M.Somasundaram v. The Member Secretary, Teacher Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai-6 & Ors.

4.The Chief Educational Officer , O/o.The Chief Educational Officer, Vellore, Vellore District.... Respondents.W.P.No.24600 of 2008:1.R.Renuka2.S.Mohan Raj3.N.Kothai... Petitioners. vs.1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The Teachers Recruitment Board, rep. by Director, E.V.K.Sampath Maaligai, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-6.... RespondentsW.P.No.24270 of 2008 has filed filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing the firstrespondent to permit the petitioner to write the special qualifyingexamination to be conducted on 12.10.2008 or any other subsequentdates for appointment to the post of Computer Instructors. W.P.No.24598 of 2008 has filed filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing therespondents to select and appoint the petitioner in the post ofComputer Instructor by allowing her to appear for the selection forspecial Recruitment of Computer Instructor for the year 2008 based onthe marks obtained by the petitioner in the said selection byconsidering her educational qualification and earlier servicerendered by her from the year 1999, on par with other similarlyplaced candidates, with all attendant benefits.W.P.No.24600 of 2008 has filed filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing thesecond respondent to permit the petitioners to write special test tobe conducted by the second respondent on 12.10.2008 for selection tothe post of Computer Instructor in the Government Higher SecondarySchools.For petitioners: Mr. V.Suthakar (WP.24270/08) Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, S.C., for Mr.V.Ravikumar (WP.24598/08) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.K.Selvaraj, S.C., for Mr.Y.Deva Arul Prakash(W.P.24600/08)For respondents: Mr. G.Sankaran, Spl.G.P. Assisted by Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy, G.A. and Mr.A.Suresh, G.A COMMON ORDERBy consent, the main writ petitions themselves are taken up forfinal disposal.2. These writ petitions have been filed for a mandamus mainlyfor a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to writethe Special Qualifying Examination for appointment to the post ofComputer Instructors. 3. The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of thewrit petitions are set out here under:-3.1. The rapid advancement and the updating of technology in thearea of Computer Science made the Government to issue orders in theyear 1999 appointing Computer Instructors to teach Computer Sciencein the Government / Corporation / Municipal Schools through acontract system. ELCOT Company which is a fully Government ownedcorporation was the principal contractor appointed by the Governmentto recruit Computer Instructors for teaching Computer Science invarious schools in which Computer Education was introduced during theyear 1999-2000. The contract between the Government and ELCOT cameto an end in the year 2004. However, the Computer Instructorscontinued to work in the schools and were paid the consolidated payof Rs.2,000/- per month.3.2. During the year 2008, after considering the genuine requestand sympathy over the contract employees, the Government of TamilNadu has taken a decision to absorb all the contract employeesthrough Teachers' Recruitment Board by conducting a specialqualifying examination to evaluate equality and uniformity in therecruitment process for selection to the post of Computer Instructors.3.3. The petitioners are fully qualified for such examination.The petitioners were given application forms for special recruitmentof Computer Instructors conducted by the Teachers' Recruitment Boardand the same have been filled up by them. However, the petitionershave not received their hall tickets and hence, they submitted arepresentation requesting the authority to permit them to write thespecial test so as to enable them to participate in the selection forappointment to the post of Computer Instructors. But, however, therewas no response on the side of the respondents. Hence, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writpetitions.4. The main contentions that have been put forth by the learnedSenior Counsels and learned Counsels appearing for the petitionersbroadly are that --(i) some of the petitioners were appointed as Computer facultyon contract basis by the ELCOT Company and they are continuing inemployment as on date, though in some cases there was break inservice for a limited period which has been explained properly bythem in their affidavits in support of the writ petitions. Some ofthem have been appointed through Parents' Teachers' Association andthey were working on the date of notification issued by theGovernment for recruitment through special qualifying examination.While so, excluding them from writing the examination is totallyunjust;(ii) when similarly placed persons have been permitted to appearfor the said special qualifying examination conducted by Teachers'Recruitment Board, elimination of the petitioners is discriminatoryin nature and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution ofIndia;(iii) the petitioners are in service for very number of yearsand their future would be at stake if they are not permitted toappear for the special qualifying examination;(iv) the refusal of hall tickets to the petitioners is againstthe principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience. 