Dismissed

K.Kannaki v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC31 Oct 2025WP(MD)/25467/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged the petitioner's inclusion in the ineligible list for recruitment to PG Assistants/Physical Education Directors Grade I 2018-2019 on the ground her B.P.Ed was one-year duration. The court found she also scored below the communal category cut-off marks and did not come within the zone of consideration, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

K.Kannaki Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.25467 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 31.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

WP(MD)No.25467 of 2019 & W.M.P(MD)Nos.22025 to 22028 of 2019 & 16195 of 2021

¶7

K.Kannaki 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶8

vs.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

2.The Director of School Education, Numgambakkam, Chennai - 6. 3.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai - 6.

¶11

4.The Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai - 6.

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned ineligible list published by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings NIL dated NIL(in the official website of the TRB on 1/5

¶14

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

¶15

W.P(MD)No.25467 of 2019

¶16

20/11/2019) for direct recruitment for the post of PG Assistants / Physical Education Directors Grade I for the year 2018-2019 and quash the same as illegal insofar the petitioner is concerned and consequentially to direct the respondents to appoint petitioner as Physical Education Director Grade I taking into consideration of the petitioner's qualification of B.P.Ed and M.P.Ed.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.Shapna Munaas for M/s.Ajmal Associates

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2

¶19

Mr.T.Amjad khan Government Advocate for R3 & R4

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The present writ petition has been filed for the relief of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the ineligible list published by the third respondent and quash the same.

¶22

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner has acquired qualification in B.P.Ed, the respondents have listed her under ineligible candidate on the ground that she has acquired the said qualification with one year duration, whereas, according to the notification, the said degree should be obtained in a duration of two years.

¶23

2/5

¶24

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

¶25

W.P(MD)No.25467 of 2019

¶26

This Court has also vide order dated 29.11.2019, had directed the respondents to keep one post vacant.

¶27

At this juncture, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 invited the attention of this Court that notwithstanding the above fact, the petitioner who competed for the post under the communal category of 'BC General' acquired only 79 marks whereas, the minimum cut off marks for the post is 86 and he has also invited the attention to paragraph 10 of the respondent counter statement, the same is as follows.

¶28

"10. It is submitted that the respondent/petitioner belongs to BC category and has not secured eligible cut off marks in the Computer Based Examination. The Last person selected for the post has secured 86 marks in BC category, whereas the Writ petitioner has secured only 79 marks in the written examination under BC category. Hence it is evident that the Writ Petitioners have not secured the eligible Cut-off marks for selection."

¶29

In view of the above, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner did not come within the zone of consideration. Hence, the present writ petition is devoid of merits.

¶30

3/5

¶31

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

¶32

W.P(MD)No.25467 of 2019

¶33

In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶34

31.10.2025 (2/4)

¶35

Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No Internet :Yes mbi To 1.The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Director of School Education, Numgambakkam, Chennai - 6. 3.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai - 6. 4.The Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai - 6.

¶36

4/5

¶37

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

¶38

W.P(MD)No.25467 of 2019

¶39

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

¶40

mbi

¶41

WP(MD)No.25467 of 2019

¶42

31.10.2025 (2/4)

¶43

5/5

¶44

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

K.Kannaki v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

K.Kannaki v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Thangakodi Vs Teachers Recruitment Board

P.Sudalaimuthu Vs Teachers Recruitment Board

P. Panjavarnam Vs Teachers Recruitment Board

R. Ganeshkumar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

P.Balamurugan Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

C.Guruprasath Vs the Director