Madras High Court
K.Sailaja … vs The State Of Tamil Nadu
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON
25.03.2024 06.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017
and 2688 & 2896 of 2019
and W.P.Nos.9787, 10349, 11444 of 2015
& 19728 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.6185 of 2021
W.A.No.43 of 2017
K.Sailaja … Petitioner
vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
1/33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch
Chennai – 600 006.
4.The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
5.The Director of Employment and Training,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032. … Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to
set aside the order dated 25.11.2016 made in W.P.No.11772 of 2015 and
pass such further order.
W.A.No.43 of 2017
For Appellant :Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy
Senior Counsel
for Mrs.S.Suneetha
For Respondents :Mr.U.M.Ravichandran, for RR1 to R3 & R5
Spl. Govt. Pleader
: Mr.R.Neelakandan, for R4
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
Standing Counsel
W.A.No.48 of 2017
For Appellant :Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel
for Ms.C.Uma
For Respondents :Mr.U.M.Ravichandran,
2/33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch
Spl.Govt. Pleader for RR1 & R3
: Mr.R.Neelakandan, for R2
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
Standing Counsel
W.A.Nos.2888 & 2896 of 2019
For Appellants :Mr.S.Mohamed Uduman in both W.As.,
For Respondents :Mr.R.Neelakandan, for R1 in both W.As.,
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
Standing Counsel
:Mr.U.M.Ravichandran, for R2 in both W.As
Spl. Govt. Pleader
W.P.Nos.9787 & 10349 of 2015
For Petitioner :Mr.C.K.Chandrasekaran
For Respondents :Mr.U.M.Ravichandran, for RR1 & 3
Spl. Govt. Pleader
:Mr.R.Neelakandan, for R2
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
Standing Counsel
W.P.No.11444 of 2015
For Petitioner :Mr.C.A.Diwakar
For Respondents :Mr.U.M.Ravichandran, for RR1, 3 & 4
Spl. Govt. Pleader
:Mr.R.Neelakandan, for R2
Additional Advocate General
3/33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch
assisted by Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
Standing Counsel
W.P.No.19728 of 2018
For Petitioner :Ms.Gayathri
For Respondents :Mr.U.M.Ravichandran, for RR1 to R3 & R5
Spl. Govt. Pleader
:Mr.R.Neelakandan, for R4
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
Standing Counsel
C.M.P.No.6185 of 2021
For Petitioner :Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel
for Ms.C.Uma
For Respondents :Mr.U.M.Ravichandran, for RR1 & R3
Spl. Govt. Pleader
:Mr.R.Neelakandan, for R2
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
Standing Counsel
:Mr.R.Viduthalai, Senior Counsel
for Mr.P.Ganesan
for impleading respondents
RR29, 54, 80, 98 & 106
:Mr.G.Sankaran, Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan
for impleading respondents
4/33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch
RR8, 16, 68, 82 & 100
:Mr.J.Lakshmi Narayanan
for impleading respondents
RR6, 7, 10, 14 to 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25,
27, 28, 31, 32, 35, 37, 41, 44, 46, 48 to 51, 61, 63 to 67
69, 70, 73, 79, 87, 89, 93, 94, 96, 97, 101, 103 & 105
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by Mr.K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.) The lis involved in these Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions are primarily with regard to the recruitment to the post of Computer Instructors. Except W.P.No.11444 of 2015, in all the other cases, the issue involved is as regards to the sponsoring of candidates by the Employment Exchange under the priority quota. In W.P.No.11444 of 2015, the case of the petitioner is that the sponsoring of candidates had not been made at all by the Employment Exchange pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Contempt Petition and no such notification notifying the sponsored candidates have also been made.
2. Heard Ms.Dakshayani Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Ms.S.Suneetha, learned counsel, Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior 5/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch Counsel for Ms.C.Uma, learned counsel and Mr.S.Mohamed Uduman, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the appellants in their respective Writ Appeals. Mr.C.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel, Mr.C.A.Diwakar, learned counsel and Ms.Gayathri, learned counsel for the petitioners in the respective Writ Petitions. Mr.U.M.Ravichandran, learned Special Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the Government and Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appeared on behalf of the Teachers' Recruitment Board.
3. The learned Senior Counsels appearing in the Writ Appeals as well as the Writ Petitions except W.P.No.11444 of 2015 have all made their common submissions as regards to the manner through which the Employment Exchange had sponsored the candidates under the priority quota. It is their contention that when candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchange under the priority quota, the Employment Exchange had not equally distributed the persons registered under the priority quota and has en masse sponsored candidate over a particular category envisaged 6/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch under the priority quota thereby denying the benefits of persons who would also fall under the priority quota. According to them, the Government Orders providing for priority category for sponsoring their names to the concerned Appointing Authority must be treated as a single category and the names of candidates falling within each of the classes in a particular category would have to be sponsored under the equalized priority quota. The methodology that has been adopted by the Employment Exchange was that to exhaust a particular clause placed in Serial No.1 to take up the candidates available in the second clause and exhaust the names and only thereafter go to the other classes is wholly an arbitrary exercise which have been carried out. They would submit that the entire number of vacancies for which the candidates must be sponsored under the priority quota would have to be equally distributed to all the classes under the priority category and their names should be sponsored based on their seniority in the respective classes only. Therefore, their contention is that a particular class or classes as per the seriatum in the Government order alone should not be given priority. They would also further contend that the destitute women and the ex-servicemen have been provided with a particular horizontal reservation in each of the 7/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch vertical reserved category. Therefore, the persons falling under the said classes ought not to be given a priority as it would give them a double benefit and the Government ought to have revisited the Government orders prescribing priority for destitute women and the ex-servicemen classes under the priority category. Since, these have not been followed, the order of the learned Single Judge in rejecting the claim of the respective appellants/ petitioners would have to be interfered with.
4. Mr.C.A.Diwakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.11444 of 2015 would vehemently contend that the entire recruitment process itself is fallacious. He would submit that pursuant to the request from the Teachers Recruitment Board, the Employment Exchange had sponsored a list of candidates based upon their seniority in registration. Since, there was a non-compliance of the Hon’ble Apex Court order, pursuant to which such sponsoring had been made, a contempt proceeding was also initiated. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with the said Contempt Petition had given a categorical finding that the violation of the order had taken place due to the misunderstanding of the order that had been 8/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In disposing of the Contempt Petition, the list of sponsored candidates was also placed before the Apex Court and ongoing through the same, in categorical terms, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that such list placed before it was erroneous and had directed to draw afresh seniority list based on the clarification given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Contempt Petition. He would vehemently contend that such a redrawal of the list based on the Hon’ble Apex Court judgement had not been done by the respondents and therefore no list had been published. If the list had been published, the petitioner would have pointed out the fallacy in the said list. Further, had the respondents abided by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Contempt Petition and redrawn the list, the petitioner would have been eligible to be considered for the appointment. Therefore, he would seek interference of this Court.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the Government has issued various Government orders prescribing priority in respect of certain categories through which the names of the candidates are being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. He would submit that only 9/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch after exhausting all the available candidates in a sub-group of a group, the next sub-group would be considered. Similarly, only when the first group is wholly exhausted by sponsoring the candidates of all the sub-groups in that group and if there are still any sponsoring to be done, the Employment Exchange will go into the next group. Since, the name of the candidates has been sponsored under the priority quota of a particular sub-group in a group as per the ratio that is mandated, there was no question of sponsoring persons from other sub-group in the said priority group since, the ratio had already been exhausted. He would also contend that there was no error on the part of the learned Single Judge as he had relied upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court made in W.P.(MD)No.5956 of 2014 which in clear terms, have held that while sponsoring priority candidates, only after exhausting of a particular group or sub-group, the next group or sub-group would be entitled to be sponsored. Therefore, when there were requisite candidates available in a particular group or sub-group, there is no question of sponsoring a candidate from another group or sub-group. Therefore, he would submit that there was no error apparent on the part of the Department. He would further submit that the orders of the Hon'ble 10/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch Apex Court had been strictly complied with by the department. Further, it is the case of the respondents that pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Directorate of Employment and Training vide their letter dated 23.02.2015 had furnished a list of 45 failed B.Ed secured candidates after completion of certificate verification and the sponsored list of about 3260 candidates in the ratio of 1:5 had been sent for the appointment to the post of 652 Computer Instructor post. They would further submit that out of 45 failed B.Ed secured candidates figured in the sponsored list, 22 candidates were provisionally selected to the post of Computer Instructors. Therefore, he would submit that there was no error apparent on the record for this Court to interfere with.