5. Common counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of therespondents wherein the following facts have been set out:-5.1. Taking into account the rapid advancement and updating oftechnology in the area of Computer Science, the Government issuedorders in the year 1999 for appointment of Computer Instructors toteach Computer Science in the Government / Corporation / Municipalschools through a contract system. ELCOT Company was authorised toselect persons and the selected persons were appointed as ComputerInstructors. The period of contract was five years and the firstphase has ended in August, 2004 and the second phase expired inAugust, 2005. However, the Computer Instructors continued to work inGovernment Higher Secondary Schools and they were paid theconsolidated pay of Rs.2,000/- per month.5.2. The Government has taken a policy decision in the year 2006to have one post of Computer Instructor in every Government HigherSecondary Schools and accordingly, G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 04.10.2006created 1880 posts of Computer Instructors. By the said GovernmentOrder, it was directed that all the posts would be filled up https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ temporarily on the basis of the existing rules. Following the saidGovernment Order, the Government issued a letter No.188 dated04.10.2006 providing the method for filling up the aforesaid 1880posts by conducting a special test for those who are already workingas Computer Instructors. Thereupon, the Teachers' Recruitment Boardhad issued notification calling for application from the ComputerInstructors working in the Government Higher Secondary Schools toappear for the Special Test to be conducted by the said Board.5.3. Questioning the above order, a batch of writ petitions havebeen filed before this Court and a learned Single Judge of this Courthad allowed the writ petitions by an order dated 13.03.2007.Aggrieved over the same, the Government filed writ appeals and aDivision Bench of this Court had set aside the order of the learnedSingle Judge.5.4. The petitioners are not eligible to write the specialqualifying test for the post of Computer Instructors for threegrounds viz., (i) Break in service.(ii) Not having the required qualification and(iii) appointment has been made after ELCOT contract.Thus, the counter affidavit reads that the case of the petitionerscould not be considered as eligible candidates to appear for thespecial qualifying examination for the post of Computer Operators forthe reasons stated above. Hence, according to the common counteraffidavit, all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.6. Learned Senior Counsels as well as learned counsels appearingfor the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleaderassisted by Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy, learned Government Advocateappearing for the respondents have made their submissions basing onthe pleadings found in the affidavits in support of the writpetitions as well as the common counter affidavit filed by therespondents.7. The Government of Tamil Nadu, to update the technology inthe area of Computer in Science, thought it fit to appoint ComputerInstructors in the year 1999 in various Government / Corporation /Municipal Schools. ELCOT company which is a fully Government ownedCorporation was the principal contractor appointed by the Governmentto recruit Computer Instructors for teaching computer education invarious Government Schools. By Phase-I and II, the persons soselected through ELCOT Company have been appointed. The period ofcontract was for five years and Phase-I expired in August, 2004 andPhase-II expired in August, 2005. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. By G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 04.10.2006, 1880 posts of ComputerInstructors have been created by a letter of the Government of TamilNadu dated 04.10.2006 to the Director of School Education prescribingcertain educational qualifications for attending the specialqualifying examination. Thereafter, notification had been issued forthe special qualifying examination for the year 2006-07 for the postof Computer Instructors by Teachers' Recruitment Board. 9. Challenging the said notification, a batch of writ petitionshave been filed before this Court in W.P.No.50371 of 2007, etc. Byan order dated 13.03.2007, the learned Single Judge of this Courtallowed those writ petitions. Challenging the same, the Governmenthad moved writ appeals in W.A.No.1152 of 2007, etc. The DivisionBench of this Court, by an order dated 22.08.2008, set aside theorder of the learned Single Judge thereby affirming the notificationissued for conducting special qualifying examination for the post ofComputer Instructors by the Teachers' Recruitment Board. Paragraphs23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 35 and 37 of the said judgment are usefullyextracted here under:-" 23. There is no dispute regarding the said clausefinding place in the contract. But, it is seen that in thewelfare of the students, the Government has issuedG.O.Ms.No.17, dated 23.1.2006, agreeing to bear theexpenditure involved in providing computer education to thestudents, including the consolidated pay of Rs.2,000/= pereach Computer Instructor. At this juncture, it is to bepointed out that all along the Computer Instructors areworking for a meager salary of Rs.1,500/=, which wasthereafter enhanced to Rs.2,000/= and in this manner, theyhave rendered their services to the school education of thestudents for all these years. From the particularsfurnished by the learned Additional Advocate General, it isseen that for the year 1999 and 2000, all the required 2394computer instructors were appointed by ELCOT, which alsoinclude the persons with B.Ed. (Computer Science)qualification and registered in Employment Exchange andduring the years 2001 to 2005, some of the ComputerInstructors left their jobs, but, out of the 2394 candidatesappointed in two phases in the years 1999 and 2000, aconsiderable number of 772 Computer Instructors are stillworking continuously till date, rendering their services tothe School Education and by their long service in the samefield of imparting computer education to the pupil, by now,they have gained necessary and considerable experience. 