Disposed

V.Jhanisirani v. the Director

Madras HC16 Jul 2024WA(MD)/85/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal by a Sewing Teacher aspirant denied selection despite claimed employment-exchange seniority weightage. During the appeal the Board confirmed her name appeared 184th on a revised provisional list, so the writ appeal was closed with a direction to issue appointment orders promptly to provisionally short-listed candidates.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal closed; respondent directed to issue appointment orders to provisionally short-listed candidates at the earliest subject to norms.

V.Jhanisirani Vs the Director — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A(MD)No.85 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

JUSTICE N. SESHASAYEE and JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI

¶6

W.A(MD) No.85 of 2019 and C.M.P(MD)No.472 of 2019

¶7

V.Jhansirani ... Appellant/Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Director, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4^th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. ....Respondent/Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 04.12.2018 made in W.P(MD)No.21599 of 2018.

¶11

For Appellant :Mr.K.Surendran For Respondent :Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan

¶12

_________Page 1 of 7

¶13

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

¶14

W.A(MD)No.85 of 2019

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Seshasayee, J.)

¶17

This writ appeal is directed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing W.P(MD)No.21599 of 2018, dated 04.12.2018.

¶18

2 .The facts are:

¶19

a) The writ petitioner felt aggrieved when her name does not find a place

¶20

in the provisional list of Sewing Teachers selected pursuant to the notification dated 26.07.2017.

¶21

b) According to the writ petitioner, she was qualified and hence eligible to apply to the post of Special Teacher[Sewing]. She applied for the said post and also sat for a written examination and in which, she scored 55 marks. Her grievance is that in terms of her registration with the concerned employment exchange, she was waiting for an opportunity for more than ten years and hence, as per Rules, she was entitled to

¶22

_________Page 2 of 7

¶23

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

¶24

W.A(MD)No.85 of 2019 weightage of five marks. She claims that this weightage was not given to her and also complaints that certain Backyalakshmi whose name did not figure in the provisional list of selected candidates was later appointed.

¶25

c) In the counter filed by the respondent-Teachers Recruitment Board, it is alleged that among the candidates who scored identical marks in a particular category, for the post reserved for that category, he or she who is born earlier would be selected. This has been the selection policy. The petitioner belongs to MBC (DNC) candidate and in that category, one Kamalavalli was born earlier to the writ petitioner and hence, she was selected. Turning to Backyalakshmi in relation to whose selection certain insinuative allegations made, she is not in the same category, but she is in MBC(DNC) disabled category. So far as the writ petitioner is concerned, the weightage marks has indeed been given and since she was born subsequent to Kamalavalli, Kamalavalli was selected.

¶26

Page 3 of 7

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

W.A(MD)No.85 of 2019

¶30

d) Taking note of the rival submissions, the learned Single Judge found that the qualitative of response made by the respondent merited consideration and chose to dismiss the writ petition. This order is now under challenge.

¶31

3. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant now submits that the respondent had produced a revised provisional list in which the petitioner's name figures in 184^th place but she has not been given any order of appointment possibly due to the pendency of this writ appeal.

¶32

4. The learned counsel for the respondent on verification with his client makes a statement that the provisional list wherein the appellant was placed in 184^th place is true. Inasmuch as the appellant has been included in the provisional list, the cause of action for the writ petition is no longer exists. Hence, this Court chooses to close this writ appeal. Accordingly, this writ appeal is closed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶33

_________Page 4 of 7

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

W.A(MD)No.85 of 2019

¶37

5 . Now, the respondent is required to issue necessary appointment order to the provisionally short-listed candidates at the earliest subject to any other norms. It has to be underscored that within about six years time, the Government has issued two provisional lists and it is yet to make an appointment. This Court wonders how the students who have a curriculum in sewing are managing without Specialist Teachers(Sewing). It is time the authorities pull up their socks and act without delay.

¶38

(N.S.S., J.) (P.V.M., J.) 16.07.2024

¶39

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No PM

¶40

Note:Issue Order Copy on 18.07.2024

¶41

_________Page 5 of 7

¶42

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

¶43

W.A(MD)No.85 of 2019

¶44

¶45

The Director, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4^th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶46

Page 6 of 7

¶47

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

¶48

W.A(MD)No.85 of 2019

¶49

N. SESHASAYEE, J. and P.VADAMALAI, J.

¶50

¶51

W.A.(MD) No.85 of 2019

¶52

16.07.2024

¶53

_________Page 7 of 7

¶54

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

V.Jhanisirani v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Jhanisirani v. the Director

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.Mahendran, Vs B.Selva Gomathi Kumar

The Superintending Engineer Vs S.Vijayalakshmi

K.Subban Vs the Secretary to Govt

The Branch Manager Vs Kalayarasi

The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by Vs P.Manisekaran, S/o.P.Packiam

M.Janet Amala Arul Jothi Vs Samuel Raj