Allowed

The Government of Tamilnadu v. K.Shanthi

Madras HC17 Aug 2023WA(MD)/995/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ appeal and set aside the previous order. The court held that a 3% reservation for physically challenged persons must be applied within a 100-point communal roster for back-casted candidates. The unionist concluded that the lower court failed to consider the new allocation structure, and thus, the appointment of male candidates in the ortho category was lawful.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 19.01.2018 passed in W.P.(MD)No.21272 of 2014 is set aside. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

The Government of Tamilnadu Vs K.Shanthi — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 17.08.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶7

W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018 and

¶8

C.M.P.(MD)Nos.6786 of 2018 & 1099 of 2022

¶9

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶10

Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Fort St.George, Secretariat,

¶11

Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

2.Teachers Recruitment Board,

¶13

Rep. by its Chairman, 4^th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, D.P.I.Compound, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

...Appellants

/Vs./

K.Shanthi

...Respondent

PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order dated 19.01.2018 passed in W.P.(MD)No.21272 of 2014.

¶19

1/11

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018

¶22

For Appellants : Mr.V.Om Prakash (A1) Government Advocate Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan (A2) For Respondent : Mr.Maniananth for Mr.R.Maheswaran

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

(Judgment of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

¶25

The appellants were the respondents in the writ petition and

¶26

have challenged an order of the Writ Court dated 19.01.2018. The writ petitioner is orthopedically challenged and belongs to the Backward class community (BC). She had participated in the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor (English) in the Government Arts and Science College.

¶27

She was called for certificate verification as well as for the

¶28

interview. She claimed, and rightly so, to be the only woman candidate in BC category, who attended the interview. Being unsuccessful, she

¶29

2/11

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018

¶32

challenged the provisional selection list published by the Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB), specifically the selection of male candidates in BC Ortho category and sought her appointment in that position instead.

¶33

The Writ Court had, at the time of admission, directed the appellants to keep one post of Assistant Professor (English) vacant subject to the decision in the writ petition. At the time of hearing, the appellants had clarified the position that a corrigendum had been issued on 09.07.2013 to the effect that 100 point communal roster would be applicable to the present selection process and hence, the selection or otherwise of the writ petitioner must be seen in the context of that corrigendum.

¶34

The writ petition came to be allowed on 19.01.2018

¶35

accepting the writ petitioner's contention that she was the only eligible candidate falling under the sub-reserved category. The learned Judge

¶36

3/11

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018

¶39

notes that her assertion was not denied and that her qualifications to the post were also not questioned. That position continues even today before

¶40

us.

¶41

As regards the application of the corrigendum dated 09.07.2013, the learned Judge noted that the 3% of reservation provided for differently abled persons was to be made in accordance with law. According to the Writ Court, that corrigendum did not in any way take away the communal turn earmarked to BC woman category.

¶42

Thus and confirming the appointments made in favour of two male candidates, D.Prasad and Sakthivel as well, a direction was issued to the State and to TRB to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor (English) in the Government Arts and Science College under the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of that order.

¶43

4/11

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018

¶46

The State draws attention to the manner by which 3% reservation was to apply, which is as per G.O.Ms.No.87, Department of Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme of Tamil Nadu, dated 17.07.2008. That GO, while applying the 100 point communal roster to appointments sets out the following methodology by which the appointments would be governed:

¶47

“ jpUj;jk;

¶48

murhiz epiy vz; 200> rK:f eyk; kw;Wk; rj;Jzt[j;jpl;lj; Jiw> ehs; 22.12.2008 y; jw;nghJs;s gj;jp 5(m)f;F gjpyhf gpd;tUkhW khw;wp gof;ft[k;:&

¶49

(m) ,k;khepyj;jpYs;s muR Jiwfs;>“ fHfq;fs; kw;Wk; thhpaq;fspy; 200 g[s;sp fzf;fPL gjpntl;il 6 (MW) fl;lq;fshf gphpj;J (CdKw;nwhhpd; K:d;W ,dq;fspy; mjhtJ ghh;itaw;nwhh;> fhJnfshnjhh;> kw;Wk; iffhy; CdKw;nwhh; MfpnahUf;F Koe;j tiu jyh 1;:& 1 ;:&1 tPjk; rkkhf tHq;fp) xt;bthU fl;lj;jpYk; cs;s 33 fhyp gzpaplq;fSf;Fs; xU CdKw;nwhiu njh;t[ bra;J – – – – (ck;> 1 33> 34 66> 67 100> 101 133> 134 – 166 kw;Wk; 167 – 200) ,d RHw;rp

¶50

gl;oaypy; (communal roster) mth; rhh;e;j ,dj;jpw;F vjpuhf mthpd; njh;it fzf;fpLk; Kiwia filgpof;f muR MizapLfpwJ.

