Madras High Court
A. Akthar Parveen vs The District Employment Officer on 25 November, 2016
Author: B. Rajendran
Bench: B. Rajendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 26.08. 2016
PRONOUNCED ON : 25.11.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN
Writ Petition No. 26928 of 2013
Writ Petition No. 29058 of 2014
Writ Petition Nos. 6729, 8881, 9296, 9621, 9622, 9623,
9624, 9625, 9626, 9637, 10652, 10696, 11772, 11773, 11237,
11238, 11857, 12181, 12917, 23178, 23185, 30982, 39270, 39271,
39272, 39273, 39274, 39275 and 39276 of 2015
and
Connected Miscellaneous Petitions
---
WP No. 26928 of 2013
A. Akthar Parveen .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The District Employment Officer
Office of the District Employment Office
Cuddalore, Cuddalore District
Tamil Nadu
2. Teachers Recruitment Board
rep. by its Member Secretary
4th Floor, E.V.K. Sampath Maligai
College Road, Chennai - 600 006
Tamil Nadu
3. The District Collector
Cuddalore District
Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu .. Respondents
WP No. 26928 of 2013:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent herein to renew the petitioner's employment exchange Registration No. CUD 1997F 00000 618 forthwith, consequently directing the first respondent herein to sponsor the petitioner's name to the second respondent for the post of Computer Instructor or any post called for.
WP No. 26928 of 2013:-
For Petitioner : Mr. P.R. Thiruneelakandan
For Respondents : Mr. K. Venkataramani
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr. A. Kumar
Special Government Pleader for RR1 & 3
Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan
Special Government Pleader for R2
COMMON ORDER
By consent of counsel on either side, all these writ petitions are taken up for consideration.
2. The issue involved in all these writ petitions revolve around the selection and appointment to the post of Computer Instructors on the basis of communal rotation. These writ petitions can broadly be classified into several groups, however, the relief prayed for in all the writ petitions are identical. For example, the crux of the relief sought for in WP No. 29058 of 2014 and WP No. 9637 of 2015 is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to select the petitioners based on their employment exchange registration seniority on preferential basis. Similarly, the prayer in WP Nos. 11772, 11773 and 11857 of 2015 is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioners for selection and appointment to the post of Computer Instructors on DEX/DSP priority category. An identical prayer has been sought for in WP No. 6729 of 2015 wherein a direction is sought to the respondents to call upon the petitioner for certificate verification inasmuch as her name was not sponsored by employment exchange on the ground that she has not renewed her name as on the date of the notification inviting application for the post of Computer Insturctor. In yet another group of writ petitions namely WP Nos. 9621 to 9626, 8881 10652, 11237, 11238 and 30982 of 2015, the petitioners seek for a direction to the respondents to select and appoint them to the post of Computer Instructors by giving first priority for the dependants of serving personnel, Ex-servicemen/Service Personnel as per GO Ms. No.1161, P&AR Department dated 22.11.1984 and under the category of Land Acquisition Priority category respectively.
3. For the purpose of appreciating the facts involved in this batch of 31 writ petitions, it is relevant to go through the averments in WP No. 11857 of 2015 as a test case. The brief averments made by the petitioner in WP No. 11857 of 2015 is as follows.
4. According to the petitioner in WP No. 11857 of 2015, the Government of Tamil Nadu has sanctioned 1880 posts of Computer Instructors to impart Computer Education to students studying in Class 11 and 12 in Higher Secondary Schools in the State. For this purpose, earlier, appointments were made on consolidated pay basis before sanctioning of the posts. After the posts were sanctioned, the Government sought to absorb the teachers who were working on consolidated pay. This action of the Government was subjected to challenge before this Court and ultimately, on appeal to the Honourable Supreme Court, it was directed that those who are working on consolidated pay and who have passed the recruitment test alone shall be absorbed and those who failed in such test shall be terminated from service and the resultant vacancies shall be filled up by following employment exchange seniority. As per the direction of the Honourable Supreme Court, the Teachers Recruitment Board (in short 'Board') has issued a notification dated 13.10.2014 by publishing the distribution of vacancies for the post of Computer Instructor. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner was called for a certificate verification by a communication dated 23.02.2015. According to the petitioner, her husband is serving as a Soldier in Army and therefore, she will come within the purview of priority category of dependent of serving personnel. The petitioner was also issued with a certificate certifying that she is dependent of ex-serviceman and she also registered it with the employment exchange concerned.
