A writ petition challenging non-selection for lecturer posts due to denial of marks for teaching experience. The High Court found the rejection of physically produced certificates illegal and directed the authorities to award the two marks for experience.
Directed to award two marks for teaching experience to the petitioner, resulting in a total of 149 marks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P(MD)No.17580 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 14.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.17580 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.12801 to 12805 of 2022
Alagulakshmi
... Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records relating to the impugned provisional list uploaded in his official website by the respondent dated 30.07.2022 and quash the same further directing the respondents to provide 2 marks for weightage for teaching experience plus 1 mark for total mistake 147+2+1=150. It was included the petitioner's name in the provisional list for recruitment by the respondents.
W.P(MD)No.17580 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Palanivel Murugan for S.Sivaprakash For R1 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan For R2 & R3 : Mr.S.Shaji Bino Special Government Pleader
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent board and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 & 3.
3.The primary grievance of the writ petitioner is that the petitioner was
not awarded two marks for her teaching experience. She belongs to MBC
2/8
W.P(MD)No.17580 of 2022
(women) category. The cut-off mark is 149. The petitioner was awarded 147 marks. If she had been awarded two marks, she would have definitely been selected. This is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
W.P(MD)No.17580 of 2022
certificate as set out in annexure 3 in the first instance. My attention was then drawn to page 24 of the recruitment notification which deals with awarding
weightage mark. It reads as under:-
| S.No | Description | Engineering | Non- Engineering |
|---|---|---|---|
| (I) | For teaching experience of 2 years and above, on Full-Time basis in Govt/Aided/self-financing polytechnics or Engineering Colleges OR For teaching experience of 4 years and above, on part time basis in Govt/Aided/self-financing polytechnics or Engineering Colleges. |
2 Marks |
2 Marks |
| (ii) | Additional qualifications: (a) M.E / M.Tech., in the appropriate Branch of study. |
3 Marks |
...... |
| (b) M.Phil., in the appropriate Branch of study. |
...... |
3 Marks | |
| (iii) | For Ph.D in the appropriate Branch of study. |
5 Marks | 5 Marks |
4/8
W.P(MD)No.17580 of 2022
more than 9 years of teaching experience in PKN Arts and Science College, Thirumangalam. It is not a Polytechnic or an Engineering College. Clause 12(d) calls upon the candidate to upload teaching certificate (if applicable). Therefore, the petitioner legitimately and rightly thought that teaching experience put in by her in the Arts and Science College will not be taken note of. In fact, number of similarly placed candidates had entertained the same doubt. That is why, TRB issued clarification on 11.03.2022 that even those who had put in teaching experience in the Arts and Science College can also upload their teaching experience.
5/8
W.P(MD)No.17580 of 2022
therefrom that the petitioner produced the same and it was also acknowledged and returned after. I fail to understand as to why the teaching experience certificate was not taken into account for awarding of marks. It is not in dispute that no mark was awarded to the petitioner in respect of her teaching experience. The defence that only the uploaded documents were taken into account and the other documents were not accepted is un-sustainable. The difficulties that candidates face in such situations is well known. The digital divide is a reality. It is not as if the petitioner is making a bald claim that she was not able to upload the documents. The petitioner sent two mails prior to the certificate verification that she was unable to upload the document. There is a clear discrepancy between the copy of the recruitment notification and the Annexure 3. Realizing the same, TRB issued clarification later. The petitioner had expressed her difficulty in uploading. When during certificate verification, the petitioner produced the same, it ought to have been accepted. Nonawarding of two marks for teaching experience is clearly illegal.
6/8
W.P(MD)No.17580 of 2022
selection list will abide by the final decision. It is for the respondents to take
appropriate steps based on what has now been declared.
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
14.11.2022
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi
To
7/8
W.P(MD)No.17580 of 2022
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi
W.P(MD)No.17580 of 2022
14.11.2022
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was legally entitled to marks for teaching experience granted under the recruitment notification.
Whether the respondents were justified in rejecting marked teaching experience certificates produced during verification.
Whether the non-award of weighted marks to the petitioner was illegal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Alagulakshmi
The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board
The Principal Secretary to Government
The Director of Technical Education
G.R.Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
