Madras High Court
R. Rajaraman vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 22 August, 2012
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal, A. Arumughaswamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 22..08..2012
C O R A M
The Honourable Mr. M.Y. EQBAL, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
The Honourable Mr. Justice A. ARUMUGHASWAMY
Writ Appeal No.1736 of 2012
R. Rajaraman .. Appellant
versus
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
School Education (C2) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The Chairman,
Teacher Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Salai,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai-6.
3. E. Jasmine Shanthi
4. S. Stella Roseline Glory
5. A.R. Punitha
6. K. Bama .. Respondents
- - - - -
Prayer : Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.28342 of 2011 dated 10.7.2012.
- - - - -
For Appellant : Mr. D. Muthukumar
For Respondents-1 & 2 : Mr. E. Sampath Kumar Spl. Govt. Pleader (Education)
- - - - -
J U D G M E N T
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.28342 of 2012. Respondents 3 to 6 herein filed the writ petition to quash the advertisement dated 9.11.2011 issued by the second respondent for recruiting the Secondary Grade Teachers in Schools and to direct the respondents to appoint teachers with the qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education, after conducting the Teachers Eligibility Test in accordance with the guidelines issued in Annexure to the G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education (C2) Department dated 15.11.2011.
2. The sole contention of the writ petitioners/respondents 3 to 6 before the learned single Judge was that since the recruitment of Secondary Grade Teachers is in pursuance of an advertisement issued on 9.11.2011, the Government is entitled to appoint only those who pass the Teacher Eligibility Test in accordance with the NCTE Regulations issued on 23.8.2010 and amended on 29.7.2011.
3. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit stating inter alia that the NCTE Regulations would be applicable to all appointments made and only those who pass the Teacher Eligibility Test will be appointed under the present recruitment process. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the Government has already announced the date for the conduct of the Teacher Eligibility Test and more than seven lakh candidates had applied for the said test. In view of the above, the apprehension of the writ petitioners that persons who have not passed the Teacher Eligibility Test are likely to be appointed does not survive any longer.
4. The writ petitioners contended that insofar as the present recruitment process was concerned, though it was set rolling in the year 2006, it got bogged down in a series of litigations on account of the dispute between the persons who claim State-wide seniority and persons who claim District-wise seniority, which was temporarily settled by the judgment of the Division Bench, and is now in issue before the Supreme Court. However, the respondents retorted stating that pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court, the Government had issued G.O. Ms. No.153 dated 3.6.2010 purporting to recruit Secondary Grade Teachers as well as B.T. Assistants.
5. The learned single Judge elaborately considered the contentions of either side and traced the chequered history of the issue involved in the writ petitions, viz. appointment of teachers in the schools in the State of Tamil Nadu owing to the inconsistency adopted by the State Governments in the policy of recruitment, in that the process which was once the domain of the Public Service Commission, later on was sought to be implemented by the newly constituted Teachers Recruitment Board. The learned single Judge pointed out that the process of recruitment of B.T. Assistants got completed even before the NCTE Regulations of 2010 were sought to be implemented. The process of recruitment of Secondary Grade Teachers got delayed on account of the Recruitment Board taking a long time in issuing the advertisement long after the order passed by the Supreme Court.
6. The learned single Judge rejected the contention that Clause 5(a) of the Amendment introduced by the NCTE Regulations on 29.7.2011 has to be understood to mean that in cases where the process of recruitment had already commenced, candidates have to be selected only on the basis of seniority of registration in the Employment Exchange, subject to the condition that they pass the Teacher Eligibility Test within a period of five years from their appointment. The expression used in the aforesaid clause makes it very clear that if the process of recruitment had started by the issue of an advertisement prior to the date of the said notification, then, it shall follow the old Regulations and therefore, the process of recruitment cannot be taken to have been initiated even before the date of issue of the advertisement, i.e. 9.11.2011.
7. The learned single Judge held that the prescription that a candidate should have passed Teacher Eligibility Test conducted by the NCTE is not without any justification. Out of past experience, the NCTE found that in order to streamline the system, there was an imminent need to conduct an eligibility test. Therefore, testing the contention of the respondents in this background, it was clear that no one can claim a right to be appointed without passing the Teacher Eligibility Test, on the ground that the process of recruitment began much earlier and was blocked by litigations.
