IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.03.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NO.23204 of 2009 and M.P.NO.1 of 2009 P.K.Senthilkumar .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Teacher Recruitment Board, represented by its Secretary, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, Chennai-600 006. 2.The Commissioner, Directorate of State Employment Office, Guindy, Chennai. 3.The District Employment Officer, District Employment Office, Krishnagiri. 4.The Director of Elementary Education, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, Chennai-600 006. .. Respondents This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of secondary grade teacher under priority for inter-caste marriage in the vacancies for which certificate verification scheduled on 13.11.2009. For Petitioner : Ms.A.Arulmozhi For Respondents : Mrs.Dakshayini Reddy, GA(E) - - - - ORDER
Heard Ms.A.Arulmozhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.Dakshayini Reddy, learned Government Advocate (Education) appearing for respondents.
2.The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to the first respondent to consider him for an appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher under priority category of inter-caste marriage in the vacancies for which certificate verification was scheduled to take place on 13.11.2009 and to pass an appropriate order.
3.When the writ petition came up on 12.11.2009, this Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the certificate verification to be held on 13.11.2009 without sponsorship from the second respondent Directorate of State Employment office, but the result was directed not to be published until further orders from this court. The petitioner was also informed that he cannot claim any equity based on the interim order. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 15.12.2009, this court found that the petitioner did not attend the certificate verification on 13.11.2009. Hence a telegraphic communication was sent to him to attend verification on 17.12.2009 along with relevant certificates. But, it was informed by the petitioner that he had attended the certificate verification and had produced all original certificates and he is awaiting results. A copy of the telegraphic communication was produced before this court. This Court held that it is a valid communication served on the petitioner. Therefore, once again the petitioner was directed to attend certificate verification on 17.12.2009.
4.On behalf of the Teacher Recruitment Board (TRB), counter affidavits, dated 14.12.2009 and 22.2.2010 were filed. In the first counter affidavit, the respondents claim that the petitioner had registered in the employment exchange only on 16.3.2009. He belonged to most backward class inter-caste marriage priority category. The cut-off date for MBC candidate in inter-caste marriage (ICM) group priority was 12.3.2009. Since the registration of the petitioner was after the cut-off date, he cannot be considered for selection. This was communicated to the petitioner on 17.12.2009. He had accepted the same by giving a letter that he cannot be considered for selection since his date of registration was not within the zone of selection.
5.In the second counter affidavit, dated 22.2.2010, it was stated that the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers are filled up purely on employment seniority. Since his name was not sponsored, he could not be called for the certificate verification. But in so far as the community of the petitioner is concerned, he actually belonged to Scheduled Caste community and not MBC. The Teachers’ Recruitment Board has taken measures to recruit 5773 secondary grade teachers vide advertisement No.1/09 dated 12.1.2009 in various dailies. The vacancies were sub-divided into priority and non priority candidates community-wise. The order of priority in selection was followed strictly in terms of G.O.Ms.No.188 P&AR Department, dated 28.12.1976. There was no violation of rules. The petitioner had got his name registered in the employment exchange only on 16.3.2009, whereas the cut-off date for SC ICM priority was 13.3.2009. Therefore, since the petitioner’s case came after the cut-off date, he is not eligible for consideration.
6.In opposition to these claims, the petitioner has filed a rejoinder, dated 12.2.2010. The petitioner claimed that though his name was sponsored by the second and third respondents under ICM priority, since the candidates registered until 23.7.2009 were eligible for consideration, the petitioner’s registration being 16.3.2009 still he was not considered. The petitioner attended certificate verification pursuant to the direction given by this court and all photostat copies of certificates were collected from him. The petitioner had attended certificate verification on 17.12.2009 where the respondents have obtained a letter from the petitioner stating that the cut-off date for ICM priority was 12.3.2009 and his registration was 16.3.2009 and that he has to wait for his turn. The petitioner also claimed that he belonged to SC community. He married a person belonging to MBC. It was also stated that the cut-off date has been fixed at random as it was based on available vacancies. The respondents had not given details of number of posts available. The petitioner also produced a copy of the letter in which the respondents have made a counter signature, stating that on 13.11.2009 photostat copies of testimonies were received and after verification with the original, they were returned. The priority certificate has also bee noted in the acknowledgment given by the respondents.
7.The only question that has to be considered is whether the denial of petitioner his appointment on the ground that the cut-off date for ICM priority for SC community was fixed as 12.3.2009 and the petitioner had registered his name only on 16.3.2009 can be accepted.
8.In the present case, the petitioner had got married as early as 28.5.2004. It is not as if the petitioner got married after the cut off date, but five years before the cut off date fixed by the respondents. The priority has been determined by G.O.Ms.No.188 P&AR Department, dated 28.12.1976. Therefore, as rightly contended by the counsel for the petitioner that without informing in advance, the respondents cannot fix any cut off date. In the present case, the notification for employment was made as early as 12.1.2009. Therefore, a candidate who was eligible to be considered on priority category can always be sponsored. If it is the case of seniority of employment exchange, then the cut off date may have some relevance to the advertisement and in so far as the vacancies which are available. But with reference to the priority categories, so long as the post exists for priority candidates, the claims of such candidates must be considered. Fixing cut off date only by having reference to the employment exchange on this score will create injustice.
9.The category like ICM should be reckoned from the date of the marriage and not from the date of registration of such category in the employment exchange. If at all any cut off date is to be fixed, it should have nexus to the date of marriage. It is not the case of seniority based upon registration, but it is priority de hors the registration. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents cannot be considered. In the first counter affidavit, they have considered the case of the petitioner as MBC candidate and not as SC candidate. In the first counter affidavit, it was stated that the cut off date was 12.3.2009 for MBC. In the second counter affidavit, it was stated that the cut off date was 13.3.2009 for SC candidate. Therefore, the petitioner’s apprehension that the cut off dates are being shifted without any scientific norm, cannot be brushed aside.
10.In the present case, the petitioner’s certificates have been verified even on 13.11.2009. Therefore, the only question is whether there is any vacancy to accommodate the petitioner under SC/ICM category. In the light of the above, the writ petition is bound to succeed. The respondents having verified the certificates of the petitioner, should consider the case of the petitioner as SC ICM priority candidate from the date of his marriage and not on the artificial date like 13.3.2009 fixed by the respondents.
11.Hence the writ petition will stand allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner as directed above. If the petitioner comes within the zone of SC ICM category, he should be given an appointment forthwith. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
09.03.2010
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
vvk
To
1.The Secretary,
The Teacher Recruitment Board,
E.V.K.Sampath Maligai,
Chennai-600 006.
2.The Commissioner,
Directorate of State Employment Office,
Guindy,
Chennai.
3.The District Employment Officer,
District Employment Office,
Krishnagiri.
4.The Director of Elementary Education,
E.V.K.Sampath Maligai,
Chennai-600 006.
K.CHANDRU, J.
vvk
W.P.NO.23204 of 2009
09.03.2010