/12 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.4746 of 2014 and Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) by G.O.Ms.No.25 dated
06.02.2014 amounts to change in the criteria of selection of teachers after the selection process had commenced? And
(iv) Whether prescribing 40% marks as weightage for the academic performance is arbitrary and does not take into consideration different streams of education and subjects of study?
6. The Supreme Court after considering all the contentions raised had come to the conclusion that granting relaxation to SC/ST, OBC, Physically Handicapped and Denotified Communities is in furthernes of the constutiitonal obligation of the State to the underprivileged and create an equal level – playing field. After referring to Clause 9 of the NCTE Guidelines, the Madras High Court has rightly held that the Government of Tamil Nadu has acted in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause 9 of the Guidelines issued by NCTE. The Madurai Bench was not right in quashing GOMs.No.25 dated 06.02.2014 on the ground that such relaxation “based upon the 7/12 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.4746 of 2014 and theory of social justice is actually destructive of the very fabric of the social justice”. In our considered view, the judgment of the Madurai Bench has not kept in view the constitutional obligation of the State to provide equal level – playing filed to the underprivileged. In consonance with M.Nagaraj case, an affirmative action taken by the State Government granting relaxation for TET would not amount to dilution of standards and hence, the view taken by the Madurai Bench is not sustainable and is liable ot be set aside. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also come to the conclusion that the candidates who have got selected as per the G.O.Ms.No.25 and 29 the criteria of selection was altered by relaxing passing marks by 5% in TET from 60% to 55%, thereby allowing large number of candidates who scored lesser marks to be considered for selection. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also come to the conclusion that 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 adversly affected. This will not amount to change in the criteria for selection after the selection process commenced. In that scenario to provide a level-playing field to the persons belonging to SC/SST/OBC, Denotified Communities, differently abled persons, etc., the 8/12 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.4746 of 2014 and 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 cateogry candidates. As the Government has not changed the rules of selection sofar as the others are concerned, weightage of marks obtained in TET as well as that of academic qualification is still the same. The entire selection process confirms to the equitbale standards laid down by the State Government in line with the principles enshrined in the Constitution and the extent of reservation policy of the State.
7. It is not the case where the basic eligibility criteria has been altered in the midst of selection process. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Madras High Court has rightly rejected the challenge to GOMs.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 TET for the candidates belonging to reserved category and the same is affirmed and the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court order has been quashed. That being the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the 9/12 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.4746 of 2014 and G.O.No.25 has to be held as valid. The Court is of the view that the petitioner who had challenged the said GO also deserves the same result. Hence, in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Writ Petiton is also to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
23.03.2020
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
trp
10/12
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.4746 of 2014 and
To
1. Secretary to Government,
School of Education Department,
St. George Fort,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Teachers Recruitment Board,
E.V.K. Sampath Maligai,
DPI Compound,
Chennai.
3.The Director of School Education,
Chennai.
11/12
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.4746 of 2014 and
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J.
trp
W.P(MD)No.4746 of 2014 and
M.P(MD).Nos. 1 and 2 of 2014
23.03.2020
12/12
http://www.judis.nic.in