¶51

2.jkpH;ehL khepy kw;Wk; rhh;epiyg; gzpfspd; bghJtpjp 22 (aa)f;F gzpahsh; kw;Wk; eph;thf rPh;jpUj;jj; Jiwapy; njitahd jpUj;jk; btspaplg;gLk;.

¶52

(Msehpd; Mizg;go) ”

¶53

5/11

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018

¶56

In order to satisfy ourselves that the application of G.O.Ms.No.87, Department of Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme of Tamil Nadu, dated 17.07.2008 had been done in a proper manner, we had sought for records as well as various particulars from the appellants.

¶57

There were a total of number of 150 vacancies that were notified for the post of Assistant Professor (English), out of which, 20 were backlog vacancies and 130 were current vacancies. On an application of G.O.Ms.No.87, Department of Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme of Tamil Nadu, dated 17.07.2008, the posts earmarked for three physically challenged category ie., ortho, deaf and blind in the details of backlog and current vacancies have been supplied as follows:-

¶58

6/11

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

S.
No

¶61

W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018

¶62

S.	Clarification		Partic	ulars
No	Sought	1)Total n	umber of	Notified	150
1.	Out of 150 vacancies,	Vacancies fo In English;	r the post of	Asst. Prof.
	Howmany are backlog and howmany are current vacancies	2) Number among the 1 3) Number among 150	of Backlog 50 Notified of Current Notified vac	Vacancies Vacancies. Vacancies ancies	20 130
2.	How many posts earmarked for physically	No. of posts earmarked for	No. of Backlog Vacancies	No. of Current Vacancies	Total No. of Vacancies
	challenged, each t i I	1)Ortho	2	1	3
	caegory wse .e., Ortho, Deaf, Blind	2)Deaf	6	2	8
		3)Blind	3	3	6
		Total	11	6	17
3.	How many got selected with all their details in	No. of posts earmarked for	No. of Backlog Selected	No. of Current Selected	Total No. Selected
	that physically hlld	1)Ortho	1	1	2
	caenge category.	2)Deaf	0	0	0
		3)Blind	2	3	5
		Total (Details of Can .............	3 Selection of didates enclo	4 Physically C sed separat	7 hallenged ely)

¶63

7/11

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018

¶66

The appellants have also filed an abstract of appointments of physically challenged candidates in the General merit list. This abstract comprises a total number of 6 candidates, of which only two ie., D.Prasad and Sakthivel, who were standing at Serial Nos.1 and 2 have been selected in Ortho Category. The name of the writ petitioner is at serial number 4.

¶67

Since there were only a total number of 150 vacancies, there would only be five turns in toto, of which, D.Prasath and Sakthivel, who have obtained 31 and 26 marks have been rightly selected. S.Vinoth Kumar, who obtained 24 marks in Ortho category stood third and was eliminated as unsuccessful. Thus, there is no merit in the writ petitioner's prayer for appointment as she had obtained only 18 marks standing fourth on the merit list.

¶68

As regards her claim for selection as BC woman, for which one seat was earmarked, admittedly, that seat has been taken by more

¶69

8/11

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018

¶72

qualified candidate, who had obtained far higher marks than what the writ petitioner had obtained (General category). To be clarified that annexure 1, which sets out the estimate of vacancies and the basis of reservation had been withdrawn to be replaced by the corrigendum issued on 09.07.2013.

¶73

With the issuance of corrigendum dated 09.07.2013, it becomes incumbent upon the appellants to apply the rules of reservation as contained in G.O.Ms.No.87, Department of Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme of Tamil Nadu, dated 17.07.2008, which is what is seen to have been done in the present case.

¶74

It appears that G.O.Ms.No.87, Department of Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme of Tamil Nadu, dated 17.07.2008 was not produced before the Writ Court, as there is no reference to that GO in order dated 19.01.2018. However the G.O, being a public document having been produced before us along with the

¶75

9/11

¶76

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶77

W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018

¶78

records as well as the basis upon which the selection has been made, we find no infirmity in the procedure adopted for appointment. This writ appeal is allowed and order dated 19.01.2018 of the writ Court is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶79

[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,] 17.08.2023

¶80

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes

¶81

10/11

¶82

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶83

W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018

¶84

DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶85

¶86

Judgment made in W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018

¶87

Dated: 17.08.2023

¶88

11/11

¶89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Government of Tamilnadu v. K.Shanthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Tamilnadu v. K.Shanthi

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

C.Sujin Raja Vs P.Chandrasekar

The Chief Executive Officer Vs M.Velladurai

M.Michael Raj Vs the Canara Bank

Somasundaram Chettiar Vs Sengaichami

P.Mahamuni Vs the Senior Regional Manager

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs v.Pandiyarajan