24. It is apt to state here that by now, it is asettled law that the want of educational qualification, ifany, can be compensated by long experience in the same fieldand long experience of a candidate in a particular https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ field/post is always considered as a ground for relaxing therequired qualifications. For this, we draw inspiration froma catena of judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court, likeB.N.SAXENA vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE [(1990) 4 SCC205] and GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY vs. RATHOD LABHUBECHAR [(2001) 3 SCC 574].25. Coming to the other limb of the argument that theComputer Instructors were appointed only by privatecontractors and hence, they cannot be absorbed intoGovernment sanctioned posts, it is to be stated that thoughthey were appointed through agencies of ELCOT, a Governmentorganisation, they were not under the control of the saidagencies and for all practical purposes, they were under thedirect control and supervision of the Government and onlyfor this reason, even after the contract period is over, theGovernment, for the welfare of the students, has accepted tobear the expenditure involved in providing computereducation to the students, including the consolidated salaryof the instructors. Further more, it has been submittedbefore us that the Government has imparted the ChildPsychology Training to such Computer Instructors and theDirector of School Education has also conducted anexamination and all those instructors who failed in the saidexamination were replaced. For all these reasons, we arenot able to accept this argument advanced on the part of theB.Ed. graduates.28. At the cost of repetition, we must held that it isnot a process of 'absorption' or 'regularization' as hasbeen termed and commented on the part of the B.Ed.graduates but it is only a special recruitment processintended for the benefit of such employees, who haverendered their valuable services to the field of education,continuously all these years and the Government hasrestricted this benefit only to those candidates who are'in service after termination of the contract, receivingdirect payment from the Government'. These employees areworking all these years and have spent their best part oflife in imparting education to the students, probably witha hope that their posts would be regularized or they wouldbe absorbed in future, as in the earlier occasions, about1000 vocational teachers were absorbed into Governmentservice in regular time scale of pay. But, in spite oftheir specific request for absorption, the Government hasprescribed a special test for them and the candidates whocould succeed in the selection, could only be appointed.Thus, only a limited benefit has been conferred upon suchcontract instructors. The State being the Welfare Statecannot be find fault with in taking such a decision, having https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ factual regard to the welfare of the students and the longserving contractor instructors. At this juncture, it isalso to be pointed out that we are apprised of the factthat as of now, many of the contract Computer Instructorshave acquired the qualification of B.Ed. and that they arenot 'less qualified' as has been contended on the part ofthe B.Ed. graduates.29. At this juncture, it has been argued on the part ofthe B.Ed. graduates that some of the Computer Instructorswere appointed only recently and therefore, they should notbe permitted to take the special examination. When, theGovernment, in its wisdom, has restricted this benefit onlyto those candidates who are 'in service after termination ofthe contract, receiving direct payment from the Government',we see no reason to cause our further interference into thematter, since the Government is completely within its powerto fix the norms for such selection and the same cannot beinterfered with unless malafides are proved, which is notthe case here.35. From the above discussions, the following conclusions wouldemerge:1.The subject 'computer science' is a Vocational Componentand therefore, there is every justification on the partof the Government in not insisting the B.Ed.qualification.2.The proposed action of the Government is only a specialdrive competitive examination and it is not a matter ofpure 'absorption' or 'regularization', in its true sense,as has been commented and apprehended on the part of theB.Ed. graduates and therefore, it is not the appointmentdehors the recruitment rules and the action of the StateGovernment is permissible under the proviso to Article320(3) of the Constitution.3.The impugned action of the Government has not offendedArticle 16(1) of the Constitution as has been contendedon the part of the B.Ed. graduates.35. From the abovediscussions, the following conclusions would emerge:4.The subject 'computer science' is a Vocational Componentand therefore, there is every justification on the partof the Government in not insisting the B.Ed.qualification.5.The proposed action of the Government is only a specialdrive competitive examination and it is not a matter ofpure 'absorption' or 'regularization', in its true sense,as has been commented and apprehended on the part of theB.Ed. graduates and therefore, it is not the appointmentdehors the recruitment rules and the action of the State https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government is permissible under the proviso to Article320(3) of the Constitution.6.The impugned action of the Government has not offendedArticle 16(1) of the Constitution as has been contendedon the part of the B.Ed. graduates. 