5. It is the contention of the petitioner in WP No. 11857 of 2015 that she attended the certificate verification held on 02.03.2015, but when the select list was published, she was shocked to notice that the entire priority quota has been filled up with persons belonging to inter-caste marriage category and destitute women priority category. It is also stated that the name of the petitioner was not included in such list of selected candidates According to the petitioner, the distribution of vacancies does not prescribe any quota exclusively for inter-caste marriage or destitute widows category and therefore, the action of the respondents in ignoring the communal rotation in the matter of filling up the post of Computer Instructor is illegal. When the petitioner approached the respondents to ascertain the reason as to why her name was omitted in the select list, it was informed that priority category is being followed as per GO Ms. No.188 dated 28.12.1976. According to the petitioner, the above said order in GO Ms. No.188 dated 28.12.1976 contains 5 groups of priority category. As far as the petitioner is concerned, she comes under the category of dependent of serving personnel. It is contended by the petitioner that amendments were made to the said GO Ms. No.188 dated 28.12.1976 by issuing GO Ms. No.1161 dated 22.11.1984 whereby the category of ex-serviceman was brought under existing item No.(i) under group-II. Therefore, according to the petitioner, she is entitled to priority under Group-II item (i) for employment through employment exchange as per GO Ms. No.1161 dated 22.11.1984 whereby the category of Ex-servicemen has been given priority over other categories. The petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment dated 01.11.2002 passed by the Larger Bench of this Court whereby it was held that reservation for inter-caste marriage category is unconstitutional and held that reservation for children of freedom fighters and dependents of Ex-servicemen alone was constitutionally valid.
6. According to the petitioner in WP No. 11857 of 2015, contrary to the policy of the State, the Board is applying GO Ms. No.188 dated 28.12.1976 while filling up the posts of Computer Instructor, which would defeat the very purpose for which the Government order was issued. While applying reservation for various categories under Group-II, the Board has first selected all the candidates available under destitute widow category. In the event of candidates not being available, then alone, candidates from inter-caste marriage has to be selected. When no one is available in the inter-caste marriage category, selection has to be made from among those who are in the category of dependents of Ex-servicemen, however, it was not done by the respondents. This according to the petitioner is against the well settled principle of law that there cannot be a class within a class. According to the petitioner, in asmuch as all the categories are under one group, they ought to have been treated equally and non-consideration of the same is contrary to Article 14 and 16 of The Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, the candidates in Group-II ought to have been equally treated and the selection must be based upon the employment exchange seniority. If the methodology adopted by the respondents is considered, then the claim of the petitioner for selection and appointment to any post will never reach the zone of consideration and in such event, she could not get appointed.
7. The respondents have opposed the writ petition by filing separate counter affidavits. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit in WP No. 12181 of 2015 specifically contending that G.O. Ms. No.130, School Education (SEZ(2) Department dated 05.09.2014 was issued for recruitting 652 Computer Instructors apart from 175 existing vacancies that arose by reason of the order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 19.11.2009. According to the first respondent, pursuant to the order of the Honourable Supreme Court and in accordance with GO Ms. No.130 dated 05.09.2014, the Board has issued the notification dated 13.10.2014 for recruitment of 652 Computer Inspectors based on State wide Employment Registration Seniority for the year 2014. After getting a list from the employment exchange and on the basis of the employment exchange seniority, a certificate verification was conducted between 27.02.2015 and 04.03.2015 for those candidates who were sponsored by the employment exchange.
