P.Ananthanayagi v. The Chairman Teachers’ Recruitment Board

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 18.09.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. NAGAMUTHUW.P.No.12429 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2009 P.Ananthanayagi... Petitioner Vs1.The ChairmanTeachers’ Recruitment BoardCollege Road,Chennai 600 006.2.R.Chandrasekaran3.P.Thiravidamani4.I.Sahayamary... RespondentsR3 & R4 impleaded as per orderdt.20.7.09 by KNBJ in MP.3/09in WP.12429/09Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to calling forthe records 1st respondent relating to the impugned provisionalselection for appointment of the second respondent to the post ofLecturer (Tamil) in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service forGovernment Arts and Science Colleges under the Direct Recruitment forthe year 2008-09 made on 24.06.2009 as published in website and quashthe same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider thepetitioner for selection and appointment to the post of the Lecturer(Tamil) in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service for GovernmentArts and Science Colleges.For Petitioner : Mr.R.M.vijayanarayan (SC)For R.1 : Mr.G.Sankaran (Spl.G.P) (EDN.)For RR.2 & 4 : No appearance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER The first respondent Teachers Recruitment Board, Government ofTamil Nadu issued an advertisement calling for applications fromeligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Lecturers in TamilNadu Collegiate Educational Service for Government Arts & ScienceColleges, 2008. There were as many as 94 posts notified for Lecturersin the Subject Tamil. Since the petitioner is qualified, shesubmitted her application. Respondents 2 to 4 also made theirapplications. As per G.O.Ms.No.146 Higher Education (F2) Departmentdated 10.09.2007, selection shall be made on the basis of the marksawarded for teaching experience, additional qualification like (a)Ph.D in concerned subject, (b) M.Phil with SLET/NET (or) M.Phil priorto 31.12.1993 and (c)PG & SLET/NET; researchcontribution/Books/Article Published and interview. The total numberof marks shall be 39. As per the said G.O., awarding marks under thevarious heads shall be as follows:-1For teaching experience inUniversities/Government/aided colleges/selffinancing colleges in the approved postincluding the teaching experience (in therelevant subject) of the candidates inMedical/Engineering/Law Colleges.(2 marks for each year subject to a maximumof 15 marks)15 marks2Qualificationa)For Ph.D in concerned subject - 9b)For M.Phil with SLET/NET (or) M.Phil prior to 31.12.1993 - 6c)For PG & SLECT /NET - 59 marks (maximum)3Research contribution/Books/ArticlePublished5 marks4Interview10 marks Total39 marks2.The petitioner was called for certificate verification. Atthat time, she was awarded 9 marks for possession of Ph.D., then 5marks for Research Contribution/Books/Article published, 8 marks forinterview and 14 marks for teaching experience. Thus, the totalnumber of marks awarded to the petitioner was 36. The respondents 2to 3 were awarded 37 marks each, Since the petitioner had securedone mark less than respondents 2 to 4, they were appointed.Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ present writ petition. 3.According to the petitioner, for teaching experience, sheshould have been awarded 15 marks. But erroneously, only 14 markshave been awarded. Her contention is that, she has got totalexperience of 7 years 1 month and 9 days as a Lecturer inThiruthangal Nadar College, Selavayal, Chennai. The Joint Director ofCollegiate Education, Chennai Region, Chennai has counter signed thesame thereby certifying that her total experience is 7 years 1 monthand 9 days. 4.Apart from that, for having worked in Sri Saradha NiketanCollege for Women, Amaravathipudur, the petitioner has been giventeaching experience certificate for 2 years 8 months 18 days. Thesame has also been counter signed by the Joint Director CollegiateEducation, Madurai Region, Madurai. Thus, the total experience put inby the petitioner is 9 years 9 months 27 days and for which, she isentitled for 15 marks. According to the prospectus, for teachingexperience, two marks should be awarded for more than six months in ayear but subject to 15 marks. In this case, as per the prospectus thepetitioner’s experience is 9 years 9 months and 27 days and so, sheis eligible for 15 marks. 5.