37. The above said proposal of the Government appearsto be genuine and reasonable in the facts andcircumstances of the case. Therefore, we direct theGovernmental authorities that the entire process ofselection on the basis of special drive examination shallbe conducted strictly, as a one time measure, and completethe same within six months from the date of receipt a copyof this judgment and the left over vacancies and the othervacancies if any arose in the meantime shall be filled upwithin three months thereafter, as has been assured beforeus, making open the recruitment to all eligible B.Ed. andM.Ed. Candidates on employment seniority basis, without anypreference to the already employed Computer Instructors inGovernment Higher Secondary Schools."Thus, the Division Bench of this Court negativing the contentionsraised by the Tamil Nadu Computer Science B.Ed., Graduate TeachersWelfare Society, opposing the action of the Government, has held thatthe action of the Government is perfectly valid and legal.10. Now the question that has been posed before this Court iswhether the petitioners are eligible to take part in the specialqualifying examination. The case of the petitioners is that they areeligible, but, however, they have not been considered and hence, theyhave to approach this Court. On the other hand, it is contended onthe side of the respondents that since some of the petitioners do notsatisfy the required qualification and in some cases there was breakin service and in some cases, appointment was made through theParents' Teachers' Association after the ELCOT contract was over,their cases cannot be considered and they cannot be permitted towrite the special qualifying examination and since through an interimorder they have written the examination, they cannot be appointed asComputer Instructors.11. Before dealing with the individual cases, it would be moreappropriate to deal with the common contentions raised in these writpetitions.12. On behalf of the respondents, it is stated that broadly onthree counts the case of the petitioners could not be consideredviz., in some cases, there was break in service and in some cases,the petitioners do not possess the required qualification and in some https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cases, the appointment had not been made by ELCOT contract but, hasbeen made after the ELCOT contract was over.Break in service:13. Regarding break in service, the main contention raised by thelearned Senior Counsels as well as learned counsels appearing for thepetitioners is that the petitioners who are fit in these categoryhave been appointed as Computer Instructors on contract basis byELCOT company in the Government High Schools, etc., and from the saiddate they are continuously working in the said capacity. Theeligibility conditions prescribed for attending the specialqualifying examination for Computer Instructors are--(i)candidates should have been appointed by the ELCOTcompany in a Government School; and(ii)candidates should have been presently working in theGovernment School;Thus, on date of notification, since they are in employment, theyshould have been considered for applying the special qualifyingexamination for Computer Instructors and they should have beenpermitted to write the examination and selected thereon.13.1. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the Hon'bleMinister for Education had announced in the Assembly on 04.08.2006that the Government has decided to employ Computer Instructors whoare working in various schools on consolidated pay, on regular basisif they possess the required qualifications. The statement made bythe Hon'ble Minister for Education and the decision taken thereonwere communicated by the Secretary to Government to the Director ofSchool Education in his proceedings dated 04.10.2006 prescribing theeducational qualifications. In the said communication, it has beenstated that the Computer Instructors who are presently employed inthe Government schools and who possess the required educationalqualification mentioned thereon are eligible to appear for thespecial examination to be conducted by the Teachers' RecruitmentBoard. Thereafter, notification has been issued calling forapplications for the special qualifying examination. Thus, accordingto the petitioners, three conditions are essential, viz., (i)they should have been appointed on contract basis by ELCOTor later through Parents' Teachers' Association;(ii)they should possess the required educationalqualification; and(iii)now they should be in employment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13.2. However, it is contended on the side of the respondents,by the learned Special Government Pleader as well as learnedGovernment Advocate appearing for the respondents that those ComputerInstructors who were appointed by ELCOT and who were in service onthe date when the Government took over the payment of their salary inGovernment / Corporation / Municipal Schools immediately after theexpiry of the period alone will be eligible to appear for the specialexamination to be conducted by the Teachers' Recruitment Board. Someof the petitioners who have break in service are not eligiblecandidates as per the Government letter No.188 dated 04.10.2006,which was issued by the Secretary to Government, School Education.Basing on that letter, the Teachers' Recruitment Board announced thespecial qualifying examination for the post of Computer Instructors.Thus, it has been contended that when there was break in service eventhough they were appointed by ELCOT on contract basis, they are noteligible to participate in the written examination. Further, thosepersons who have not been appointed by ELCOT and who have beenappointed through Parents Teachers Association after the contractperiod of ELCOT was over, are ineligible.13.3. Before adverting to whether the candidates appointedthrough Parents' Teachers' Association are eligible to take part inthe said special qualifying examination for the post of ComputerInstructors or not, the question whether break in service in respectof the candidates who have been appointed through ELCOT could beconsidered for special qualifying examination, has to be answeredfirst. 