Madras High Court
Teachers Recruitment Board vs B.Shabeer on 10 February, 2022
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan, Mohammed Shaffiq
Writ Appeal No.3082 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.02.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Writ Appeal No.3082 of 2021
Teachers Recruitment Board,
rep. by its Member Secretary,
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai 600 006. ... Appellant
vs.
1. B.Shabeer
2. M.Shabana
3. Beemabi, R.
4. A.Senthilkumar
5. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 23.08.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.14573 of 2018.
Page No.1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.3082 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram,
Senior Counsel
for M/s.C.Uma
For 5th Respondent : Mrs.Mythreye Chandru,
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court delivered by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.) Teachers Recruitment Board has come up with the present Writ Appeal challenging the order dated 23.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14573 of 2018.
2. Respondents 1 to 4 herein are the Writ Petitioners. Pursuant to the Notification issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board (in short 'TRB') vide Notification No.2/2017, dated 27.04.2017, Writ Petitioners participated in the recruitment process for direct recruitment of BT Assistant and BT Assistant (IEDSS) 2015-2016. After clearing the written examination, Writ Petitioners were called for a Certificate verification. However, they were not called for an interview. Before the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for Page No.2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Appeal No.3082 of 2021 the Writ Petitioners raised a contention that, having allowed the Writ Petitioners to write the examination and come for Certificate verification, it was not open for the TRB to deny employment to the Writ Petitioners by stating that, the Notification for the post of B.T. Assistant was meant only to fill up backlog vacancies for the year 2015-2016 and for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014.
3. Learned counsel for the Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that, in the Notification dated 27.04.2017 issued by the TRB, it was clearly stated that, the Board has decided to select candidates for direct recruitment of Graduate Assistants for the notified vacancies from 2012, 2013 and 2014 – TNTET qualified candidates, after verifying their eligibility. It was also stated in the Notification that, only those candidates who were previously selected by the Board for the post of B.T. Assistant, but, did not join the service and who wish that, their candidature be considered for recruitment, may submit their Application form to TRB in person, on or before 10.05.2017.
4. After hearing the learned counsel on either side, the learned Single Judge disposed of the said Writ Petition by holding that, the Writ Page No.3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Appeal No.3082 of 2021 Petitioners are eligible to be considered for being appointed to the post of B.T. Assistant along with 195 persons, who were already selected by the TRB from the backlog vacancies and current vacancies. The learned Single Judge directed the Director of School Education to appoint the Writ Petitioners from the remaining 91 vacancies. Aggrieved by the said order, TRB is before this Court by way of the present Appeal.
5. The main contention of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Appellant/Teachers Recruitment Board is that, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that, TRB had called for Applications for direct recruitment of BT Assistant and BT Assistant (IEDSS) 2015-2016 vide Notification No.02/2017, dated 27.04.2017, and Respondents 1 to 4/ Writ Petitioners had also applied for the post of B.T. Assistant (History and Geography), but, they have not obtained TET Certificates prior to the date of Notification, to be considered for the post of B.T. Assistant.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondents 1 to 4/Writ Petitioners contended that, on the date of Certificate verification, all the candidates have cleared TNTET and those candidates who have been called Page No.4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Appeal No.3082 of 2021 and allowed to participate in the written examination and who have passed the examination should also be considered and the learned Single Judge was right in considering the grant of appointment to the Writ Petitioners.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondents 1 to 4/Writ Petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the Call Letters issued to various candidates by the Appellant/Teachers Recruitment Board. For better appreciation, relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder:
Teachers Recruitment Board Notification No.3726/TET/2013, dated 10.01.2014:
4/ Mrphpah; njh;t[ thhpa eilKiw tpjpfspd;go. ,e;j rhd;wpjH; rhpghh;g;gjYf;F miHf;fg;gLtJk;. mjpy; fye;Jbfhs;tJk;.
ntiy tha;g;gpw;F cj;juthjkhf mikahJ/ gzpehLeh; Fwpg;gpl;l neuk;/njjpapy; rhd;wpjH;
rhpghh;j;jYf;F tutpy;iyahdhy; mtUf;F kPst[k; tha;g;g[ mspf;fg;glkhl;lhJ/ Teachers Recruitment Board Notification No.306/TET/2017, dated 11.07.2017:
6/ gzpehLeh; Fwpg;gpl;l neuk;/njjpapy;
rhd;wpjH; rhpghh;j;jYf;F tutpy;iyahdhy;.
mtUf;F kPst[k; tha;g;g[ mspf;fg;glkhl;lhJ vd jpl;ltl;lkhf bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/
8. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondents 1 to 4/Writ Petitioners, it has been specifically stated in the Call Page No.5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Appeal No.3082 of 2021 Letter that, the candidature of candidates who fail to participate in the Certificate verification, will not be considered. Having allowed the Writ Petitioners to have one more chance, nothing prevented the Appellant/Teachers Recruitment Board to consider the case of Respondents 1 to 4/Writ Petitioners and the learned Single Judge has rightly held that, the case of the Writ Petitioners need to be considered, as they have qualified TNTET on 30.06.2017 prior to the Certificate verification on 28.07.2017.
9. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.
10. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondents 1 to 4/Writ Petitioners, as, Notification No.2/2017 was issued on 27.04 2017 for the available notified vacancies for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014. It is seen that, prior to the issuance of the said Notification, there were no candidates qualified in TNTET. Hence, there is nothing wrong on the part of the Teachers Recruitment Board in issuing the Notification to give an opportunity to candidates, who have not availed an opportunity. If the Writ Petitioners are really aggrieved with the selection conditions stipulated in the Notification, they should have challenged the Page No.6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Appeal No.3082 of 2021 Notification and not sought for only a writ of mandamus before the learned Single Judge.
11. Even though, a reply dated 08.05.2015 has been given by the 5 th Respondent herein in response to a RTI query dated 08.03.2018 that, till July 2017, 195 B.T. Assistants were appointed from current and backlog vacancies, such appointment is based on the vacancies available on the date of the Notification.
12. It appears that, there were 286 vacancies for the post of B.T. Assistant and 195 vacancies were said to be filled up. Even though, Writ Petitioners secured more marks in the written examination, as the said Notification pertains to recruitment of B.T. Assistant/B.T. Assistant (IEDSS) for the vacancies notified for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014, respectively, we are of the view that, the direction given by the learned Single Judge to appoint the Writ Petitioners in the remaining vacancies, may not be correct. Hence, we have no other option but, to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
13. Accordingly, the order dated 23.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14573 of 2018 is set aside. In case, Page No.7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Appeal No.3082 of 2021 subsequent Notification is issued by the Appellant/TRB notifying vacancies for the post of B.T. Assistant, Respondents 1 to 4/Writ Petitioners may be considered for the same, by relaxing the age as one-time measure only, for the Writ Petitioners.
The Writ Appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
[S.V.N.,J.] [M.S.Q.,J.]
10.02.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
(aeb)
To:
1. The Member Secretary,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai 600 006.
2. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai 600 006.
Page No.8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.3082 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.
(aeb)
Judgment in
Writ Appeal No.3082 of 2021
10.02.2022
Page No.9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis