Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. For the purpose of effective adjudication, the averments made in the writ petitions are elucidated hereunder:-

(i) The writ petitioners are the candidates, who have passed TET conducted by the TRB during the years 2013 and 2017. After they passed the TET examination, they were called for certificate verification in the years 2014 and 2017 as the case may be, by the TRB. However, even after several years of completion of certificate verification, the writ petitioners were not issued appointment orders. They were eagerly waiting to get their orders of appointment on the basis of their pass in TET examination, however, they were not forthcoming. The writ petitioners also state that for the past several years, those who have passed TET, have not been given orders of appointment and they were made to wait endlessly for the same. In this context, the writ petitioners referred to the judgment dated 02.06.2013 passed by the very same Bench in W.A.No.313 of 2022 etc., wherein it was observed that teachers have not been appointed for the last ten years though several candidates have passed the mandatory TET. Therefore, the State Government was directed to conduct TET periodically and to make direct recruitment of teachers and promotions https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  WP Nos. 26084 of 2023 etc. cases from among the qualified teachers at the earliest. Referring to the above decision, it was submitted that the writ petitioners have been waiting for appointment for years together but the orders of appointment are not forthcoming in their favour. While the writ petitioners are anticipating to get appointment orders, one P. Jayabharathi and others filed Writ Petition in WP No.5590 of 2014 before this Court challenging G.O.Ms.No.252, School Education Department dated 05.10.2012, by which certain criteria for selection of candidates for the post of Graduate Assistants/ Secondary Grade Teachers were prescribed. The said Writ Petition was taken up for hearing, along with various other cases. By order dated 29.04.2014, this Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging G.O. Ms. No.25, School Education (TRB) Department dated 06.02.2014. Similarly, the prayer made to direct that the benefits conferred under G.O.Ms.No.25, School Education Department dated 06.02.2014 will come into operation retrospectively, was also dismissed. A direction was also issued to the Government to ensure that the selection process is completed and vacancies are filled up atleast at the beginning of the next academic year.

(x) K.Manjushree vs. State of UP and another, (Civil Appeal No.1313 of 2008):

"30. It was submitted that Administrative Committee and Interview Committee were only delegates of the Full Court and the Full Court has the absolute power to determine or regulate the process of selection and it has also the power and authority to modify the decisions of the Administrative Committee. There can be no doubt about the proposition. The Administrative Committee being only a delegate of the Full Court, all decisions and resolutions of Administrative Committee are placed before the Full Court for its approval and the Full Court may approve, modify or reverse any decision of the Administrative Committee. For example when the resolution dated 30.11.2004 was passed it was open to the Full Court, before the process of selection began, to either specifically introduce a provision that there should be minimum marks for interviews, or prescribe a different ratio of marks instead of 75 for written examination and 25 for interview, or even delete the entire requirement of minimum marks even for the written examination. But that was not done. The Full Court allowed the Administrative Committee to determine the method and manner of selection and also allowed it to conduct the examination and interviews with reference to the method and manner determined by the Administrative Committee. Once the selection process was completed with reference to the criteria adopted by the Administrative Committee and the results were placed before it, the Full Court did not find fault with the criteria decided by the Administrative Committee (as per resolution dated 30.11.2004) or the process of examinations and interviews conducted by the Administrative Committee and Interview Committee. If the Full Court had found that the procedure adopted in the examinations or interviews was contrary to the procedure prescribed, the Full Court could have set aside the entire process of selection and directed the Administrative https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  WP Nos. 26084 of 2023 etc. cases Committee to conduct a fresh selection. The resolution dated 30.11.2004 was approved. It did not find any irregularity in the examination conducted by the Administrative Committee or the interviews held by the Selection Committee. The assessment of performance in the written test by the candidates was not disturbed. The assessment of performance in the interview by the Selection Committee was not disturbed. The Full Court however, introduced a new requirement as to minimum marks in the interview by an interpretative process which is not warranted and which is at variance with the interpretation adopted while implementing the current selection process and the earlier selections. As the Full Court approved the resolution dated 30.11.2004 of the Administrative Committee and also decided to retain the entire process of selection consisting of written examination and interviews it could not have introduced a new requirement of minimum marks in interviews, which had the effect of eliminating candidates, who would otherwise be eligible and suitable for selection. Therefore, we hold that the action of Full Court in revising the merit list by adopting a minimum percentage of marks for interviews was impermissible.

The facts of the case involved in the judgment relied upon by the petitioners in Tej Prakash Pathak and others vs. Rajasthan High Court are that the selection process was completed and the candidates were of the legitimate expectation of getting appointment but the Government suddenly changed the rule of the game. The above dictum would not support the case of the petitioners herein as the selection process was not completed in this case.

3. I am hopeful that the Government will ensure that the selection process is completed and vacancies are filled up at least at the beginning of next academic year.”

21. The State Government then introduced another method in G.O.Ms.No.71 School Education (TRB) Department dated 30.05.2014, where weightage marks are awarded on the actual percentage of marks scored by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  WP Nos. 26084 of 2023 etc. cases candidate. In the meantime i.e., after striking down of GO.Ms.No. 252 by order dated 29.04.2014 and before passing of GO Ms. No. 71 dated 30.05.2014, the Government had appointed 3202 candidates as BT Assistants without following any procedure between 06.05.2014 and 12.05.2014.