Madras High Court
F.X.Mahimainathan vs The Director Of Elementary Education on 1 February, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MAD 1505
Bench: S.Manikumar, Subramonium Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.02.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.A.No.171 of 2019
1.F.X.Mahimainathan
2.T.Manivannan
3.S.Ramachandran ... Appellants
vs.
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Karur District, Karur - 639 007. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
against the order made in W.P.No.5610 of 2015, dated 26.09.2018.
For Appellants :Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram
Senior Counsel
for Ms.C.Uma
For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan
Government Advocate (Education)
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J) Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition in W.P.No.5610 of 2015, by an order dated 26.09.2018, writ petitioners/appellants have filed the instant writ appeal.
2. The writ petitioners have completed Diploma in Teacher Education and they were eligible to be appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in Panchayat Union Schools/Municipality Schools/Elementary Schools in Karur District. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Karur District/second respondent herein, by proceedings dated 15.11.2007 in Na.Ka.No.31055/D1/2007, directed the Karur Employment Exchange, to send the list of eligible candidates, for filling up vacancies, in the post of Secondary Grade Teachers, in Panchayat Union and Municipality Schools in Karur District.
3. Pursuant to the said proceedings, names of eligible persons (including writ petitioners), to be appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher, were sent by the Karur Employment Exchange. The writ petitioners were called for certificate verification on 26.02.2008 for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. When, the writ http://www.judis.nic.in 3 petitioners were expecting orders of appointment, it was informed to them that since they have migrated from other Districts to Karur District, they have to produce a migration certificate for verification, before issuing the order of appointments. Migration certificates were produced.
4. Before migration certificate could be produced, it was informed that the qualifications required for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher have been revised and that the candidates must have passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET).
5. Contending inter alia that, on the date when the writ petitioners applied for being considered for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the Panchayat Union Schools/Municipality Schools/Elementary Schools in Karur District. Passing of Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), was not a must and that therefore the revised qualification of passing of the Teacher Eligibility Test could not be applied to the writ petitioners.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6. The writ petitioners therefore approached this Court by filing 4 W.P.No.5610 of 2015, for the following relief:-
"For a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the writ petitioners were selected for the Post of Secondary Grade Teachers on 26.02.2008 subject to verification of the genuineness of migration prior to National Council for Teacher Education Regulation dated 23.08.2010 and consequently to direct the 1st respondent therein, to give the benefit of clause 5 of the National Council for Teacher Education Regulation dated 23.08.2010 to the writ petitioners and appoint the writ petitioners, as Secondary Grade Teacher in the existing vacancies in the Panchayat Union Schools / Municipality Schools / Elementary Schools in Karur District."
7. A learned Single Judge, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that, mere participation in the process of certificate verification does not confer any right on the candidate to claim selection or appointment.
8. A learned Single Judge held that the writ petitioners have to pass the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) and they cannot be exempted from taking the said test, for being eligible to be appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the existing vacancies in the Panchayat Union Schools/Municipality Schools/Elementary Schools in Karur District.
9. Assailing the above said order, appellants have filed the http://www.judis.nic.in 5 instant writ appeal.
10. Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram learned Senior Counsel for Ms.C.Uma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that, respondents cannot insist on the writ petitioners/appellants for passing of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), for being considered, for appointment as a Secondary Grade Teacher, in the vacancies in the Panchayat Union Schools/Municipality Schools/Elementary Schools in Karur District.
11. According to her, the certificates were all accepted but since the writ petitioners/appellants had migrated from other districts, they could not produce a migration certificate as demanded from them by the authorities.
12. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the certificates of the writ petitioners should have been considered on the date of verification i.e.26.02.2008 and that subsequent change in the eligibility, for being considered to be appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in Panchayat Union Schools/Municipality Schools/Elementary Schools, could not be made applicable to them. The issue is no longer http://www.judis.nic.in 6 res-integra.
13. The Parliament enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 23(1) of the said Act, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), issued a notification dated 23.08.2010, prescribing eligibility criteria for appointment as teachers. As per the prescription, Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), was the minimum requirement for being considered for appointment as Teachers.
