Dismissed

C.Rajeswari, v. the Govt., of Tamilnadu

Madras HC19 Jan 2017WP/32879/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged the refusal of the Teacher Recruitment Board to consider the petitioner for certificate verification and selection as a PG Teacher. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's score of 107 did not meet the minimum cut-off of 108 marks for her category. Consequently, the Writ of Mandamus was not granted. No costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus directing respondents to call for certificate verification and selection is dismissed. No costs awarded.

C.Rajeswari, Vs the Govt., of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.01.2017 CORAM:

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶3

W.P. No. 32879 of 2012

C.Rajeswari

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, School Education Dept. Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

¶8

The Member Secretary, Teacher Recruitment Board (PG) DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-6.

¶9

The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. .. Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to call for the petitioner for Certificate Verification process and selecting as Post Graduate Teacher in Zoology by considering the petitioner's representations dated 10.11.2012, 20.11.2012 and 28.11.2012.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Krishnamurthy

¶12

For Respondents : Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi, Government Advocate

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition praying to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to call the petitioner for Certificate Verification process and to select as Post Graduate Teacher in Zoology, by considering her representations dated 10.11.2012, 20.11.2012 and 28.11.2012.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner belongs to Most Backward Class Community had she appeared for the written test for the post of PG Assistant Teacher on 27.05.2012. The petitioner scored 104

¶16

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

¶17

marks in the written examination and she was called for certificate verification on 30.10.2012. The petitioner suffered from jaundice fever for 18 days i.e., from 20.10.2012 to 06.11.2012, hence, he came to know about the result only on 07.11.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the 2^nd respondent with representations dated 10.11.2012, 20.11.2012 and 28.11.2012, stating that she is eligible to appear for the certificate verification and hence she may be considered for certificate verification process, but the 2^nd respondent has refused to accept the petitioner's representation. Hence, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the above said prayer.

¶18

The learned Government Advocate has submitted that pursuant to the impugned order of this Court in W.P.No.32879 of 2012 and MP.No.1 of 2012 dated 12.11.2013, the petitioner has appeared for the certificate verification on 28.11.2013. The petitioner has scored 104 marks and she belongs to Most Backward Class. The petitioner is not eligible for appointment as PG Assistant in Zoology as the requisite lowest cutoff marks in the Most Backward Class General and Women Communal Turn is 108 marks, whereas the petitioner's score would remain at 107 even if she is otherwise eligible and awarded weightage marks of 3. Therefore, the petitioner is not within the selection zone to consider appointment for the post of PG Assistant Teacher in Zoology subject.

¶19

In view of the submission made by both the parties, it seems that the petitioner has got only 107 marks even after given 3 marks for weightage. As the petitioner has not reached the cut of mark of 108, which is the least cut off mark of Most Backward Class communal turn in Zoology, the Writ Petition fails. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶20

pvs

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

The Secretary, School Education Dept.
The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Member Secretary,
Teacher Recruitment Board (PG)
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai-6.
3. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
+1cc to Mr.Krishna Moorthy, Advocate, S.R.No.3624
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.4092
RSK(CO)
RS(09/02/2017)
W.P. No. 32879 of 2012

¶24

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

C.Rajeswari, v. the Govt., of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Rajeswari, v. the Govt., of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Saravanaprabhu Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Karunakaran, Vs the Registrar of Cooperative

K.Krishnamoorthy Vs Director of School Education

K.Abirami, Vs the Chairman

V.Saravanan, Vs the Member

R.Elavarasi, Vs Teachers Recruitment Board