Dismissed

T.Arunkumar v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC6 Jul 2022WP/23101/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition filed by a teacher challenging his rejection in the selection process for Secondary Grade Teacher. The petitioner argued he should be granted an exemption from Government Order No.71 dated 30.05.2014, which introduced new revised criteria for selection. The court held it cannot grant exemptions from Government policy regarding recruitment and dismissed the peti

What did the court decide?

No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed. Petitioner not entitled to relief sought.

T.Arunkumar Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.07.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.23101 of 2015

¶6

and M.P.No.2 of 2015

¶7

T.Arun Kumar S/o.M.Tamilvanan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government, School Education TRB Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.

¶10

2.The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Teachers Recruitment Board, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, Chennai.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER:

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in R.C.No.12726/B4/2014 dated 07.01.2015 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher on par with the others who have cleared Teacher Eligibility Test in the year 2012 and were appointed by the respondents within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mrs.Muthuyazhini for Mr.K.Thilageswaran

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.S.Silambanan, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs.S.Anitha Special Government Pleader [R1] Mr.C.Kathiravan, Special Government Pleader [R2]

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The order of rejection dated 07.01.2015 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for selection to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶18

The petitioner participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. The petitioner cleared Teachers Eligibility Test in the year 2012.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made a submission that pursuant to the employment seniority, the petitioner was called for certificate verification. The petitioner had not attended the certificate verification conducted for the year 2012. However, the petitioner participated in the certificate verification conducted for the year 2013. The petitioner was not selected in the year 2012. Though he appeared for certificate verification for the year 2013, he lost the opportunity of selection in view of G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 30.05.2014.

¶20

The fact remains that the petitioner was not selected either in 2012 or 2013. The petitioner has not appeared for certificate verification for the year 2012. Though the petitioner appeared for certificate verification for the year 2013, he was not selected since he has not secured eligible cut off marks. In this regard, the counter filed by the second respondent reads as under:

¶21

"7. It is further submitted that one more opportunity was given to the absentees through Notification uploaded on the Teachers Recruitment Board website to attend the Certificate Verification on 06.09.2013 and again the petitioner attended the CERTIFICATE VERIFICATION on 07.09.2013.

¶22

It is further submitted that the Board considered the petitioner for selection in the 2013 recruitment. The petitioner belongs to MBC (G) category. The last candidate selected in MBC (G) 74.91. The petitioner has secured only 65.69. Since the petitioner has not secured eligible cut off marks he was not considered for selection."

¶23

In 2014, the Government has issued a new policy in G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 30.05.2014 and as per the said Government

¶24

order, the petitioner states that he became ineligible.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner must be exempted from the Government order. Court cannot grant such an exemption with reference to the policy of a Government in the matter of recruitment. The revised criteria for selection of candidates for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher was issued in G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 30.05.2014. The revised criteria is the policy decision taken by the Government and the petitioner cannot seek any exemption by filling a writ petition or such an exemption cannot be granted by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition.

¶26

Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

¶33

1.The Secretary to Government, School Education TRB Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.

¶34

2.The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Teachers Recruitment Board, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, Chennai.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.C.Kathiravan, Advocate SR.No.43857

¶36

+1cc to Mr.K.Thilageswaran, Advocate SR.No.44302

¶37

Writ Petition Nos.23101 of 2015

¶38

PL(CO) GN(28/07/2022)

T.Arunkumar v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Arunkumar 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

Susai Jayaraj Vs The District Elementary

S.Premkumar, Vs The Secretary to the

S.Babu Guru Thirumalaisamy, Vs The Principal Secretary

S.Chandra Vs State of Tamilnadu

D.Jeyakumar Peter, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

D.Veerakumar Vs Neyveli Lignite Corporation