14. A Hon'ble Division Bench of this court, in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.4827 and 18793 of 2012 etc., T.S.Anbarasu vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, at paragraph No.17, observed as under:-
"17. ......(xvi) The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the proposition that the vacancies, which occurred prior to the amended rule shall be governed by the old rule would have no applications to the facts and circumstances of the cases on hand. The petitioners do not dispute the settled legal principle that selected candidates have no vested right to secure an appointment and their case is that appointment shall not be denied arbitrarily. Further, the petitioners would state that they are not aggrieved by G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 15.11.2011, which made it mandatory to possess TET and therefore, they would state that they need not be http://www.judis.nic.in 7 challenged G.O.Ms.No.181. The contention put forth by the petitioners is self destructive. Once it is admitted that even a selected candidate has no vested right for appointment, that being the settled legal position, petitioners who were never selected would have no semblance of right to insist that the respondents should appoint them in respect of certain vacancies, which were notified under the Government Order, since recruitment process commenced prior to 23.08.2010. At this stage useful reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. vs., Sanjay Kumar Pathak reported in 2008 (1) SCC 456, and the decision in the case of East Coast Railway vs. Appa Rao reported in (2010) 7 SCC 678, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that it is trite that though names of persons appears in the select list, the same by itself would not give rise to a legal right unless the action on the part of the State is found to be unfair, unreasonable or malafide. The State, thus, subject to acting bonafide as also complying with the principles laid down in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is entitled to take a decision not to employ any selected (sic candidate) even from amongst the select list.
(xvii) Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Jayamohan vs. State of Kerala, reported in (1997) 5 SCC 170, held that it is settled legal position that merely because a candidate is selected and kept in the waiting list, he does not acquire any absolute right to appointment and it is open to the Government to make the appointment or not. It was further held that even if there is any vacancy, it is not incumbent upon the Government to fill up the same, but the Appointing Authority must give reasonable explanation for non-appointment. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India SC&ST Employees' Assn., vs. A.Arthur Jeen, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 380, held that merely because the names of the candidates were included in the panel indicating their provisional selection, they did http://www.judis.nic.in not acquire any indefeasible right for appointment even against the 8 existing vacancies and the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies as laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to earlier cases in Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47. Thus, the rules of the selection have not been changed in the midst of the selection process nor there is any arbitrariness in denying employment to the petitioners. In the light of the above, it is held that the petitioners have no right to claim in perpetuity to secure an appointment and Question No.5 is answered against the petitioners/appellants.
(xviii) In a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.19588/2013 etc., batch, the petitioners who are similarly placed to that of the petitioners/appellants herein filed Writ Petitions claiming appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers/Graduate Assistants [B.T. Teachers], based on the certificate verification done during 2010-2011 without insisting TET. Justice D.Hariparanthaman in an elaborate judgment, dated 23.09.2013, considered the matter at length and dismissed all the Writ Petitions by common order dated 23.09.2013 and among other things held that when the Association of Teachers filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.2108 of 2012, for identical relief, the same was dismissed by order dated 10.02.2012 and the same attained finality as no appeal was preferred against the said order. After considering all the aspects of the matter, it was point out that if the plea of the petitioners' therein was accepted then more than twenty thousand candidates could enter without having a minimum qualification of TET and this Court cannot issue such a direction to appoint them contrary to the statutory provisions and the constitutional mandates as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.Rekhi Ray vs. High Court of Delhi reported in (2010) 2 SCC
637."
http://www.judis.nic.in 9
15. It is well settled that merely being eligible for being considered to be appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Panchayat Union Schools/Municipality Schools/Elementary Schools, it does not give any legal right to claim appointment.
16. The claim of the appellants for exemption therefore, cannot be accepted. Teachers Eligibility Test (TET), is the minimum qualification, for being considered, for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and hence, the same cannot be waived. Therefore the instant writ appeal is dismissed. No Costs.
(S.M.K., J.) (S.P., J.)
01.02.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dm
To
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Karur District, Karur - 639 007.
http://www.judis.nic.in 10 S.MANIKUMAR,J.
and SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
dm W.A.No.171 of 2019 01.02.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in