6. Mr.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Teachers Recruitment Board would submit that they being the Nodal Agency had performed their role of selection based upon the list of candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange and that they do not have any role in sponsoring the names of the candidates. Their role is only to verify the credentials of the sponsored candidates and recommended them 11/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch for appointment to the Appropriate Authority.
7. Mr G.Sankaran learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the selected candidates under priority quota would support the arguments of the learned Special Government Pleader by heavily relying upon the orders of the learned Single Judges made in W.P.(MD)No.5956 of 2014 and W.P.(MD)No.3978 of 2021 and further he would contend that the selected candidates have all been working for nearly a decade and any disturbance in their employment for the mistake committed by Official respondents would deface their family and they have also crossed the age of qualification which would debar them from further participating in any competitive examinations for recruitment.
8. Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of some of the selected candidates would contend that they have called upon for certificate verification and they have provided relevant certificates and having been found that they have been all fully qualified and appointments were made. Hence, the non-following of the procedure prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Department cannot be put against them, that too 12/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch after more than a decade or then having been satisfactorily carrying on their duty and obligations of services. He would further submit that such employees who have been appointed cannot be sought to be removed from service for being fault on the part of the Official respondents.
9. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for their respective parties and perused the materials available on record before this Court. We are called upon to answer broadly three issues:-
(a)Whether while sponsoring the priority quota, the procedure that had been followed by the Sponsoring Authority is correct?
(b)Whether the sponsoring of candidates is in consonance with the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court?
(c)The third question that would arise before us would be if the answer to the questions (a) and (b) is being held in the negative, what would be the relief that the respective appellants/ petitioners would be entitled?13/33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch Issue (a)
10. It is an undisputed fact that the Government had issued various Government orders mandating the Employment Exchange to sponsor names of certain candidates on priority basis based upon the categories and classes in the said Government orders. It is to be noted that such categorization / classification had been rearranged by the Government. Such categorization of giving priority is not the challenge before us. Hence, we do not propose to go into the validity of the said Government orders. It is an admitted case that there have been groups and sub-groups in the said Government orders. It is the case of the Government that the modalities of selection of candidates under the priority basis had been specified in the Government orders and the sponsoring of candidates shall only be done by exhausting one priority category before considering the next priority category. Further, it is also an admitted case that 130 candidates under the priority quota have been appointed based upon their priority by way of horizontal reservation, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.398, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 13.09.1990.
14/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch
11. It is also an admitted case that only after exhausting one priority category, the next priority category had been considered for selection. A reading of the Government orders which bringing in certain category of candidates under the priority quota does not envisage any modality of how the priority category candidates should be sponsored for appointment. What the Government orders in that regard had done is only to give the benefit of priority in the case of sponsor by the Employment Exchange. Only under the G.O.Ms.No.398, dated 13.09.1990, the recruitment was to be made by a priority candidate in the ratio of 1:4 that is for every 5 vacancy, one vacancy shall be filled up by the priority category and the remaining 4 would have to be filled up from the non-priority category. When the number of categories were made eligible for being sponsored on a priority basis from a particular category, then it would only envisage that such candidate falling within the priority category would be entitled to be sponsored over and above a person who had a registration prior to such candidate falling under the priority category. For example, if the Employment Exchange was to sponsor 100 candidates under the general term based upon the registration seniority then the first 100 names from the earliest registered list available with it would 15/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch have to be sponsored. In view of the Government orders envisaging a priority for a particular category in the ratio of 1:4, then what the Employment Exchange would have to do is to cull out 1/5th of the priority category candidates based on their priority on the basis of their registration seniority and send it along with the other 4/5th candidates who would be normally sponsored based upon their employment seniority, i.e., 75 candidates would be sponsored based on their employment seniority that they have secured at the time of registration and the remaining 25 candidates would be from the list of priority candidates, as per their registration seniority.
12. Now the question arises as to how the priority candidates should be culled out. According to the department, the category first listed under the Government order are sought to be filled up and if there are any other vacancy, the second category of candidates would be drawn out. If those 25 candidates are filled up from the first category of priority candidates, then there is no question of sponsoring the names of the candidates in the second category. This procedure which has been adopted by the Employment Exchange in sponsoring the candidates in our view is wholly arbitrary, for 16/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch the simple reason that it denies the candidates of other priority categories being denied of their right to be considered as against a particular category. According to us, when different types of categories are brought under one class to be considered to be given a priority then all such categories of persons forms a single class to be given a priority.
13. When that be so, a person/candidate from a particular category cannot alone be given the benefit just because they have been placed in Serial No.1 in the list of categories that was sought to be given priority. In that view, we are of the conclusive view that the methodology followed by the Employment Exchange in sponsoring only a particular category of candidates just because they have found part of the first class by seriatim is wholly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it does not give equal opportunity to similarly placed persons.
14. It is now brought to our notice that the said arbitrary exercise has been rectified by the Government by issuing G.O.Ms.No.122, Human Resource Department dated 02.11.2021, wherein the Government had in 17/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch categorical terms had addressed the arbitrariness and had resolved the same. Even this, in our view, is erroneous, for the simple reason, when different categories of persons fall under a single bucket for consideration to be appointed on priority, then they all having falling into a single bucket would have to be only considered based upon their own merit and not on the merit based upon the way they have been categorized. For example, since, the Employment Exchange has to sponsor the names of the candidates as per the seniority, when a person falls under a particular reserved category, then his name will be sponsored on the basis of his registration seniority in that category. Similarly, when a person gets the benefit of being sponsored under the priority category his name also should be sponsored based upon the registration seniority in that particular category and not based upon their placement in the list of categories, who would be entitled for priority category or otherwise it would be smacked by the wise of arbitrariness.
15. In view of our findings and reasoning, we are of the considered view that we have answered the question (a) in negative and we hold that the Sponsoring of names on the basis of the serial numbers on which the 18/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch categorization for priority quota is wholly erroneous. Issue (b):-
16. The appointment to the post of Computer Instructors was the subject matter of the continuous litigation which finally came to be culminated before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3342 of 2014. In the said Civil Appeal, two specific directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court were ultimately set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment and further directions were issued. For better appreciation the relevant paragraphs of the said order is extracted hereunder:-
“26. What would be the extent of the ‘adverse’ effect on the failed teachers if the remaining appointments are to be made on the basis of employment exchange seniority cannot be determined with any degree of accuracy at this stage inasmuch as a large number of such persons had qualified in the meantime and by virtue of clause (v) of Para 53 of the impugned order, the names of the failed computer instructors who were earlier registered in the employment exchanges have been directed to be re-entered and their earlier seniority restored. While it is also correct that by ordering recruitment on the basis of employment 19/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch exchange seniority other eligible candidates who could have taken part in the competitive examination would loose out, no such person is presently before us to persuade us to take the view that for the purpose of recruitment to the 652 posts of Computer Instructors the earlier order of this Court dated 19.11.2009 should not prevail.
27.We accordingly allow these appeals and set aside directions (vi) and (vii) of Para 53 of the Impugned order dated 18.09.2013 of the High Court and direct that recruitment to the 652 vacant posts shall be made on the basis of employment exchange seniority. We also make it clear that the above direction shall also govern the 175 existing vacancies covered by the order of this Court dated 19.11.2009 if the same continue to remain vacant as on date. To all other vacancies, existing or future, as may be, the state will be at liberty to follow such policy as may be in force or considered appropriate.”
17. Since, there were certain violations of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court a Contempt Petition came to be initiated in the Contempt Petition Civil No. 488 of 2014. Having found that the Government has misunderstood the order, the Hon'ble Apex Court had 20/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch directed that afresh preparation of a list of candidates as per the Employment Exchange seniority should be drawn in view of the reasoning given by the Hon'ble Apex Court and thereafter, was permitted to proceed with the matter. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-
“7. We have considered the submissions advanced at the bar. We have taken note of the basis on which the order dated 7th March, 2014 has been passed by the Court and we have also carefully considered the operative directions. While it is correct that in Para 27 of the order, the directions by this Court is to fill 652 posts in accordance with the Employment Exchange Seniority without specifying as to how such seniority is to be determined what cannot be over-looked is the finding of the Court in the earlier paragraph i.e. Para 26 with regard to restoration of such seniority. The Employment Exchange Seniority was required to be restored and thereafter the appointments were required to be made. However, such restoration was not intended by this Court to be from the date of the initial registration even in the absence of the required qualification i.e. B.Ed. Decree. In other words, this Court did not intend that the candidate upon acquisition of the B.ED degree should have the benefit of 21/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch the date of his initial registration. What was meant by this Court is that such registration should be from the date of acquisition of the basic qualification i.e. B.Ed . The exercise of preparation of the list of candidates as per Employment Exchange Seniority, as evident from the list prepared, is on the basis of 8 re-registration after the acquisition of the B.Ed. Degree. The said exercise, therefore, is not in accordance with this Court's order. The same should have been made on the basis of the date of the acquisition of the B.Ed. degree. As the error is on account of an incorrect understanding of this Court's order and directions, the respondents should be given another opportunity to rectify the error and act in terms of the directions of the Court. We, order accordingly.
8. Insofar as the question of preference and reservation is concerned, we do not consider it necessary to go into the said aspect of the matter inasmuch as the order of this Court dated 7th March, 2014 does not contain any specific direction in respect of the said issues.
9. Consequently, these contempt petitions are disposed of by requiring the respondents to act as indicated above and as expeditiously as possible preferably within a 22/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
18. After clarifying the direction issued in the Civil Appeal as to what was the Employment Exchange seniority would mean the Hon'ble Apex Court had categorically held that the list of candidates prepared as per the Employment Exchange seniority was erroneous due to the incorrect understanding of the Court's order, had given an opportunity to the Official respondents therein to rectify the error and to act in terms of the direction clarified in the Contempt Petition.
19. What had transpired after the passing of the order by the Hon'ble Apex Court, dated 10.02.2015 in the Contempt Petition has been narrated by the second respondent through its Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Status Report dated 19.03.2024. For better appreciation the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-
“4. It is respectfully submitted that in accordance the Government’s Letter in 41912/SE2(2)/2014-2 dated 12.02.2015, Teachers Recruitment Board, vide DO Letter 23/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch No.11066/A8/2014 dated 13.02.2015, had requested the Directorate of Employment and Training Department to fix the priority and send the revised employment priority list in respect of failed candidates based on the date of acquiring the B.Ed. Degree.
5. It is respectfully submitted that subsequently, the Directorate of Employment and Training Department, vide letter No.30644/2014 dated 23.02.2015 had furnished the list of 45 (recruitment test) failed /B.Ed. secured candidates after completion of Certificate Verification and the sponsored list of total 3268 candidates at the ratio of 1:5 by the Directorate of Employment and Training Department for the purpose of appointment of 652 Computer Instructor Posts, pursuant to the TRB Notification No.7/2014 dated 13.10.2014.
6. It is respectfully submitted that out of 45 (recruitment test) failed/ B.Ed secured candidates, found figured in the above sponsored list and their respective seniority was fixed therein on the basis of date of acquiring B.Ed. qualification. The list of the said 45 candidates is enclosed in the Typed Set of Papers filed herewith and out 24/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch of them, only 22 candidates were provisionally selected to the post of Computer Instructors, also enclosed in Typed Set of Papers.
7. It is respectfully submitted that the Appellants/Petitioners are found figured in the list of Sponsored Candidates and their respective position in the list are as follows:
Sl. WA/WP No. Petitioner/ Position in Employme BC No Appellant the nt Selection . sponsored Seniority Cut-Off list @1:5 Date Date Ratio 1 W.A.No.43/2017 K.Sailaja (BC) 2368 15.09.2009 13.07.2006 2 W.A.No.48/2017 P.Elumalai (BC) 537 18.08.2006 12.07.2006 3 W.P.No.9787/2015 P.Sasikala (BC) 490 14.07.2006 13.07.2006 4 W.P.No.10349/2015 R.Nathiya (BC) 491 14.07.2006 13.07.2006 5 W.P.No.10349/2015 M.Arul Jothi 506 20.07.2006 13.07.2006 (BC) 6 W.P.No.10349/2015 J.Padmavathi 507 21.07.2006 13.07.2006 (BC) 7 W.P.No.11444/2015 I.Kapilkumar 522 04.08.2006 12.07.2006 (BC)
8. It is respectfully submitted that if the above petitioners/Appellants are given appointments as Computer Instructors in pursuance to the subject Recruitment notification, such action would not only affect the already selected list but also be contemptuous as per the order dated 25/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch 10.02.2015, passed in Contempt Petition No.488 of 2014 in Civil Appeal No.3342 of 2014 etc., passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It would be pertinent to note here that there were several numbers of similarly placed candidates, found to be figures in the Seniority List whose employment seniority date prior to the dates of the Petitioners/Appellants.”