8. According to the first respondent, the Government issued GO Ms. No.188, P&Ar Department dated 28.12.1976 in respect of order of priorities to be followed in recruitments conducted through sponsorship of candidates by employment exchange. As per the said Government Order, the order of priorities mentioned in 'Group II' of GO Ms. No.188 dated 28.12.1976, as amended by GO Ms. No.229, P&AR Department dated 07.04.1988 is as follows:-
"Group-II:-
(i) Destitute Widows
(ii) Inter-Caste Married Couple (where one of the spouses belongs to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe)
(iii) Ex-servicemen and wives, sons and unmarried daughters of serving military personnel and of ex-servicemen and one son or one daughter or wife or one dependent or the widow of ex-servicemen provided that the concerned Ex-servicemen themselves have not utilised the priority
(iv) Indian Nationals returning from Burma/Sri Lanka and East African Countries of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania due to repatriation
(v) Members of family (including members of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe) whose lands have been acquired for Government purpose etc.,
9. By placing reliance on the above order of priority indicated in the Government Order, the first respondent would contend that during the selection process in respect of priority categories, order of priority is followed as per the Government Order in force. According to the first respondent, only after exhausting one priority category (according to the seniority of the candidate in that particular category) next priority category shall be considered for selection. Accordingly, 'Destitute Widow' and 'Inter-caste Married Couple' priority category candidates have been considered before considering the 'Dependent of Ex-Servicemen category/ Dependent of service personnel'. As per the order passed by the Government, the selection process has been resorted to and it reached upto SC turn under 'inter- caste married couple' priority category with date of registration as on 27.09.2010. In such circumstances, those who do not come within the purview of priority category could not be considered for selection. In any event, the rules of procedure have been scruplously followed in the selection of candidates in priority category and it is in accordance with law.
10. The first respondent also placed reliance on an order passed by this Court in WP (MD) No. 5956 of 2014 wherein the petitioner therein made a claim for priority in the matter of employment as his land was taken over by the government by resorting to acquisition proceedings. This Court, considering the rival submissions, observed that the categories i.e., "Destitute Widow, Inter-caste married couple and Ex-servicemen" are placed in serial Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the petitioner therein is placed in serial No.5 (Land Acquisition Category) in Group II and therefore, he cannot assert, as a matter of right, to seek for a direction to sponsor his name by overlooking those persons above him in Group-II Priority category. By placing reliance on the above order passed by this Court, the first respondent would contend that the selection list was published on 20.03.2015 and forwarded to the user departments for issuing appointment orders. Therefore, at this stage, the relief sought for in these batch of writ petitions need not be considered.
11. The fifth respondent in WP No. 11857 of 2015 namely the Director of Employment and Training, Chennai has filed a counter affidavit contending that on the basis of the request made by the Board, a list of candidates was forwarded and based on the same, a certificate verification was also conducted in which the petitioners participated. The fifth respondent also placed reliance on GO Ms. No.188, P&AR Department dated 28.12.1976 in which the order of priority to be followed in the matter of selection process has been indicated as per which in Group-I, the disabled Ex-Servicemen and the members of the family of the Armed Forces personnel killed in action or disabled in action and/or totally unfit for re-employment have been indicated. The Group-II consists of (a) the destitute widow (ii) Intercaste married couple (iii) ex-service-men/dependent of Ex-servicemen/ Dependent of service personnel, Legal heirs of Freedom Fighters/Tamil Savants (iv) Burma Repatriates/Srilankan Repatriates (vi) Persons are indicated. According to the fifth respondent, an amendment was made to GO Ms. No.188, P&AR Department dated 28.12.1976 by issuing GO Ms. No.1161, P&AR Department dated 22.11.1984 and even as per the amendment, there was no change in the order of priority. The amendment has been issued only as regards the eligibility of priority to be accorded to the members of the family of Ex-Servicemen category. Therefore, according to the fifth respondent, the selection process resorted to by the Board is in accordance with the Government Orders in force and the candidates have been given priority in the matter of employment in accordance with the Government Orders in force.
