Madras High Court
B.Milton Boaz vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 March, 2014
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.03.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.13287 of 2008 B.Milton Boaz ... Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9. 2.The Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai 6. 3.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai 6. 4.The Principal, Presidency College, Chennai 5. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorari as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Selvaraj, SC for Mr.A.P.Balasubramani For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.V.Duraisolaimalai, AGP For R3 : Mr.D.Krishnakumar, Spl.GP For R4 : No Appearance ORDER
The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the third respondent / the Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai, in his proceedings R.C.No.1030/A6/2006, dated 27.05.2008, by calling for the records connected thereto.
2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent Board published notification on 01.10.2006 calling for applications for selection and appointment to the post of Lecturer in Physics by direct recruitment in Government Arts and Science College. Subsequent to the publication, when the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Physics under the BC (General) category, he was directed to appear for certificate verification on 12.07.2007. Thereafter, he was directed to appear for interview on 06.09.2007 and in the interview, the respondents have allotted 33 marks out of 39 marks, as stated below;
for teaching experience 11 marks out of 15 marks for educational qualification 9 marks out of 9 marks for publication of Books/articles 5 marks out of 5 marks in interview 8 marks out of 10 marks Total 33 marks out of 39 marks
The petitioner was placed at Sl.No.21 in the provisional selection list for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Physics and thereafter, he was sent for training as per the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.397, Higher Education Department, dated 07.12.2007. Subsequently, the petitioner also underwent training for one month and after that, he joined as Lecturer (Physics) in the fourth respondent College on 25.01.2008. While he was serving as Lecturer, he was directed to appear on 18.02.2008 before the third respondent Board for certain enquiry. Accordingly, when he appeared on 19.02.2008, he was directed to give details about his educational qualification and the period during which he acquired the same. Thereafter, the petitioner also gave all those details, but the third respondent, all of a sudden, passed the impugned order dated 27.05.2008, cancelling his selection on the ground that the teaching experience as Lecturer, while doing Ph.D. on full time basis, were taken into consideration by the Certificate Verification Board, since the services rendered during the Ph.D. Studies viz. 2001-2005 could not be taken into account for awarding weightage marks. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with a prayer cited supra, on the ground that the petitioner had underwent the Ph.D. Course only from 07.10.2002 to 20.10.2004, however, the third respondent has wrongly reached a conclusion that the period of Ph.D. Studies was from 2001 to 2005.
3. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that when the matter was taken up on 03.06.2008, this Court, by taking note of the fact that the petitioner was working as Lecturer in Physics and that 11 marks awarded under teaching experience was cancelled without holding proper enquiry, granted interim order of stay. By virtue of the same, the petitioner has been working even now, therefore, it is pleaded, the crux of the issue in the present writ petition is, if the over-lapping period of Ph.D., i.e. from 07.10.2002 to 20.10.2004 (two years period) is excluded, even then the petitioner will be getting 7 marks for teaching experience and accordingly, if the above four marks for twoyears of Ph.D. Studies are deducted from the total marks secured by the petitioner, then he would easily come within the zone of consideration for BC (General) category, since he would get the required cut-off marks of 29 (33-4) for BC (General) category.