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for thefirst respondent has produced a letter from the Member Secretary,Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai in Rc.No.3042/A6/2009 dated18.09.2009 wherein, it has been explained as to why the petitionerwas awarded only 14 marks out of 15 marks for teaching experience.The same reads as follows:-“The decision of the Certificateverification Board is final in awarding marks.According to the prospectus of TeachersRecruitment Board that separate weightage markswill be awarded for Higher Qualification andTeaching Experience. But in the present case, thewrit petitioner was awarded 9 marks for possessionPh.D Degree in August 2008. She also produced theTeaching Experience for the following period: Years MonthsDays18.08.1997 to 06.05.2000281820.08.2001 to 29.09.2008719Total9927The period of she doing the Ph.D DegreeCourse was also included in the Teaching https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Experience. Therefore the Certificate VerificationBoard declined to award marks to the period duringwhich it was shown by the candidate thus she wasdoing Ph.D and also done Teaching at theCollege/University level. While awarding the marksfor Teaching Experience the CertificateVerification Board required the exact date ofjoining the Ph.D. Degree by the writ petitioner.But the writ petitioner has not mentioned the dateof joining to the Certificate Verification Board.In the absence of the relevant information theCertificate Verification Board which scrutinycertificate of writ petitioner reduced the periodof 3 years, the duration she underwent Ph.D Degreecourse on regular basis from the TeachingExperience and awarded 14 marks for the period of 6years and 9 months. Even though separate marks willbe awarded for qualification and TeachingExperience one individual could not be given marksfor both if it was undertaken within the sameperiod.”6.Relying on the said letter, the learned Special GovernmentPleader appearing for the first respondent would submit that thepetitioner was rightly awarded 14 marks and she is not entitled for15 marks.7.I have considered the rival submissions.8.A close reading of the prospectus would make it abundantlyclear that for gaining teaching experience one need not be qualifiedwith Ph.D., at all. For possessing Ph.D., qualification, 9 marks isto be awarded separately. To put it other wise, a candidate who doesnot have Ph.D., can also gain teaching experience and she would beentitled for marks, subject to a maximum of 15 marks. Therefore, thefirst respondent was not right in saying that the petitioner would beentitled for marks for teaching experience only for the period aftershe had acquired Ph.D., qualification. As I have already stated, withor without Ph.D., qualification, the petitioner has got more than 9years of experience for which she is entitled for 15 marks. The standtaken by the first respondent is unreasonable and it is based onmisunderstanding of the prospectus. 9.In view of the above, if the petitioner is awarded 15 marksfor teaching experience, the total marks would be 37. The respondents2 to 4 also have secured 37 marks. As per the prospectus, when morethan one candidate has secured equal number of marks, then theselection shall be made on the basis of their date of birth. If thatis done, the petitioner should be ranked above the respondents 2 to 4and she would be entitled for appointment for the post of Tamil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Lecturer. If this exercise is done, the fourth respondent who is thejunior most would be in-eligible for appointment to the said post.But at the same time, having regard to the peculiar facts andcircumstances of the case, more particularly, the fact that thefourth respondent has already been given appointment order and shehas also been working and also going by the fact that there arevacancies, even now available with the department, it would be in theinterest of justice not to disturb the fourth respondent. In myconsidered opinion, the appointment of the fourth respondent to thepost, may be adjusted as against any vacancy which has not beennotified.10.In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the firstrespondent is directed to award 37 marks to the petitioner and rankher above the respondents 2 to 4 and appoint her as Tamil Lectureraccordingly. 11.As indicated above, while doing the said exercise, thefourth respondent shall not be disturbed and instead, her appointmentshall be adjusted as against any vacancy, which has arisensubsequent to the notification. The said exercises shall be completedwithin a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitionsare closed. Sd/-Asst.Registrar/True Copy/Sub.Asst.RegistrarjbmTo1. The Chairman,Teachers’ Recruitment Board College Road,Chennai 600 006.+ 1 CC to Mr.V.Chandrasekaran,Advocate,SR.48342+ 1 CC to Government Pleader,SR.48806W.P.No.12429 of 2009PKB(CO)EM/25.9