13.4. It would be useful to extract G.O.Ms.No.187 dated04.10.2006 creating 1880 posts of Computer Instructors and the sameis extracted here under:- RUf;fk; nky;epiyf; fy;tp ? muR nky;epiyg; gs;spfspy; fzpdpf; fy;tpj; jpl;llj;ij eilKiwg;gLj;Jjy; ? fzpdpgapw;Weh; gzpapl';fs; njhw;Wtpj;jy; ? Miz btspaplg;gLfpwJ/??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????gs;spf; fy;tp (nkepf2) Jiwmurhiz (epiy) vz;/187ehs; 4/10/2006gof;fg;gl;lit/gs;spf;fy;tp ,af;Fehpd; foj e/f/vz;/78345-lgps;a{ 21-2006 ehs;; 23/08/2006/Miz/;1197 muR nky;epiyg; gs;spfspy; fzpdpf; fy;tpj; jpl;lk; xg;ge;j mog;gilapy; jw;nghJbray;gLj;jg;gl;L tUfpwJ/ midj;J muR nky;epiyg; gs;spfspYk; fzpdp fy;tpj; jpl;lj;ij rPhpa Kiwapy;bray;gLj;j gs;sp xd;Wf;F xU fzpdp gapw;Weh; gzpaplk; tPjk; (Computer Instructor) midj;JmuR - efuhl;rp - khefuhl;rp nky;epiyg; gs;spfspYk; fzpdp gapw;Weh; gzpapl';fs; njhw;Wtpf;f muR Kot[ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vLj;Js;sJ/ ,k;Kotpw;nfw;g jw;nghJs;s 1880 muR - efuhl;rp - khefuhl;rp nky;epiyg; gs;spfSf;Fk;gs;sp xd;Wf;F xU fzpdp gapw;Weh; (Computer Instructor) gzpaplk; tPjk; U:/5500?175?9000 vd;wCjpa tpfpj;jpy; 1880 fzpdp gapw;Weh; gzpapl';fs; njhw;Wtpj;J muR MizapLfpwJ/ ,g;gzpapl';fs;midj;Jk; jw;fhypf mog;gilapy; eilKiwapy; cs;s tpjpfSf;Fl;gl;L epug;gg;gLk; ehs; Kjy; xU tUlfhyj;jpw;F mDkjpf;fg;gLfpwJ/2/ nkny gj;jp 1?y; xg;gspf;fg;gl;Ls;s gzpapl';fspd; brytpdk; fPH;f;fhQqk; fzf;Fj; jiyg;g[fspd;fPH; gw;W itf;fg;gl ntz;Lk; ?muR gs;spfSf;fhd fzf;Fj; jiyg;g[?2202 ? bghJf;fy;tp ? 02 ? ,ilepiyf; fy;tp?109 muR ,ilepiyg; gs;spfs; ?jpl;lj;jpy; nruhjJ AA. muR,ilepiy kw;Wk; nky;epiyg; gs;sp Mrphpah; kw;Wk; gzpahsh;fSf;F rk;gsk; ? 01?rk;gs';fs;/j/bjh/F/2202?02?109?AA-0108)efuhl;rp - khefuhl;rp gs;spfSf;fhd fzf;Fj; jiyg;g[2202 ? bghJf;fy;tp ?02?,ilepiyf; fy;tp ? 109 muR ,ilepiyg; gs;spfs; ? jpl;lj;jpy; nruhjJAB efuhl;rp - khefuhl;rp ,ilepiy kw;Wk; nky;epiyg;gs;sp Mrphpah;fSf;Fr; rk;gs';fs; ?01?rk;gs';fs;/j/bjh/F.2202-02-109-AA?0106)3/ ,jw;fhd brytpdk; xU g[Jg;gzp (New service) Fwpj;jjhFk;/ ,jw;F fhyg;nghf;fpy;rl;lkd;wg; nguitapd; xg;g[jy; bgwg;gLk;/ ,jid vjph;nehf;fp ,r;brytpdj;ij vjph;ghuhr; bryt[ epjpapypUe;JKd;gzj;ij mDkjpf;fpd;w Mizfs; epjp (t/br/jp/bgh1)j; Jiwapy; gpwg;gpf;fg;gLk;/ vjph;ghuhr; bryt[ epjpapypUe;J njitahd Kd;gzk; bgWtjw;F epjp (t/br/jp/bgh1)j; Jiwf;Fj; njitahd tpz;zg;gj;ijchpa gotj;jpy; ,U gofspy; ,t;turhizapd; efYld; mDg;gp itf;FkhW gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Feh; nfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpd;whh;/ nkYk;. Jiz khdpak; nkw;fz;l brytpdj;ijr; nrh;g;gjw;F Vjthf chpa fUj;JUitjf;f rkaj;jpy; epjpj;Jiwf;F mDg;gp itf;FkhW gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Feh; nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;/4/ ,t;thiz epjpj; Jiwapd; m/rh/vz;/3768-P-2006. ehs; 3/10/2006y; mspf;fg;gl;l ,irt[ld;btspaplg;gLfpwJ/ ,jw;fhd TLjy; epjpbahJf;fg; ngnul;L vz;/666 (mWE}w;W mWgj;jp MW)/(MSehpd; Mizg;go)k/Fw;whyp';fk;muR brayhsh;bgWeh;gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Feh;. brd;id?6/brd;id khefuhl;rp Mizah;. brd;id?3. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ khepyf; fzf;fha;t[j; jiyth;. brd;id ?18/midj;J khtl;l fUt{y mYtyh;fs;.rk;gsf; fzf;F mYtyh;.brd;id?79/rk;gsf; fzf;F mYtyh;.brd;id 5-35/efy;epjp (fy;tpj;Jiw. brd;id?9/gs;spf; fy;tp (tbr) Jiw. br?9/khz;g[kpF gs;spf; fy;tp mikr;rhpd; mYtyfk;. brd;id?9khz;g[kpF Kjyikr;rhpd; mYtyfk;. brd;id?9/-Mizg;go mDg;gg;gLfpwJ -** 13.5. It would also be useful to extract the Government LetterNo.188 dated 04.10.2006 and the same is extracted here under:- gs;spf; fy;tp (nkepf2) Jiwfoj (epiy) vz;/188 ehs; 4/10/06mDg;g[eh;jpU/k/Fw;whyp';fk;. ,/M/gmuR bryhsh;/bgWeh;gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Feh;.brd;id?6/Iah.bghUs;nky;epiyf; fy;tp ? muR nky;epiyg; gs;spfspy; fzpdpf;fy;tpj; jpl;lj;ij eilKiwg;gLj;Jjy; ? fzpdp gapw;Weh;gzpapl';fs; njhw;Wtpj;jy; ? Miz btspaplg;gLfpwJ/ghh;it1/ gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Fehpd; foj e/f/ vz; 78345-lgps;a{21-2006. ehs; 23/8/06/2/ murhiz (epiy) vz; 187 ehs; 4/10/2006/????????jkpH;ehL rl;lkd;wg; nguitapy; 4/8/06 md;W fy;tp khdpaf; nfhhpf;if kPjhd tpjhj;jpd; nghJ khz;g[kpF gs;spf; fy;tp mikr;rh; gpd;tUk; mwptpg;gpid btspapl;Ls;shh;/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ muR nky;epiyg; gs;spfspy; jw;bghGJ bjhFg;g{jpaj;jpy; Kw;wpYk; jw;fhypf mog;gilapy; fzpdp Mrphpah;fs; gzpg[hpe;J tUfpwhh;fs;/,t;thrphpah;fspd; nfhhpf;ifia muR Vw;W KG fy;tpj; jFjpnahLgzpg[hpa[k; fzpdp Mrphpah;fis nghl;oj; njh;tpd; K:yk; KiwahdCjpa tpfpjj;jpy; epakdk; bra;a ghpt[ld; ghprPyid bra;aKobtLj;Js;sJ/2/ ,t;twptpg;gpidj; bjhlh;e;J ghh;it 1y; fz;Ls;s j';fs; fojj;jpy; mDg;gg;gl;l fUj;JUtpfisghprPypj;J midj;J muR - efuhl;rp - khefuhl;rp nky;epiyg; gs;spfspYk; fzpdpf; fy;tpj; jpl;lj;ijbray;gLj;Jk; bghUl;L fzpdp gapw;Weh;fis munr epakpf;fyhk; vd Kot[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ mt;thnw muRnky;epiyg; gs;spfspy; 1880 fzpdp gapw;Weh; (Computer Instructor) gzpapl';fs; njhw;Wtpj;Jghh;it 2y; fz;Ls;s murhizapy; Mizfs; btspaplg;gl;Ls;sJ/3/ ,t;turhiziaj; bjhlh;e;J. ghh;it (1)y; fz;Ls;s j';fs; ghpe;Jiufis muR Vw;W gpd;tUkhWMizpapLfpwJ??1/ jdpj;njh;t[ jw;nghJ muR nky;epiyg; gs;spfspy; gzpahw;wpf; bfhz;oUf;Fk; fzpdp Mrphpah;fSf;F jdpj;njh;tpid (Special Test) Mrphpah; njh;t[ thhpak; K:yk; elj;jyhk;/ Mrphpah; njh;t[ thhpak; mspf;Fk;Mnyhridapd; mog;gilapy; xU Fwpg;gpl;l tpGf;fhL kjpg;bgz; bgw;wth;fisj; njh;e;bjLf;fyhk;/2/ nghl;oj; njh;t[ Vw;bfdnt xg;ge;jjhuh;fshy; fzpdp gapw;Weh;fSf;F eph;zapf;fg;gl;l gpd;tUk; fy;tpj; jFjpfisjw;nghJ nghl;oj; njh;tpy; fye;J bfhs;Sk; Mrphpah;fSf;Fk; eph;zapf;fg;gLfpwJ/One of the following degrees:-1. B.E. Degree in Computer Science / ECE / EEE from a recognised University. 2. B.Sc. Computer Science.3. M.C.A.4. B.C.A.5. Any degree from a recognised University in the State withone year P.G. Diploma course in Computer Aplication offered by arecognised University. ( bghUl;L gp/vl; jFjp typa[Wj;jg;glg; nghtjpy;iy)4/ nkw;Twpa epiyapy;. jw;nghJ muR nky;epiyg; gs;spfspy; gzpahw;wpf; bfhz;oUf;Fk; fzpdpMrphpah;fSf;F jdpj; njh;t[ elj;j VJthf Mrphpah; njh;t[ thhpaj;jpd; Mnyhridapidg; bgw;W jf;ffUj;JUtpid mDg;gp itf;FkhW j';fisf; nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg; gzpf;fg;gl;Ls;nsd;/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fisg; nghd;W fzpdp gapw;Weh;fs; bghUl;Lk; jf;f tpjpKiwfs; cUthf;fVJthff; fUj;JUtpid jdpna mDg;gp itf;f j';fisf; nfl;Lf; bfhs;s gzpf;fg;gl;Ls;nsd;/j';fs; ek;gpf;ifa[s;s.(xk;) muR brayhsUf;fhf/13.6. The notification of Teachers' Recruitment Board dated01.07.2007 upto column 2 is usefully extracted here under:-Mrphpah; njh;t[ thhpak;4tJ kho. </bt/fp/rk;gj; khspif/ ogpI tshfk;.fy;Y}hp rhiy. brd;id?600 006/?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????fzpdp gapw;Weh;fSf;fhd rpwg;g[j; njh;t[ 2006?07njh;t[ mwptpg;g[ kw;Wk; tpjpKiwfs;muR Miz (epiy) vz;/187. gs;spf; fy;tp (nky;epiyf; fy;tp/2) Jiw ehs; 4/10/2006muRf; fojk; (epiy) vz;/188. gs;spf; fy;tp (nky;epiyf; fy;tp2) Jiw ehs; 4/10/2006muR - efuhl;rp - khefuhl;rp - Mjp jpuhtplh; eyk; - fs;sh; nky;epiyg; gs;spfspy; xg;ge;jmog;gilapy; fzpdp gapw;Weh;fshf gzpg[hpa[k; jFjpa[s;sth;fis fzpdp gapw;Weh;fshf muR - efuhl;rp -khefuhl;rp - Mjp jpuhtplh; eyk; - fs;sh; rPuikg;g[ nky;epiyg; gs;spfspy; e[pakpf;f eilbgWk; rpwg;g[j; njh;t[f;fhd tpjpKiwfs; fPH;f;fz;lthW mwptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/1/ tpz;zg;gpf;f jFjpa[ilnahh;? vy;fhl; epWtdk; K:yk; bjwpt[ bra;ag;gl;l xg;ge;jf;fhuh; K:yk; muR -efuhl;rp - khefuhl;rp - Mjp jpuhtplh; eyk; - fs;sh; rPuikg;g[ nky;epiyg; gs;spfspy; xg;ge;j mog;gilapy;fzpdp gapw;Weh;fshf epakpf;fg;gl;L. Xg;ge;jf; fhyk; Koa[k; tiu gzpg[hpe;J. murhy; tH';fg;gLk; U:/2000-?Cjpaj;jpid bgw;W jw;nghJ bjhlh;e;J gzpg[hpe;J tUgth;fs; kl;Lnk tpz;zg;gpf;fyhk;/2/ fy;tpj; jFjp? nkw;Fwpg;gpl;l tpz;zg;gpf;fj; jFjpa[ilnahh; fPH;f;fhQqk; VnjDk; xU gl;lk; bgw;wpUf;fntz;Lk;/ 1. B.E. Degree in Computer Science / ECE / EEE from a recognisedUniversity. 2. B.Sc. Computer Science.3. M.C.A.4. B.C.A.5. Any degree from a recognised University in the State with one year P.G. Diploma course in Computer Aplication offered by a recognised University. 13.7. G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 04.10.2006, Government letter No.188dated 04.10.2006 and the notification and rules for the said special https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ qualifying examination for the year 2006-07 of Teachers RecruitmentBoard would make it clear that the persons who satisfy the followingconditions are eligible to take part in the examination. They are:- (i) should have been appointed by ELCOT (ii) should possess the required educational qualification (iii) now should be in employment.Nowhere it speaks about the continuous employment without break inservice. The intention of the Government seems to be, which could begathered from the statement made by the Hon'ble Minister forEducation in the Assembly dated 04.08.2006, that the ComputerInstructors who have been appointed and who are working onconsolidated pay till date have to be accommodated. Thus, theintention of the Government seems to be the inservice candidatesreceiving contract payment from the Government are eligible to beabsorbed into Government sanctioned posts. In fact, in their counteraffidavit filed before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.50371 of2007 batch, the respondents have categorically stated that thisrecruitment is a special recruitment drive to facilitate absorptionof all the serving computer instructors as a matter of policydecision of the Government by a regular recruitment process throughTeacher Recruitment Board which is a body equivalent to that of thePublic Service Commission of the State and the relevant passage isusefully extracted here under:-"As mentioned earlier, this recruitment is a specialrecruitment drive to facilitate absorption of all theserving computer instructors as a matter of policydecision of the Government by a regular recruitmentprocess through Teacher Recruitment Board which is a bodyequivalent to that of the Public Service Commission of theState. As this is not a regular recruitment open to allrather restricted to distinct class of persons, theapplication of rule of reservation is not mandatory.Hence and for the first time the posts of 1880 ComputerInstructors were sanctioned for the purpose of absorptionof the instructors who were in continuous service tillnow. The element of direct recruitment is totally lackingin this case and therefore violation of general rulecannot be attributed. Notwithstanding the above andinterestingly the Teachers Recruitment Board in this casehas received 1724 applications out of which 157 belongs toScheduled Caste, 433 belongs to Most Backward Classes,1056 belongs to Backward Classes, 71 belongs to OpenCompetition and 7 applications without specification ofcommunal particulars. In all probabilities the rule ofreservation is otherwise said to have been satisfied,without prejudice to the respondent's earlier contention." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Nowhere in the Government Order or either before the learned SingleJudge or before the Division Bench it has been urged on behalf of therespondents that only those persons who are in continuous employmentwithout break in service would be considered for absorption throughspecial qualifying examination. However, I am hasten to add that itdoes not automatically mean that if a person so appointed throughELCOT and who was not working for a considerable period viz., therewas break in service for a lengthy period, which has not beenexplained properly, may not be entitled for absorption throughspecial qualifying examination. Otherwise, the intention of theGovernment to absorb them would be defeated. Thus, while rejectingthe contention raised on the side of the respondents that a merebreak in service alone is sufficient to dislodge the persons fromcompeting through special qualifying examination for the post ofComputer Instructors, I am of the considered view that there is someforce in the contentions raised by the learned Special GovernmentPleader and the learned Government Advocate that a considerable breakin service without any reason would dislodge the candidates fromcompeting with others.13.8. As regards the appointment made by Parents' Teachers'Association is concerned, since in W.P.No.24270 of 2008 it is allegedthat the writ petitioner was employed through the Parents' Teachers'Association after expiry of the contract period with ELCOT and hence,he is not entitled to get the benefit of the scheme announced by theGovernment, the same has been separately dealt with while dealingwith the said writ petition and the question posed whether theParents' Teachers' Association appointees are to be considered forSpecial Qualifying Examination, would be dealt with in the otherbatch.13.9. Now, the individual cases have to be taken to decidewhether the reason assigned thereon for break in service isjustifiable and reasonable.W.P.No.24598 of 200814.1. It is the case of the petitioner that she was initiallyappointed as Computer Faculty in Government Boys Higher SecondarySchool, Paradarami on contract basis through ELCOT Company. Aftercompletion of five years and seven months of service, she applied formaternity leave from 01.03.2005 to 31.07.2006. After expiry of herleave period, she appeared before the fourth respondent in this writpetition with all medical reports and fitness certificate and she waspermitted to rejoin duty on 01.08.2006 and now she is continuouslyworking as Computer Instructor.14.2. The rejection, according to the respondents, is sincethere was break in service from 01.03.2005 to 31.07.2006, she is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ineligible for the post of Computer Instructor as per thenotification of the Teachers Recruitment Board. The servicecertificate given by the Headmaster of GBHSS, Paradarami, VelloreDistrict, discloses that from 13.12.2001 to 19.04.2002, thepetitioner has taken maternity leave. From 01.03.2005 to 31.07.2006,she has taken medical leave without salary. The Headmaster of thesaid school has given a service certificate stating that she isworking as a Computer Instructor in the said school from 09.08.1999to 26.09.2008 and her work and conduct are found to be good. Whenthe petitioner has taken leave on Medical Certificate and had beenpermitted to rejoin duty on 01.08.2006 and when she is continuouslyworking as Computer Instructor on the date of the Government Order inG.O.Ms.No.187 dated 04.10.2006 and the Government letter No.188 dated04.10.2006 and also the notification and rules for the said specialqualifying examination for the year 2006-07 of Teachers RecruitmentBoard, the claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the groundthat she has taken leave from 01.03.2005 to 31.07.2006. It cannot besaid that the petitioner after coming to know of the Government orderand letter referred to above had rejoined the duty. Hence, I am ofthe considered view that the case of the petitioner in this writpetition ought to have been considered by the respondents in properperspective and they should have allowed the petitioner to write theexamination and ought to have absorbed her into the sanctioned post.In fact, by way of interim order, she has written the examination andthe mark list of the petitioner along with others which have beenproduced by the learned Special Government Pleader, would show thatthe petitioner had got through the examination by getting requiredmarks. Hence, I am inclined to allow this writ petition.W.P.No.24270 of 200815.1. The petitioner herein was appointed as Computer Instructoron contract basis through ELCOT at Government Girls' Higher SecondarySchool, Chidambaram for a period of one year from 13.08.1999 to09.06.2000; thereafter, at Government Girls' Higher Secondary School,Bhuvanagiri from 05.07.2000 to 02.12.2005 and from 01.06.2006, he isworking at Government Higher Secondary School, C.Mudlur. Though thecontract between the Government and ELCOT came to an end by February,2005, the petitioner has averred that in the interest of students, heis allowed to continue to work beyond the contract period.15.2. The reasons for rejection as far as the case of thispetitioner according to the respondents, are that there was break inservice from 03.12.2005 to 31.05.2006 for six months and thepetitioner was again appointed in G.H.S.S. C.Mudlur on 01.06.2006through Parents' Teacher's Association after the contract period.Thus, the case of this petitioner could not be considered.15.3. As stated already, the petitioner through ELCOT had beenappointed as Computer Instructor on contract basis from 13.08.1999 to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

02.12.2005 and thereafter, there was break in service from 03.12.2005to 31.05.2006 for six months and again he was appointed on 01.06.2006through Parents' Teachers' Association. Since on the crucial timeviz., on the date of the decision taken by the Government by virtueof G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 04.10.2006 and Government Letter No.188 dated04.10.2006 and the notification of the Teachers' Recruitment Board,the petitioner was in employment, he is entitled to be considered.Though Phase II contract period ended in August, 2005, the petitionercontinued till 02.12.2005 and thereafter, from 01.06.2006 throughParents' Teachers' Association had been continuously in employment.In fact, the notification dated 01.07.2006 of Teachers' RecruitmentBoard enumerates that the persons selected through ELCOT andappointed on consolidated pay in the Government Schools and continuedtill the contract period was over are eligible to apply. Clause (1)of the said Notification and Rules is extracted here under:- tpz;zg;gpf;f jFjpa[ilnahh;? vy;fhl; epWtdk; K:yk; bjwpt[ bra;ag;gl;lxg;ge;jf;fhuh; K:yk; muR - efuhl;rp - khefuhl;rp - Mjp jpuhtplh; eyk; - fs;sh; rPuikg;g[nky;epiyg; gs;spfspy; xg;ge;j mog;gilapy; fzpdp gapw;Weh;fshf epakpf;fg;gl;L. Xg;ge;jf;fhyk; Koa[k; tiu gzpg[hpe;J. murhy; tH';fg;gLk; U:/2000-? Cjpaj;jpid bgw;W jw;nghJbjhlh;e;J gzpg[hpe;J tUgth;fs; kl;Lnk tpz;zg;gpf;fyhk;/15.4. Further, the break in service is not due to the fault ofthe petitioner.15.5. Further, the petitioner even after the contract period inELCOT was over, was appointed through Parents' Teachers' Associationand in employment on the date of said Government Orders. Hence, hiscase ought to have been considered by the respondents.15.6. Considering the consolidated position of the petitioner, Iam of the considered view that the case of the petitioner should havebeen considered in proper perspective and the failure to do so istotally unjust.W.P.No24600 of 200816.1. The rejection in respect of the first petitioner is thatthere was break in service from 01.02.2002 to 04.04.2002, 06.11.2003to 31.05.2004, 01.04.2005 to 02.10.2006 and 16.10.2007 to 31.10.2007.Thus, there was totally 2 years 3 months and 15 days break inservice. It has not been explained why there was break in service.Further, on the date when the decision was taken by the Governmentby virtue of G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 04.10.2006 and Government LetterNo.188 dated 04.10.2006 and the notification of the Teachers'Recruitment Board, the petitioner was not in employment at all.Hence, I am of the considered view that in respect of the firstpetitioner is concerned, the break in service has not been explainedand since she was not in employment on the said dates, she is noteligible to apply for the post of Computer Instructor. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16.2. Regarding the second petitioner, there was break inservice was from 16.03.2005 to 01.06.2005, 21.06.2005 to 10.08.2005and 06.09.2005 to 18.06.2006 totalling to 1 year, 1 month and 17days. Though no reason has been assigned in the writ petition, onthe date of the decision taken by the Government by virtue ofG.O.Ms.No.187 dated 04.10.2006 and Government Letter No.188 dated04.10.2006 and the notification of the Teachers' Recruitment Board,the petitioner was in employment. Hence, the case of the secondpetitioner could be considered for absorption.16.3. As far as the third petitioner is concerned, there wasbreak in service from 01.12.2004 to 12.06.2005, 18.02.2007 to15.03.2007, 21.03.2007 to 18.04.2007 and 16.11.2007 to 15.06.2008totalling 1 year and 4 months. The petitioner on the date of thedecision taken by the Government by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.187 dated04.10.2006 and Government Letter No.188 dated 04.10.2006 and thenotification of the Teachers' Recruitment Board was not in employmentand it could be inferred that the petitioner had approached thisCourt only after she came to know of the above said notification.Hence, the case of the third petitioner could not be considered.Thus, the case of second petitioner alone has to be considered andthe case of the other petitioners viz., 1 and 3 needs to be rejected.17. Thus, considering the above facts and circumstances,W.P.No.24598 of 2008 and W.P.No.24270 of 2008 stand allowed.W.P.No.24600 of 2008 stands allowed in respect of the secondpetitioner alone and it stands dismissed as against petitioners 1 and3. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetitions are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarsbiTo1.The Member Secretary, Teacher Recruitment Board,(DPI Compound) College Road, Chennai-6.2.The Director of School Education(Higher Secondary), College Road, Chennai-6. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore.4.The Joint Director of School Education, D.P.I. Compound, College Road, Chennai-6.5.The Chief Educational Officer, O/o.The Chief Educational Officer, Vellore, Vellore District.6.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.7. The Secretary The Teachers Recruitment Board, E.V.K.Sampath Maaligai, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-6.8. The Director, The Teachers Recruitment Board, E.V.K.Sampath Maaligai, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-6.3 ccs To Government Pleader, Advocate, SR.15880 to 158821 cc To Mr.K.Selvaraj, Advocate, SR.159281 cc To Mr.V.Sudhakar, Advocate, SR.161812 ccs To Mr.V.Ravikumar, Advocate, SR.15787 W.P.Nos.24270, 24598 & 24600/08MSM(CO)SRA(30/4/2009)