12. On behalf of the Teachers Recruitment Board, an additional counter has also been filed in WP No. 9405 of 2015 contending that pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court of India on 07.03.2014 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3342 of 2014 and in accordance with GO Ms. No.130, School Education (SE2(2) Department dated 05.09.2014, the Board has issued the notification dated 13.10.2014 for direct recruitment of 652 Computer Instructors. During the selection process, the Board selected the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange for direct recruitment of Computer Instructors based on state level employment exchange seniority duly following the existing Government rules. According to the counter affidavit, the Board strictly follows the 200 point roaster system as defined in the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules both in the previous and present recruitment drive. In the earlier recruitment drive, the roaster point ended with 195 (I Rotation) and therefore the present recruitment commences with 196 (I Rotation). Therefore, the communal rotation for selection of Computer Instructors in the 552 vacancies were arrived as given below:-
I. Rotation : From 196 to 200 (5) II. Rotation : From 1 to 200 (200) III. Rotation : From 1 to 200 (200) IV. Rotation : From 1 to 200 (200) V. Rotation : From I to 47 (47)
13. Therefore, according to the Board, they have strictly followed GO Ms. No.142, P&AR Department dated 14.10.2009 which prescribes 1 : 4 ratio with communal rotation to be followed for selection of priority and non-priority candidates in the recruitment made on the basis of employment exchange registration seniority. A tabulation has also been furnished in the counter which is extracted below:-
Priority/Non-priority Community General General Tamil Medium Women Women Tamil Medium Total Priority Non-priority GT 31 79 10 21 0 49 0 12 41 161 Priority Non-priority BC 26 70 8 17 0 42 0 10 34 139 Priority Non-priority BCM 3 10 1 2 0 5 0 2 4 19 Priority Non-priority MBC/DNC 20 53 6 13 0 31 0 8 26 105 Priority Non Priority SC 16 37 4 11 0 23 0 6 20 77 Priority Non-priority SCA 2 8 0 4 1 4 1 0 4 16 Priority Non-priority ST 0 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 5 Total 358 98 156 40 652
14. It is stated that apart from the above, 3% reservation for differently abled candidate was also provided and it was also followed by them in the selection process.
15. Above all, it is stated that based on the certificate verification process, a merit list was prepared and the select list for the notified vacancies was arrived at. As per the counter, after identifying the number of vacancies earmarked for various categories, the selection for each category was arrived at based on merit by adopting the following three steps namely:-
First step :
(i) As against the number of vacancies identified for open quota, irrespective of caste, sex, physically challenged etc., everyone should be allowed to compete based on merits.
(ii) The meritorious candidates should be first selected as against the above vacancies under open quota.Thereafter, Second Step :
(iii) After completing the first step, moving on to the vertifcal reservation categories, seleciton has to be made for each category from among the remaining candidates belonging to the particular reserved category (vertical) based on merits.
Third step :
(iv) After completing the second step, horizontal reservation which cuts across the vertical reservation has to be verified as to whether the required number of candidates who are otherwise entitled to be appointed under the horizontal reservation have been selected under the vertical reservation.
(v) On such verification, if it is found that sufficient number of candidates to satisfy the special reservation (horizontal reservation) have not been selected, then required corresponding number of special reservation candidates shall have to be taken and adjusted/accommodated as against social reservation categories by deleting the corresponding number of candidates therefrom.
(vi) Even while filing up the vacancies in the vertical reservation, if, sufficient number of candidates falling under the horizontal reservation have been appointed, then, there will be no more appointment exclusively under the horizontal reservation.
16. In addition to the above, it is stated in the counter affidavit that out of the total number of appointments reserved in the categories referred to in clause (a), in the case of appointment made by direct recruitment to group "C" posts, 5% in each such category shall be reserved for Ex-servicemen and subject to availability of such candidates, the appointment shall be made in turn and in the order of rotation as specified in Schedule III-B. However, if no qualified and suitable ex-serviceman belonging to a particular category is available for appointment against the reserved turn, such turn shall be filled up by a candidate other than an ex-serviceman, but belonging to the particular category and if no such candidate is available in the category for appointment against the reserved turn, such turn shall be carried forward as provided in clause (b).
