Dismissed

The Chairman v. G.Sasikumar

Madras HC29 Oct 2020WA(MD)/956/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed an appeal filed by the Teacher Recruitment Board challenging the Single Judge's order accepting delayed countersigned experience certificates. The Court held the delay was caused by the second respondent, not the petitioner, and affirmed the order to allow the petitioner to participate in the interview.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed, affirming the direction to the Board to accept the countersigned documents and permit the petitioner to participate in

The Chairman Vs G.Sasikumar — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.956 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 29.10.2020 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN AND

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI W.A.(MD)No.956 of 2020 and C.M.P.(MD)No.5200 of 2020

¶5

The Chairman, Teacher Recruitment Board, Government of Tamil Nadu, 4^th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai. : Appellant/1^st Respondent

¶6

Vs. 1.G.Sasikumar :1^st Respondent/Writ Petitioner

¶7

2.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Department of Collegiate Education, Thanjavur Region, Thanjavur District. : 2^nd Respondent/2^nd Respondent

¶8

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 09.03.2020, made in W.P.(MD)No.4306 of 2020.

¶9

Prayer in WP(MD). 4306 of 2020 :

¶10

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court Directing the 1st respondent to accept the petitioners experience certificates given by Annai College of Arts and Science, Kovilachery, Kumbakonam, ABI and ABI College of Arts Science, Valayur, Thanjavur 613 003 and Marudhupandiyar College, Thanjavur, duly coutersigned by the 2nd respondent dated 18.2.2020 and to provide the prescribed marks as stated in the 1st respondents Notification No.12/2019 dated 04.10.2019 in clause-13, Column Sr.No.1, to the petitioner for his application dated 15.11.2019 in User ID-TRBAPG742454 for the post of Assistant Professor of Economics, within the period as stipulated by this Honourable Court.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan For R.2 : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi Special Government Pleader

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

( Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.PUGALENDHI, J.) This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order dated 09.03.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.

¶14

1/4

¶15

W.A.(MD)No.956 of 2020

¶16

(MD)No.4306 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the first respondent / writ petitioner was directed to submit the manual application along with all required enclosures and the appellant / first respondent was, in turn, directed to accept the same and to permit the first respondent / writ petitioner to participate in the interview. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has filed the instant writ appeal.

¶17

The case of the first respondent / writ petitioner is that he is working as an Assistant Professor in a private college and his qualification is B.A., M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D., specialization in Economics. The appellant / first respondent has issued a notification on 28.08.2019, inviting applications for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Professors in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service for Government Arts & Science Colleges and Colleges of Education. The cut-off date was initially fixed as 24.09.2019 and thereafter, extended upto 15.11.2019, 30.11.2019 and then to 28.01.2020. In order to apply for the said post, the candidates have to submit their experience certificates, countersigned by the concerned authority, namely, the second respondent herein.

¶18

The writ petitioner has worked in (i) A Veeraiya Vandayar Memorial Sri Pushpam College, Poondi, Thanjavur; (ii) Annai College of Arts and Science, Kumbakonam; (iii) ABI & ABI College of Arts and Science, Thanjavur; and (iv) Marudhupandiyar College, Thanjavur. He has also submitted the experience certificates issued by the respective colleges to the second respondent on 22.10.2019. However, the second respondent has countersigned in the certificate issued by A Veeraiya Vandayar Memorial Sri Pushpam College, Poondi, Thanjavur alone and did not countersign the other experience certificates. Aggrieved, the writ petitioner has filed W.P.(MD)No.25431 of 2019 and based on the orders passed in the said writ petition, the second respondent has passed a rejection order dated 31.01.2020. The said order was challenged by the writ petitioner by filing W.P.(MD) No.2486 of 2020 and thereafter, based on the directions of the Court, the second respondent appeared and countersigned the documents submitted by the writ petitioner on 18.02.2020. In this process, there occurred a delay and since the delay was because of the second respondent, the writ petitioner has filed W.P.(MD)No.4306 of 2020, which ended in his favour and also impugned herein.

¶19

According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the Teachers Recruitment Board / appellant is a recruiting body, which has to work with a scheme (notification) for selection and the cutoff dates mentioned in the notification are very important. In fact, in the present case, the cut-off date was extended thrice. Therefore, any leniency shown in the cut-off date, which was already extended, would be a bad precedent. Even according to the writ petitioner, the delay in submitting the application is because of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the delay in getting the countersignature in the experience

¶20

2/4

¶21

W.A.(MD)No.956 of 2020

¶22

certificates from the second respondent, for which, the appellant Board cannot be held responsible.

¶23

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the second respondent. Notice to the first respondent / writ petitioner is dispensed with.

¶24

It is not in dispute that the first respondent / writ petitioner worked in various colleges and has also produced the relevant experience certificates to the second respondent for getting the countersign as early as on 22.10.2019. But, the second respondent has countersigned only one experience certificate and did not countersign the remaining certificates. As against the same, the first respondent moved this Court by way of a writ petition, well within the cut-off date fixed by the appellant / Board. Even thereafter, the second respondent has passed an order denying to countersign the experience certificates and when the same was challenged before this Court, the second respondent appeared and countersigned. In this process, there occurred a delay and in fact, the learned Counsel for the appellant / Board has not disputed this fact. We are of the considered opinion that the delay occurred because of the second respondent in countersigning the documents cannot be attributed to the first respondent /writ petitioner.

¶25

In view of the fact that the writ petitioner has submitted the relevant documents and has also moved the Court well within the cut-off date fixed by the appellant / Board, coupled with the fact that he is having the required qualifications, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge deserves no interference. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant stands rejected.

¶26

In fine, this writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

3/4

¶32

W.A.(MD)No.956 of 2020

¶33

¶34

The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Department of Collegiate Education, Thanjavur Region, Thanjavur District.

¶35

W.A.(MD)No.956 of 2020 and C.M.P.(MD)No.5200 of 2020 29.10.2020

¶36

PM(CO) KM (10.12.2020) 4P 2C

¶37

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

¶38

4/4

The Chairman v. G.Sasikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chairman v. G.Sasikumar

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

A.Perumal Naicker Vs the District Collector

P.Subburaj Vs the District Collector

A. Thirumurugasamy Vs the District Collector

Thangeswaran, Vs G.Latha, I.A.S.

G. Devendhiran (Roll No. 17ST06011089) Vs G.Latha,I.a.S

M. Sudha Vs the Dist. Collector