Madras High Court
K.Govindaraj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 November, 2014
Author: T.S. Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S. Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.11.2014 Date of Reserving the Judgment Date of Pronouncing the Judgment 11.11.2014 12.11.2014 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. SIVAGNANAM W.P. No.26275 of 2014 K.Govindaraj ... Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St., George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Secretary, Teachers, Recruitment Board, EVK Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents Prayer :-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Post Graduate Assistant in Tamil, based on the marks obtained in Teachers Recruitment Board, Examination held on 21.07.2013. For petitioner .. Mr.V.Bharathidasan For Respondents .. Mr.K.Karthikeyan G.A., O R D E R
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint him as Post Graduate Assistant in Tamil, based on the marks secured by him in the examination held by the Teachers Recruitment Board on 21.07.2013.
2. The petitioner applied to the post of Post Graduate Assistant (Tamil) in response to the advertisement dated 09.05.2013. The petitioner appeared for the written examination and secured 103 marks and was called for certificate verification on 30.12.2013. On scrutiny of the records/certificates, the petitioner was treated as ineligible on the ground that he has acquired M.A.degree in Tamil and B.Ed degree simultaneously during the same period. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition and seeks for issuance of a direction to select and appoint him as Post Graduate Assistant in Tamil.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the non-selection of the petitioner is against the law and has been made without taking note of the fact that prior to joining the B.Ed course, the petitioner had discontinued the M.A. Degree course and after completion of B.Ed degree course, rejoined the M.A. course and completed the same and the petitioner did not attend the classes and appear for any examination with regard to M.A.course, when he was pursuing his B.Ed course and cannot be construed as simultaneous study. Further, it is submitted that the University has granted the M.A. degree and it is valid for all purposes and there is no such disqualification prescribed in the prospectus. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner belongs to S.C., Arunthathiyar category and he is the first person in the list and his non-selection is illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of V.Prakash vs. Teachers Recruitment Board in W.P.No.3916 of 2014, dated 10.09.2014, and submitted that it is an identical case, where the relief was granted to the petitioner therein and therefore, a Writ of Mandamus as prayed for may be issued.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner completed his 10th standard in March 2001, Higher Secondary course in March 2003, joined B.Lit course, which is a three year course and completed the same in December 2006, joined first year M.A., course in Tamil through distance education and underwent the M.A., second year study till May 2010. The petitioner joined B.Ed course as regular candidate in 2008 and completed the same in June 2009. Thereafter, the petitioner continued the second year of the M.A., course through distance education and secured M.A., degree in May 2010. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner has simultaneously acquired both the degrees and the same cannot be done and it is not as per the approved pattern of study in G.O.Ms.No.107, School Education Department, dated 18.08.2009, and G.O.Ms.No.242, Higher Education, dated 18.12.2012 and contrary to the clarification issued by the Registrar, University of Madras by letter dated 12.01.2011. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has studied M.A., degree course for three years by distance education and has done B.Ed., course during the duration period of M.A., degree course and he completed the B.Ed course during June 2009. At the same time, month and year of joining the second year M.A., degree after discontinuation also commences from the year June 2009. Hence, it is submitted that the course period for both the degrees in the year i.e., June 2009 clearly indicates the fact that the petitioner has studied two degrees simultaneously in the same year. Further, it is submitted that duration of the M.A., course in the regular stream as well as in the distance education is only two years and the petitioner has undergone two years M.A., degree course in distance mode and acquired B.Ed., degree midway by discontinuing first year M.A., course.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that this Court in W.P.No.1843 of 2014 has held that the Government Orders prescribing qualifications that a candidate should have studied 12th standard followed by Master's degree and should have also obtained B.Ed., degree and if it is in reverse order, it is not accepted and has dismissed similar Writ Petitions. Further, it is submitted that the prayer sought for in the writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus and such prayer is not maintainable, since already the petitioner's candidature has been rejected and such rejection has not been challenged. Further, it is submitted that there is in-ordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. It is submitted that the selection list was published on 03.01.2014, in which the petitioner's name did not find place and all the appointments have been made and as on date, there are no vacancies and the Writ Petition has been filed in September 2014 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the Writ Petition. It is submitted that in the decision in W.P.No.3916 of 2014, the subject is entirely different namely Post Graduate Assistants/Physical Education Grade-I and the said posts were recently filled up in which such case arose and the Department is contemplating of filing an appeal against the said order. In any event, the said order can have no effect on the petitioner's case as all the posts have already been filled up. Learned Government Advocate relied on the decision of this Court in the case of R.Parameswari & Ors., vs. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., in W.P.Nos.1775 of 2014 etc batch, dated 27.03.2014, wherein this Court dismissed the Writ Petitions on the ground of laches. Further, it is submitted that this Court considered the issue regarding the acceptance of the candidature of persons, who had undergone two different degrees simultaneously in W.P.No.30299 of 2012 and the Writ Petition was dismissed by order dated 02.04.2013.
6. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
7. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that he joined M.A., degree course through distance education in 2007. It is the two year course and under normal circumstances, the petitioner should have completed the course in June 2009. However, in 2008, the petitioner joined B.Ed., course as a regular candidate, which is a one year course and secured B.Ed., degree in June 2009. Prior to joining the B.Ed., course, the petitioner is said to have discontinued the M.A., first year course through distance education. After completion of the B.Ed course, it appears that the petitioner rejoined the M.A., degree course, which he had earlier discontinued that too in the second year and completed the same in 2010.
8. According to the respondents, the petitioner has pursued two courses simultaneously during the same period and therefore, the petitioner's candidature cannot be considered. The stand taken by the respondent is fully justified. If the petitioner has discontinued his M.A., course, which according to him, he had done, he could not have been re-admitted in the second year of the M.A., course after the lapse of one year, since he discontinued the course. There may be cases where, the candidate might not have written the examination and then may approach the University for condonation, but the petitioner consciously withdrew himself from his course and such withdrawal was accepted by the University and he was treated as a candidate, who has discontinued the course of study. If the petitioner had been readmitted that too in the second year after a lapse of one year in between the course duration for M.A., course virtually the course of study extends to three years, in the interregnum, the petitioner has obtained B.Ed., degree as a regular candidate in June 2009. Thus, the petitioner is deemed to have pursued two courses simultaneously and the action of the Annamalai University treating the petitioner as a discontinued candidate from 2008-09 and readmitted the candidate in 2009-10. The Transfer Certificate dated 22.01.2014, which was admittedly issued after the publication of the results by the Teachers Recruitment Board, can in no manner be of any assistance to the case of the petitioner.
9. As observed earlier, the candidate who had discontinued the course midway, could not have been admitted in the second year of the same course and if at all could have been admitted in the same year in which he had discontinued. Therefore, reliance placed on the Transfer Certificate, dated 22.01.2014, is of little avail. Further, it is seen that select list was published on 03.01.2014 and the petitioner was declared not selected and all appointments are said to have been completed in June 2014 and the petitioner has approached this Court only in September 2014 and there is no explanation for the delay.
10. The contention that the petitioner was not intimated after the certificate verification, is no justifiable reason, since as per the scheme of selection, non-selection is not intimated and the select list alone was published, which deems that the candidate, whose name/number does not find place in the select list is not selected. The petitioner did not make any endeavour to ascertain the status of his application by approaching the Teachers Recruitment Board and the petitioner has not even given a representation before he approached this Court.
11. Sofar as the decision in W.P.No.3916 of 2014, it is stated that it is for a different post and the selection list was published recently and the respondent is contemplating of filing of an appeal as against the order. Since this Court is satisfied that the petitioner's Writ Petition is grossly delayed without any explanation, the said decision cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.
12. Further, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.Jagadeeswari vs. The Chairman in W.A.No.845 of 2013, dated 07.01.2014, considered the validity of G.O.Ms.No.361, dated 31.12.1999 and confirmed the order made in W.P.No.30299 of 2012, wherein, it was held that the stand taken by the respondent not to accept the candidature of persons, who had undergone two different degrees simultaneously is perfectly in order.
13. Hence, for all the above reasons, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.11.2014 pbn Index :Yes Internet:Yes T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
pbn To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St., George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Secretary, Teachers, Recruitment Board, EVK Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
Pre-delivery O r d e r in W.P. No.26275 of 2014 12.11.2014