17. In the counter affidavit, reference was made to G.O. Ms. No.102, P&AR Department dated 16.07.2010 for reservation of destitute widows. As per the counter affidavit, an amendment was issued to Rule 21 in the proviso to Sub-rule (b) for the expression "the posts in the scale of pay, the minimum of which does not exceed Rs.4,000/-" the expression "the posts which Grade Pay does not exceed Rs.2,400/-" shall be substituted. It is applicable for the post of "C" Grade only, and the grade pay was revised to Rs.2,800/- as per GO Ms. No.32, P&AR Department dated 22.03.2013. In respect of reservation of 5% of vacancies for Ex-servicemen in Group "C" Posts in State Government Service, orders have been issued by the Government as per GO Ms. No.762, Public (Ex-servicemen) Department dated 29.08.2002. However, the post of Computer Instructors in Government Higher Secondary Schools comes under a separate category in Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service (Adhoc) Rules and the scale of pay was fixed to B.T. Teacher Scale i.e., Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, Schedule III-B and IV are not applicable to the direct recruitment of Computer Instructors.
19. Lastly, it is stated in the counter that in recruitments through employment exchange seniority, during selection process in respect of selection of priority categories, 'order of priority' is followed as per GO Ms.No.188, P&AR Department dated 28.12.1976. The Teachers Recruitment Board, being a nodal agency has followed the orders issued by the Government from time to time and in such circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.
19. Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior counsel appearing for some of the petitioners in this batch of cases, would contend that as per the order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 19.11.2009 and 07.03.2004, 652 posts of Computer Instructors have to be filled up based on employment exchange seniority. She would also contend that the Government issued GO Ms.No.55, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 08.04.2010 in exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution by amending Schedule III of Rule 22 of the General Rules of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services prescribing the revised 200 point roaster system for filling up the vacancies. Thus, according to the learned Senior counsel, the 652 vacancies has to be filled up by resorting to the 200 point roaster based on which the Government also passed the above GO Ms. No.55 dated 08.04.2010. While so, under the 200 point roaster, the destitute widows can claim rights of reservation only for posts having grade pay of Rs.2800 and less, but for the Computer Instructors, the grade pay is Rs.4600/-. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the selection and appointment of destitute widows for the post of Computer Instructors is contrary to the 200 point roaster system.
20. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court the information dated 23.06.2016 obtained from the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department by invoking the Right to Information Act. As per the information, it is stated that the Ex-servicemen can claim reservation only for Group C posts. As per GO Ms. No.111, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 09.08.2010, Group 'C' posts relate to employees in posts drawing Grade pay of Rs.1400 and above but below Rs.4400/-. Therefore, Ex-servicemen cannot claim reservation in Computer Instructor posts, the grade pay for such post is Rs.4600/-. It is further contended that as per the notification dated 13.10.2014 of the Board for filling up the posts of 652 Computer Instructors, there was no reference made to either GO Ms. No.55 dated 08.04.2010 or GO Ms. No.188 dated 28.12.1976 to show that priority has been accorded to various categories of candidates. According to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, as per the notification dated 13.10.2014 of the Board, the posts have to be filled up only by following the guidelines issued in GO Ms. No.55, P&AR Department dated 08.04.2010 which deals with 200 point roaster. The provisional list for selection to the post of Computer Instructors containing 150 candidates by following GO Ms. No.188 dated 28.12.1976 is merely an executive instruction and did not have the force of law. Out of the 150 candidates, 20 belonged to physically handicapped category and 130 belong to priority category. The 130 vacancies have to be filled up by following employment exchange seniority and 200 point roaster as per GO Ms. No.55 dated 08.04.2010. However, the reservation relating to priority and non-priority categories are still in the form of Government Orders and there was no Rules in force. Therefore, there cannot be any priority category and the candidates belonging to either inter-caste marriage or ex-service men or those who lost their land in the acquisition proceedings cannot be given preference in the matter of selection and appointment to the post of Computer Instructors. Rather, according to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the guidelines laid down in GO Ms. No.55 dated 08.04.2010 amending Schedule III of Rule 22 of the General Rules of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services prescribing revised 200 point roaster system has to be followed for filling up the vacancies.
21. Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP No. 9621 to 9626 of 2015 would contend that the very selection process resorted to by the respondents is illegal. There cannot be any classification among the same classes in one category. According to the learned senior counsel, in the select list published by the Board, the persons in Serial Nos. 2, 5, 81, 109 and 531 were selected for the post of Computer Instructors even in the year 2011 when 192 posts were filled up. However, in the list of selected candidates, once again, their names were shown as if they are fresh candidates. This has deprived the petitioners of their chance to get selected to the post. The respondents, without any basis, have reserved as many as 108 posts for those who have contracted inter-caste marriages, which is opposed to the 200 point roaster system. The petitioners in WP Nos. 9621 to 9626 of 2015 have attended the certificate verification, however, due to the fault of the respondents in not following the prescribed procedures, the petitioners could not be selected.
22. Mr. Venkataramani, learned Senior counel appearing for the respondents would contend that the respondents have followed proper procedures prescribed by the Government in various Government Orders. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, only after exhausting one priority category, next priority category shall be considered for selection. This is in tune with the amendments made to the order passed by the Government in GO Ms. No. 188 dated 28.12.1976 from time to time. As per the amendment, 'Destitute Widow' and 'Inter-caste Married Couple' priority category candidates have been considered first and those in the category of 'Dependent of Ex-Servicemen category/ Dependent of service personnel' were considered next. This is more so that the selection process has been resorted to and it reached upto SC turn under 'inter- caste married couple' priority category with date of registration as on 27.09.2010, being the last selection process. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, the claim of the petitioners who do not come within the purview of priority category could not be considered for selection. The learned Additional Advocate General therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. However, it is submitted that the claim of the petitioner in WP No. 26928 of 2013 is concerned, she was provisionally selected under B.C. (Muslim) category and the concerned Department was directed to issue appointment order to her. Similarly, the petitioner in WP Nos. 23178, 23185, 39270, 39271, 39272, 39273, 39274, 39275 and 39276 of 2015 can be selected under priority categories, subject to fulfilling of all the requisite qualifications and if they comes under the priority categories
23. I heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record. During the year 1999-2000, 1880 computer instructors were appointed on contract basis in the higher secondary schools across the State for imparting education to the students about the usage of computers. However, for such appointment, posts were not sanctioned. On the basis of representations received from such contract appointees, the government decided to absorb the 1800 posts of Computer Instructors by conducting a special test through the Teachers Recruitment Board without insisting B.Ed., qualification. This decision of the Government to absorb the contract employees was subject to challenge before this Court by the B.Ed., Degree holders. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1216 of 2007 dated 22.08.2006 held that as a one time measure exemption shall be granted to the Government to conduct examination. The Judgment of the Division Bench was challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 927 of 2009. The Honourable Supreme Court, by Judgment dated 09.07.2009, held that a special recruitment test has been conducted on 12.10.2008. The Honourable Supreme Court finding that the contract employees appointed as Computer Instructors were working for a long time, confirmed the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, however, held that the minimum eligible marks fixed at 50 is arbitrary. Based on the order of the Honourable Supreme Court dated 09.07.2009, a second recruitment test was conducted on 24.01.2010 in which 652 candidates failed and therefore, they were terminated from the contract employment. Questioning the same, writ petitions were filed before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court, in W.A. No. 1707 of 2013, upheld the decision of the Government in terminating the failed candidates and directed the government to follow the policy of recruitment of teachers through the Board. As against this order dated 18.09.2013, Civil Appeal No. 3243 of 2014 has been filed before the Honourable Supreme Court. By Judgment dated 07.03.2014, the Honourable Supreme Court set aside the directions and directed the Government that the recruitment to the post of 652 vacancies shall be made on the basis of employment exchange seniority. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.130, School Education Department dated 05.09.2014 to fill up the vacancies. Following this, on 13.10.2014, the Board issued a notification for filling up the post and the Director of Employment Exchange and Training, Chennai sent a communication enclosing the proposed list of candidates. Between 27.12.2015 and 20.03.2015, certificate Verification was conducted by the Board and on 20.03.2015, a selection list was published and appointment orders have been issued except 133 candidates who have been appointed on priority category.
24. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is necessary to look into the order passed by the Government in GO Ms. No.188, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel-P) Department dated 28.12.1976 in which certain guidelines have been issued for according priority to various categories in the matter of employment. This Government Order was passed for revising or re-issuing the order of priority on the lines of the priorities laid down by the Government of India. By this Government Order, it was ordered that the priorities in regard to provision of employment assistance through employment exchanges shall be as indicated in the annexure to the said order. In this Government order dated 28.12.1976, reference was made to the earlier order passed by the Government of India on 25.12.1971 revising the priority category from time to time. Subsequently, G.O. Ms. No.1161, P&AR Department dated 22.11.1984 was issued wherein Group-II Ex-servicemen were ordered to be given preference. Subsequently, on the basis of the recommendations made by a Committee constituted by the Government, inter-caste married couple were ordered to be given preference and therefore, the Government included this category in Grade-II of annexure to G.O. Ms. No.188 dated 28.12.1976 by issuing G.O. Ms. No.939, P&AR Department dated 24.09.1986. Thereafter, Government issued G.O. Ms. No.229, P&AR Department dated by which priority was ordered to be given in the first preference to destitute widows by bringing yet another amendment to G.O. Ms. No.188 dated 28.12.1976. With this background, let me analyse the claim of the petitioners.
25. As regards the claim of the petitiners contending that the respondents have not properly followed the rule of reservation, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents that as per the established practice, only after exhausting one priority category the next priority category shall be considered for selection. Accordingly, 'Destitute Widow' and 'Inter-caste Married Couple' priority category candidates have been considered before considering the 'Dependent of Ex-Servicemen category/ Dependent of service personnel'. As per the order passed by the Government, the selection process has been resorted to and it reached upto SC turn under 'inter- caste married couple' priority category with date of registration as on 27.09.2010. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, those who do not come within the purview of priority category could not be considered for selection. In any event, the rules of procedure have been scruplously followed in the selection of candidates in priority category and it is in accordance with law. I find force in the said submission of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents that only after exhausting the priority in one category, resort will be made to proceed with the selection by giving priority to the next category. This, in my considered view, is the proper procedure to be adopted by the respondents in the matter of rule of reservation and I find no reason to interfere with the same.
26. In an identical situation, WP (MD) No. 5956 of 2014 has been filed before this Court challenging the communication dated 05.03.2014 of the District Employment Officer, Ramanathapuram. In that case, the petitioner claimed preference to employment on the ground that the land belonging to his family was acquired by the Government. However, by the communication dated 05.03.2014, the District Employment Officer has stated that his name will be sponsored only after sponsoring all the persons coming under the category of Destitute Widows, Ex-servicemen under the priority category. By order dated 11.02.2015, this Court, while dismissing the writ petition, observed that when other categories of persons were placed above than the petitioner in the Group-II, the petitioner cannot claim that he should be preferred above those persons and given employment. In that case also, this Court relied on the order of preference given to the annexure to G.O. Ms. No.188, P&AR Department dated 28.12.1976 and the subsequent amendments made thereto. Ultimately, this Court held that only after exhausting or completing the sponsorship of candidates under the Ex-servicemen, the name of the petitioner, who comes under the category of "members of family whose lands have been acquired" will be considered. It was furthe3r held that when several categories of persons are placed in one group, sponsorship should be made by considereing all categories of persons one after the another, according to their category serial numbers. This Court also held that the communication sent by the District Employment Officer, stating that destitute widows, inter-caste marriage couple and ex-servicemen will be first considered and thereafter the claim of the petitioner for sponsorship of employment will be considered is valid and it needs no interference. I respectfully concur with the conclusion arrived at by this Court in the above order. The findings rendered in the above order dated 11.02.2015 will squarely apply to the facts of this case.
27. The petitioners in WP Nos. 11857, 11772 and 11773 of 2015 prays for issuing a Mandamus directing the respondents to consider them on DEX/DSP priority categories and to select them to the post of Computer Operators. Similarly, the petitioners in WP Nos. 8881, 9621 to 9626, 10652, 11237, 11238 and 30982 of 2015 have been filed with a prayer to direct the respondents Board to select and appoint the petitioners to the posts of computer instructions by granting first priority for the dependants of serving personnel ex-servicemen/service personnel as per G.O. Ms. No.1161, P&AR Department dated 22.11.1985. This prayer is contrary to the amendments made to G.O. Ms. NO.188 dated 28.12.1976 whereby first preference was ordered to be given to destitute widows.
28. The petitioner in WP No. 12181 of 2015 prays for issuing a direction to the respondents to appoint her in the SC (W) quota for the post of Computer Instructors. According to the respondents, the petitioner's claim to consider her under SC (W) category could not be considered as her date of registration does not fall within the zone of selection under the SC (W) category. In such view of the matter, no direction could be issued to the respondents to select the petitioner to the post of Computer Instructor.
29. As regards the claim of the petitioner in WP No. 26928 of 2015 to direct the respondent to appoint her as Computer Instructor under B.C. (M) category, it is seen that the Board has provisionally selected the petitioner under B.C. (Muslim) category and forwarded it to the concerned Department for issuing appointment order to her. Therefore, no further order is required to be passed in this writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition is closed.
30. Similarly, in so far as WP Nos. 39270 to 392786, 23178 and 23185 of 2015 are concerned, it is stated that the respondents have selected them under priority categories however, appointment orders have not been issued. Therefore, if the petitioners fulfil all the requisite qualifications and if they comes under the priority categories, the respondents shall issue orders of appointment in their favour.
31. As regards, WP No. 6729 of 2015, the petitioner seeks for a Mandamus to call upon her for certificate verification by calling sponsored list from employment exchange. It is seen from the prayer sought for by the petitioner that her name was not sponsored by the employment exchange inasmuch as she has not even renewed her employment exchange registration. In other words, on the date of notification issued by the Board, the petitioner's employment exchange registration has lapsed without being renewed. In such circumstances, a Mandamus as sought for by the petitioner to call upon her for certificate verification cannot be issued to the respondents and consequently, WP No. 6729 of 2015 has to be dismissed.
32. In the result,
(i) Writ Petition No. 26928 of 2013 is ordered by recording the submissions of the respondents that the petitioner was provisionally selected under B.C. (Muslim) category and the concerned Department was directed to issue appointment order to her.
(ii) WP Nos. 23178, 23185, 39270, 39271, 39272, 39273, 39274, 39275 and 39276 of 2015 are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to select them under priority categories, if they fulfil all the requisite qualifications and if they comes under the priority categories
(iii) Writ Petition No. 29058 of 2014, Writ Petition Nos. 6729, 8881, 9296, 9621, 9622, 9623, 9624, 9625, 9626, 9637, 10652, 10696, 11772, 11773, 11237, 11238, 11857, 12181, 12917 and 30982 of 2015 are dismissed.
25.11.2016 rsh Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No To
1. The District Employment Officer Office of the District Employment Office Cuddalore, Cuddalore District Tamil Nadu
2. Teachers Recruitment Board rep. by its Member Secretary 4th Floor, E.V.K. Sampath Maligai College Road, Chennai - 600 006 Tamil Nadu
3. The District Collector Cuddalore District Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu B. RAJENDRAN, J rsh Pre-delivery Common order in WP No. 26928 of 2013 etc., batch 25.11.2016 http://www.judis.nic.in