8. The learned Judge observed that the NCTE, which is the academic authority, has laid down the minimum qualifications by the 2010 Regulations and if the State Government desires to seek any exemption, it must have applied under the 2010 Rules. But the State Government did not seek any exemption and has taken a positive stand that only those who have passed Teacher Eligibility Test will be appointed ultimately in the present process of recruitment. Therefore, it was held that when the writ petitioners sought enforcement of the NCTE Regulations, when the respondents themselves take a stand to the said effect, nothing remained to be ordered by the Court on the contrary. So saying, the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition on the basis of the statement made by the learned Special Government Pleader and the stand taken in the counter affidavit of the Teachers Recruitment Board that only those who appear and pass the Teacher Eligibility Test to be conducted on 12.7.2012 will be eventually selected for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade teachers.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned order on the ground that the matter relating to appointment of Secondary Grade Teachers is seized by the Supreme Court and in view of the interim direction issued therein, the writ petition ought not to have been entertained by the High Court, much less any direction issued. It is contended that G.O. Ms. No.181 dated 15.11.2011 effecting a change of policy in the matter of recruitment of Secondary Grade and B.T. Teachers came to be issued only on the basis of the order passed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. Nos.18227 and 18228 of 2008 and the State Government was bound to follow the direction of the Supreme Court. If the Government intends to make appointment of Secondary Grade Teachers by way of Teacher Eligibility Test, then the State-wide employment seniority cannot be followed. It is submitted that without challenging G.O. Ms. No.153 dated 3.6.2010 by which sanction was accorded for appointment of 1743 Secondary Grade Teachers, the respondents could not have challenged the notification dated 9.11.2011 by which such appointments were sought to be made.
10. In T.S. Anbarasu & Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others [W.A. No.1202 of 2012 dated 13.7.2012], this Bench had an occasion to consider a similar issue. The appellants/writ petitioners therein had filed the writ petition seeking to forbear the respondents therein from applying G.O. Ms. No.181 dated 15.11.2011 or insisting on a pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test as a minimum qualification for appointment as Graduate Teachers and to direct the respondents to select the appellants to the post of Graduate Assistants based on their employment seniority, communal rotation and certification verification. The case of the appellants/petitioners was that they had already undergone the certification verification, by virtue of being on the verge of being appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers, they had a legitimate expectation of being appointed and the new guidelines should not be made applicable to them.
11. In that case too, the appellants did not challenge G.O. Ms. NO.181 dated 15.11.2001 by which call letters were issued to the appellants by the Teachers Recruitment Board to attend the certificate verification process, wherein it was made clear that calling the candidates for the verification of the certificates and participation in the same will not be a guarantee for the job and the decision of the TRB with regard to the eligibility of the candidates will be final. Therefore, merely because the appellants were called for verification of their certificates by the TRB cannot clothe them with any indefeasible right to secure appointment. In that case, the appellants rested their case on the ground of legitimate expectation and it was argued before the learned single Judge that the appellants having undergone the certificate verification process should be appointed and they should be granted time to acquire the TET Qualification. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellants did not have an indefeasible right to claim appointment against the advertised posts, and mere empanelment of the candidates in the select list would not create a vested right to be appointed and the vacancies have to be filled up as per the statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate, as held in C. Rakhi Ray vs. High Court of Delhi, (2010) 2 S.C.C. 637.
12. This Court, after thoroughly analysing the subject matter involved in the writ appeal in the backdrop of the facts involved in the case, discussed the concept of legitimate expectation in great detail as earlier dealt with by this Court in P. Suseela & Others vs. University Grants Commission [W.A. Nos.893 of 2010 dated 6.12.2010], observed that the principles of legitimate expectation will have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case as even in terms of the Right to Education Act, it was mandatory for the State to recruit Secondary Grade Teachers and B.T. Teachers only by conducting the Teacher Eligibility Test, the object being to bring national standards and benchmark of teacher quality in the recruitment process and with a view to induce the teachers and the educational institutions to further improve their performance and with a view to send a positive signal to all stake-holders that the Government lays special emphasis on teacher quality.
13. In our considered opinion, therefore, the principles laid down in the above judgment squarely answer the questions raised in the present case. The learned single Judge was perfectly right in accepting the statement made by the learned Special Government Pleader and the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Teachers Recruitment Board that only those appear and pass the Teacher Eligibility Test will be eventually selected for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers.
14. We do not find any ground to interfere with the well considered and well merited order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, there shall be no order to costs. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2012 is closed.
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, School Education (C2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The Chairman, Teacher Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, EVK Sampath Salai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai 6