S.Gayathri Devi Vs Arivoli and another

Prayer : Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order of this Court in W.P.No.26399 of 2022 dated 09.10.2023.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saseetharan

¶15

For R1 : Mrs.P.Rajarajeswari Govt. Advocate

¶16

For R2 : Mr.R.Neelakandan Addl. Advocate General Assisted by Mr.C.Kathiravan Standing Counsel

¶17

¶18

1/4

¶19

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

¶20

Cont.P.No.1685 of 2024

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The Contempt Petition has been filed for punishing the

¶23

respondent for having not obeyed the orders of this Court dated 09.10.2023 made in W.P.No.26399 of 2022.

¶24

This Court, while disposing of the Writ Petition on

¶25

09.10.2023, passed the following order:

¶26

“23. In view of the above discussions, the petitioner is entitled to be awarded mark for Question No.110 and the challenge in respect of the other question is rejected.

¶27

In the result, the TRB shall award mark to the petitioner for Question No.110 and revise the total mark secured by the petitioner. The right of the petitioner to be appointed as PG Assistant (Economics) will abide by the said revision. It is made clear that since the selection process has already been over and the interest of the petitioner has been protected by way of interim order of this Court, the benefit of this order will enure in favour of the petitioner and the candidates who have approached the court promptly by initiating legal proceedings and the TRB shall not extend the benefit of this order to any of the other candidates.”

¶28

2/4

¶29

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

¶30

Cont.P.No.1685 of 2024

¶31

The main grievance of the petitioner is that though this Court

¶32

directed the TRB to award one mark and revise the total mark, the rank has not been revised and if the same has been revised, there is a fair chance for the petitioner to get a posting in a Government School itself, whereas she has now been posted only in a Corporation School.

¶33

Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for R2 submitted that as per the direction of this Court, the total mark has been revised and during pendency of the petition, she was appointed as PG Assistant (Economics) and therefore, no contempt is made out.

¶34

Insofar awarding of mark and appointment as PG Assistant (Economics), the order has been passed and the only grievance of the petitioner is that seniority has to be revised based on the ranking in the selection list. It is pertinent to state here that this Court in the order dated 09.10.2023, has not given any specific direction in respect of revision of seniority. If the petitioner is aggrieved over her appointment in the Corporation School, it is for her to challenge in the separate proceedings.

¶35

3/4

¶36

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

¶37

Cont.P.No.1685 of 2024

¶38

ar

¶39

N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.,

¶40