The Government of Tamilnadu v. K.Shanthi

JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.) The appellants were the respondents in the writ petition and 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.

¶2She was called for certificate verification as well as for the interview. She claimed, and rightly so, to be the only woman candidate in BC category, who attended the interview. Being unsuccessful, she 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.

¶3The 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.

¶4The writ petition came to be allowed on 19.01.2018 accepting the writ petitioner's contention that she was the only eligible candidate falling under the sub-reserved category. The learned Judge notes that her assertion was not denied and that her qualifications to the post were also not questioned. That position continues even today before us.

¶5As 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.

¶6Thus 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.

¶7The 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: " jpUj;jk; 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;:&

(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> – – – –

166 kw;Wk; 167 200) ,d RHw;rp – –

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

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;. (Msehpd; Mizg;go) "

¶8In 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.

¶9There 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:- S.

¶1Clarification Sought Out

of

vacancies, Howmany

are backlog

and howmany

are current vacancies Particulars 1)Total number of Notified Vacancies for the post of Asst. Prof. In English; 2) Number of Backlog Vacancies among the 150 Notified Vacancies. 3) Number of Current Vacancies among 150 Notified vacancies

¶2How many posts earmarked

for physically challenged, each category wise I.e., Ortho, Deaf, Blind No. of posts earmarked for No. of Backlog Vacancies No. of Current Vacancies Total No. of Vacancies 1)Ortho 2)Deaf 3)Blind Total

¶3How many got selected with all their details in that

physically challenged category. No. of posts earmarked for No. of Backlog Selected No. of Current Selected Total No. Selected 1)Ortho 2)Deaf 3)Blind Total (Details of Selection of Physically Challenged Candidates enclosed separately) .............

¶10The 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.

¶11Since 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.

¶12As regards her claim for selection as BC woman, for which one seat was earmarked, admittedly, that seat has been taken by more 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.

¶13With 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.

¶14It 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 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. [A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]

17.08.2023

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes W.A.(MD)No.995oofo2018 DR.ANITAoSUMANTH,oJ. AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR,oJ. sm Judgmentomadeoin W.A.(MD)No.995oofo2018 Dated:

17.08.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.08.2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.6786 of 2018 & 1099 of 2022 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, 4th 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. For Appellants : Mr.V.Om Prakash (A1) Government Advocate Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan (A2) For Respondent : Mr.Maniananth for Mr.R.Maheswaran