Madras High Court
S.Sivasubramanian vs The Principle Secretary on 6 March, 2013
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.03.2013
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU
Writ Petition No.2663 of 2013
and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2013
S.Sivasubramanian,
S/o.V.Srinivasan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Principle Secretary,
Department of School Education,
St. George Fort, Chennai 600 009
2. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board,
College Road, Chennai 600 006
3. The Director, Directorate of School Education,
College Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 006
4. The Chief Educational Officer,
Thiruvarur District 610 001 ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the second respondent in his proceedings dated Nil, released by his official Website vide dated 18.01.2013, and to quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned and to direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner as Post Graduate Assistant (English) and confer all the consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr. A.C.Manibharathi
For Respondents : Mr. R.Govindasamy, AGP.,
- - -
O R D E R
The petitioner is aspirant for the post of Post Graduate Assistant in English. When the second respondent / Teachers Recruitment Board advertised for the said post, the petitioner made an application and subsequently, went through the written test and secured 99 marks in the written test and therefore, he got eligible to be called for certificate verification. Subsequent to the certificate verification, the petitioner was informed that he did not have the Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC) and therefore, he was not selected for the post of Post Graduate Assistant. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner contended that after SSLC, he did Pre-University Course (PUC) and wrote the examination conducted by the Madurai Kamaraj University. He studied in Rajus College, Rajapalayam. However, the PUC certificate given to him was misplaced. The petitioner gave a complaint before the Taluk Police Station at Tiruvarur on 30.07.2012. Thereafter, he also made an advertisement in the (Tamil newspaper) Thina Thanthi, Thanjavur Edition, dated 31.07.2012, stating that while shifting the house, the certificate was found missing. The petitioner also wrote to the second respondent / Teachers Recruitment Board (in short "TRB"), vide e-mail, dated 13.12.2012, that he has applied for a duplicate certificate and since the duplicate certificate is available, he is willing to produce the same. During the certificate verification, it was recorded that the PUC certificate was not produced. It was, thereafter, all these exercises were undertaken. It was, thereafter, he wrote to the TRB seeking their permission to produce duplicate certificate issued by the Madurai Kamaraj University. Notwithstanding the same, since no reply was forth coming, the writ petition came to be filed.
3. When this writ petition came up for hearing on 01.02.2013, the learned Additional Government Pleader was directed to get instructions from the respondents. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 11.02.2013, 12.02.2013, 19.02.2013, 26.02.2013, 01.03.2013 and finally, today. The learned Additional Government Pleader has, today, produced the file containing the certificate of verification maintained by the TRB, wherein it is indicated that the petitioner did not produce his PUC certificate, but, however, he has produced his originals of SSLC, B.A., degree course, M.A., degree course and also B.Ed., degree course.
4. In the prospectus issued by the TRB, in paragraph 15, it was indicated that during certificate verification, the original and attested copies of all certificates as stated in the call letter for certificate verification should be produced and all certificates should have been issued prior to the last date for submission of filled-in applications and the certificates issued after the cut off date will not be considered.
5. In the present case, due to the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner, he was unable to produce the PUC certificate. But, when several interim orders were passed by this Court by the Principal Bench and Madurai Bench, the TRB issued a notice in their Website on 11.12.2012, stating that those persons who have filed writ petitions before the Court, the Board has decided, on humanitarian consideration to give another chance to the absentees and those who have not produced certificates in January 2013 and in these cases, there was a direction to keep one post vacant and also the Court indicated the circumstances under which certain candidates could not produce their original certificates. When the TRB itself has gave an opportunity to such of those persons, on the ground of humanitarian consideration, a further chance was given both for the persons, who are absentees as well as for the persons, who did not produce certificate. There is no reason why the petitioner's duplicate certificate obtained, on account of his original being lost, cannot be accepted by the TRB, that too, especially when the petitioner has produced his B.A., and M.A., degree original certificates, which could not have been done without PUC qualification.
6. Therefore, the circumstances pleaded by the petitioner clearly show that he was not in a position to produce PUC certificate and his subsequent attempt to get duplicate copy from the University has been materialized and the same has also been produced. Hence, the denial of the appointment to the petitioner is unjustified. Therefore, this writ petition stands allowed. The second respondent / TRB is hereby directed to, include the petitioner's name in the selected list of candidates and consequently, send a communication to the School Department. This exercise shall be undertaken within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such receipt of information from the TRB, the Department shall give an appointment order to the petitioner within two weeks, thereafter. No costs. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed.
7. However, a disquieting factor has also to be noted. The petitioner is already 54 years old and maximum, he will be in service only for four years. It is curious that the State Government and the TRB did not prescribe any upper age limit. The TRB has stated in the prospectus that the persons should not be over 57 years for sending the application, which only means a candidate, who is 57 years, will be given appointment for a period of one year. This is a serious matter, which the State Government must ponder over and also to prescribe an upper age limit for entering into service. This is especially, when such candidates are going to be posted as Teachers, teaching young children, the prescription of upper age limit is absolutely necessary and the Government should not treat it as one more employment for candidates.
06.03.2013 Index : Yes / No Web : Yes / No srk K.CHANDRU, J., srk To
1. The Principle Secretary, Department of School Education, St. George Fort, Chennai 600 009
2. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai 600 006
3. The Director, Directorate of School Education, College Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 006
4. The Chief Educational Officer, Thiruvarur District 610 001 W.P.No.2663 of 2013 & M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2013 06.03.2013