4. Learned Senior counsel further emphatically submitted that since the third respondent Board has offered 2 marks for every one year of teaching experience, they ought to have granted 7 marks for 3 years and 4 months of teaching experience by excluding the Ph.D. Studies i.e. from 07.10.2002 to 20.10.2004, but, in contra, they cancelled all the 11 marks granted for teaching experience. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that the time for attending Ph.D. Course is from 8.15 a.m. to 12.00 noon, that too at the guidance of the Guide. When it is also not mandatory that the petitioner should appear every day before the Guide and that the petitioner has to submit performance and progress report on the problems/issues once in a week, the same does not prevent the petitioner from working as a Lecturer. On that basis, it was further submitted that, even during the Ph.D. Studies, namely, from 07.10.2002 to 20.10.2004, the petitioner had worked as Lecturer, but, unfortunately, the third respondent, without giving any notice whatsoever, erroneously reduced 11 marks. Learned Senior counsel further brought to the notice of this Court a copy of the application issued by the Madras University and by relying on the same, he contended that had the third respondent issued a notice calling for an explanation before cancelling the marks, all the misconceptions could have been clarified, since the petitioner had undergone Ph.D. Course only from 07.10.2002 to 20.10.2004. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is contended, the approach of the third respondent is against the principles of natural justice. On that basis, learned Senior counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
4. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for third respondent submitted that according to the second respondent's letter dated 02.05.2008, the period of experience rendered during the regular course of Ph.D study should not be taken into account for warding any weightage marks for teaching experience. However, during the selection to the post of Lecturer in Physics, third respondent has wrongly included the Ph.D. Study period under teaching experience and on that basis, he was also awarded 11 marks for teaching experience and as a result, he was awarded totally 33 marks out of 39 marks. Subsequently, on scrutiny of the records, it was found that, for teaching experience, the period of service rendered as Lecturer by the petitioner while doing Ph.D. on full time basis, should not be taken into account. In view of that, the Teacher Recruitment Board/third respondent herein decided to cancel the weightage marks wrongly awarded to the petitioner. Accordingly, 11 marks awarded for teaching experience was cancelled and thereafter, by impugned order dated 27.05.2008, his provisional selection was cancelled. Therefore, no infirmity could be found in the impugned order passed by the third respondent.
5. This Court is unable to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the third respondent, the reason being that the provisional certificate issued by the Madras University dated 30.11.2005 shows that the petitioner was conferred with Ph.D. on 30.11.2005, but, a copy of the application issued by the Madras University bearing application No.1648 clearly shows that the petitioner has got his name registered in the month of October, 2002, and submitted his thesis on 20.10.2004 on the growth and characterisation of Semiorganic, Nonlinear Optical, NPNa, NPLi, NPK and NPNaLi Single Crystals, which shows that the petitioner, after registering his name for Ph.D. Course on 07.10.2002, completed the studies on 20.10.2004. Therefore, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for third respondent, the petitioner is not entitled to get any weightage marks during his study period of Ph.D., i.e. from 07.10.2002 to 20.10.2004, that comes to only 4 marks, hence, cancellation of entire 11 marks awarded for teaching experience is untenable. In fact, the bonafide certificate issued by the fourth respondent College dated 09.07.2007 to the petitioner also clearly shows that during the academic year 07.10.2002 to 20.10.2004 only, the petitioner was doing his Ph.D. Degree in the department of Physics. Hence, when the petitioner was doing Ph.D. Degree during the period from 07.10.2002 to 20.10.2004, third respondent was right in reducing the marks, which comes only four marks and not 11 marks as done by the third respondent in the impugned order.
6. It is also pertinent to note that the third respondent Board awarded 11 marks to the petitioner for teaching experience on the premise that he possessed total experience of 5 years and 4 months (each year 2 marks and for four months 1 mark). Now, if four marks are reduced for Ph.D. Study period i.e. from 07.10.2002 to 20.10.2004, the petitioner is entitled to get 7 marks for 3 years and 4 months of teaching experience as stated above and thereby, he would get required cut off marks of 29 (33-4) for BC (General). Therefore, this Court, finding no justification in the impugned order passed by the third respondent in deducting 11 marks, instead of only four marks, awarded for teaching experience, is inclined to set aside the same and accordingly, the same is set aside. In fine, the writ petition stands allowed. No Costs. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index:yes/no 07.03.2014
Internet:yes/no
rkm
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 9.
2.The Director of Collegiate Education,
Chennai 6.
3.The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
Chennai 6.
4.The Principal,
Presidency College,
Chennai 5.
T.RAJA,J.
Rkm
W.P.No.13287 of 2008
07.03.2014