20. From the narration of the events in the Status Report it could be seen that after the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Contempt Petition dated 10.02.2015, a letter seems to have been addressed by the Secretary to the Government on 12.02.2015 to the fourth respondent, Teachers' Recruitment Board. The said letter had also been placed before us. For better appreciation the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:-
“I am directed to inform that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Bench have heard the Contempt Cases on 10.02.2015 and ordered that as follows:
“Disposed of with direction to complete appointment of 652 vacancies within 6 weeks. The failed candidate B.Ed., should be considered from date of acquiring the B.Ed., degree.” The certified copy of the Judgment of Supreme Court of 26/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch India is expected.
2. As per the order of the Supreme Court of India employment exchange registration seniority of the terminated computer instructors should be restored from the date of acquiring B.Ed., qualification.
3. In the above circumstances, I am to inform you that it is appropriate that further recruitment process can be started after completion of restoration of seniority of the terminated computer instructor by the Director of Employment and Training.”
21. On a Perusal of the said letter, we are shocked to note as to how the then Secretary, who was also a party to the Contempt Petition had manipulated the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. She had purposefully purged the exercise that was directed to be carried upon, namely the preparation of a fresh seniority list in accordance with the clarification issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Based upon such letter, the Nodal Agency namely the Teachers Recruitment Board incorporating the alleged directions as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court, had addressed a letter 27/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch to the Employment Exchange to make appropriate special announcement calling for all the candidates with necessary records to rectify and provide a revised list. However, the fifth respondent had without revising the list of sponsored candidates had intimated that there are only about 47 persons who have been left out on the compliance of the Hon'ble Apex Court's order and of that only 8 persons would come within the cut off based upon their seniority and since two of them have been left out in the earlier list, 10 names were directed to be included in the already sent list and 4 names were directed to be deleted from the list that have been already sent. This exercise carried out by the respondents in our view is contrary to the specific directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its order dated 10.02.2015. What has been directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is to redraw the entire list, since, what list had been placed before it was found to be erroneous by the Hon'ble Apex Court. When such a specific finding had been given by the Hon'ble Apex Court to retain the list by adding some names and deleting some names, in our view is contemptuous of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The entire exercise had been initiated in view of the misunderstanding of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court by the then 28/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch Secretary to the School Education Department. We are pained to note the manner in which the public employment had been handled by the respondents. When such action is highly contemptuous of the Hon'ble Apex Court order, the entire recruitment drive conducted by the respondents will have to be only found fault with. But, however with great anguish we have to restrain ourselves in setting aside the entire recruitment process, for the simple reason that as many as 652 Computer Instructors have been appointed and have been rendering their services for nearly a decade and any interference now would affect their recruitment for no fault on them. Issue (c):-
22. The appellants and the petitioners have been agitating their lawful claims based upon the violations as noted above by us. We do not wish to reopen the entire issue for the aforesaid reasons. We also make it clear that except for these persons who are before us no other persons would be entitled to any relief which we propose to extend to the appellants and the petitioners before us. Since, we have found that the entire procedure had been erroneously adopted by the respondents in filing up both the priority 29/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch quota as also the filing up of the entire 652 vacancies including the priority quota, we direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the respective appellants/ petitioners as being validly sponsored by the Employment Exchange with appropriate seniority and consider their candidature and if they are all otherwise qualified appoint them to the post of Computer Instructors. Such appointment shall date back to the date on when the last candidate joined the service pursuant to the notification issued for selection of 652 candidates. Such notional appointment shall be only for the purpose of calculating their salary and other monetary benefits alone. Their seniority in the said cadre shall be reckoned only from they have actually joined the post. If they are otherwise found eligible, necessary relaxation shall also be given to the respective parties, considering the length of pendency of this lis.
23. With these aforesaid directions, these Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions are disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
(R.S.K.,J.) (K.B., J.)
06.09.2024
30/33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch
gba
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
4.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
5.The Director of Employment and Training, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
31/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch R.SURESH KUMAR., J.
and K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.
Gba order made in W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and 2688 & 2896 of 2019 and W.P.Nos.9787, 10349, 11444 of 2015 & 19728 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.6185 of 2021 32/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.43 & 48 of 2017 and etc., batch 06.09.2024 33/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis