Dismissed

Dr.a.Saminathan v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC12 Jun 2017WP/195/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking mandamus to produce interview and mark allocation minutes for Assistant Professor recruitment, the High Court dismissed the petition as the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim, and the selection was conducted by an expert committee without cause for disclosure.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer for mandamus directing production of interview minutes was dismissed; no costs awarded.

Dr.a.Saminathan Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 12.06.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

W.P.No.195 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶6

Dr.A.Saminathan ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600009.
2. The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
Chennai - 600 006.
3. Director of Collegiate Education,
Chennai - 600 006. .. Respondents

¶7

Prayers: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to produce the minutes of the interview and allocation of mark for the interview held on 15.12.2014 for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Commerce) and award 10 marks, instead of 6 marks, to the petitioner bearing Regn.No.13AP1615005 and consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Commerce) under B.C. category for direct recruitment of Assistant Professors in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service for Government Arts & Science Colleges - 2012.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Vediappan for M/s.C.S.Associates

¶9

For Respondents : Mr.A.Zakir Hussain, G.A.

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to produce the minutes of the interview and allocation of mark in the interview held on 15.12.2014 for the appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Commerce).

¶13

The case of the petitioner is that after passing M.Phil., (Commerce) in April 1997, SLET test in March 1998 and Ph.D., (Commerce) in January 2011, he joined as Assistant Professor (Commerce) in Arts & Science College, Gobichettipalayam on 08.03.1993 and he worked there till 20.01.1996, thereafter he worked as Assistant Professor (Commerce) in Park's College, Chinnakkarai, Tirupur from 01.04.1996 15.06.1997 and thereafter worked as Assistant Professor (Commerce) in Maharaja CoEducation Arts & Science College, Perundurai till 07.09.2011 i.e., 14 years 2 months and 22 days.

¶14

The petitioner would further state that the second respondent Board called for applications to fill up the posts of Assistant Professor on 28.05.2013. As per the notification they alloted marks to be given to the candidates under various categories. In response to the notification, the petitioner also applied, the respondent has awarded 9 marks for the qualification and 15 marks for teaching experience. Based on the marks awarded, the candidates were called for certificate verification and interview on 15.12.2014.

¶15

The petitioner would allege that the interview Board had asked questions in different field, the petitioner answered all the questions correctly. Therefore, he is entitled for 10 marks meant for interview instead he was awarded only 6 marks. Aggrieved over the same the present writ petition is filed.

¶16

The respondents filed a counter stating that the Government has issued orders in G.O.(1D)No.143 Higher Education (F2) Department dated 01.08.2014 to the Teachers Recruitment Board regarding the guideline to be followed for the conduct of interview and Constitution of Interview Boards. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-

¶17

"The Teachers Recruitment Board to constitute the Interview Board for direct recruitment of Assistant Professors in Government Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges of Education as follows"-

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

Sl. Designation in the Designation
No. Interview Board
1 Chairperson Director of Collegiate
Education/Regional Joint Director of
Collegiate Education/Principal of Grade
- 1 Government Colleges.
2 Member Members of Teachers Recruitment
Board/Grade-1 Government College
Principals.
3 Subject Expert - I University Professor / Reader in
concerned subject
4 Subject Expert - II Principal of Government
College/Associate Professor of
Government College in concerned subject.
5 SC/ST Associate Professor belonging to SC/ST
representative

¶20

It is further stated that the Government vide in G.O.Ms.No.32, Higher Education (F2) Department dated 08.03.2013 has issued orders prescribing criteria for awarding marks during the conduct of interview for selection of Assistant Professors in Government Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges of Education through Teachers Recruitment Board apart from awarding marks for teaching experience (15 marks) and higher qualification (9 marks) and for interview (10 marks) as per G.O.Ms.No.412 Higher Education (F2) Department dated 07.12.2009.

¶21

The learned Government Advocate would submit that the respondent, as per G.O.'s stated supra, conducted interview and awarded marks. The petitioner belongs to Backward community and he had scored only 30 marks.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the Board, after conduct of the interview, drawn professional selection list for the post of Assistant Professors in Commerce and published the final selection list in the website of Teachers Recruitment Board on 20.08.2013. The selection list was drawn, the cut off mark of the last candidates selected in GT(G) BC(G) scored 32 & 31 marks respectively. However, since the

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

petitioner has scored only 30 marks, he could not be selected.

¶25

It is to be seen that though the petitioner has contended that he answered all the questions correctly, no materials have been placed to substantiate the same. It is not in dispute that the interview Board consists of two experts and one of the members

¶26

is an Assistant Professor belongs to SC/ST. Admittedly, no personal allegations have been made against the members in the selection committee.

¶27

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the selection was made by an expert committee, this Court does not find any reason to call for the production of the minutes of the interview. In the result this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶28

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
dpq
To
1. State of Tamiladu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
Chennai - 600 006.
3. The Director of Collegiate Education,
Chennai - 600 006.
+1cc to M/s.C.S.Associates, Advocate, S.R.No.41696
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.41561

¶29

W.P.No.195 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶30

KGK(CO) CS/30/06/17

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Dr.a.Saminathan v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.a.Saminathan v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeyalakshmi Vs the Director of Town

The Tiruchi Fruits Traders Vs the Commissioner

M/Smaturity Materials Vs the Managing Director

C.Masilamani, Vs The Principal Secretary cum

A.Rangasamy, Vs The Principal Secretary cum

Imtiaz Abdul Latif Vs The Inspector General of