G. Gladys Selina vs Chairman Teachers Recruitment Board and Assistant Director

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Original Applications in O.A. Nos. 707 and 5655 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal are

the present writ petitions.

The petitioner possessed M.Sc. (Physics) B.Ed. qualification. She applied for the post of Post Graduate Assistant pursuant to the Notification

dated 13.09.2001 issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board. She appeared for written examination and was successful in the written examination.

She was also called to appear for an oral test. When she went to appear for the oral test, she was not permitted on the ground that there was no

entry regarding registration of her professional B.Ed., degree course at the Employment Exchange.

At this juncture, the petitioner rushed to the Tribunal by filing an Original Application in O.A. No. 707 of 2002 (W.P. No. 11645 of 2007)

praying for a direction to the respondents, to permit her to attend the interview and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint her as Post

Graduate Assistant.

While ordering notice of motion on 13.02.2002, the Tribunal passed the following interim order.

Notice of motion returnable by two weeks. Private notice permitted. Petitioner shall be interviewed by the Committee, for the Selection to the post

of P.G. Assistant, on any convenient day. However, the result shall be withheld until further orders.

In view of the interim order passed by the Tribunal, interview was conducted. However, result was not published as there was a direction to

withhold the result, pending disposal of the Original Application.

While so, the petitioner filed another Original Application in O.A. No. 5655 of 2002 (W.P. No. 6800 of 2007) praying for a direction to

publish the result of the interview conducted for appointment to the post of Post Graduate Assistant.

Heard Mr. S. Ilamvaludhi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

The respondents filed counter affidavit in O.A. No. 5655 of 2002. It is stated in para 3 of the counter affidavit that as per Notification dated

13.09.2001, issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board, the candidates who had registered their B.Ed., qualification in Employment Exchange

alone were eligible to apply. Therefore, there is a restriction that the candidates should have registered their qualifications in the Employment

Exchange, otherwise they are not eligible to apply. Para 3 of the counter affidavit is extracted here-under:

The Govt. of Tamil Nadu in the School Education Department have taken a policy decision to conduct written competitive examinations from

eligible candidates for appointment to the posts of Post Graduate Assistants governed by the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service

and to the School Assistants and Language Pandit posts governed under the Tamil Nadu School Educational Subordinate Service, vide the Govt.

letter No. 27472/Q2/2001-3 dt.10.09.01. For Post Graduate Assistants the Teachers Recruitment Board issued Notification in Advertisement

No. 2/2001 dated 13.9.2001. Only those candidates who had registered their qualifications in Employment Exchanges in Tamil Nadu prior to the

cut-off date of 25-09-2001, were eligible to apply....

It is categorically stated by the respondents that at the time of verification of certificates, the petitioner did not produce employment registration

card, in which there was no entry regarding registration of her professional B.Ed., degree course at the Employment Exchange.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner does possess the requisite educational qualification and all other eligibility conditions. The only point that

was held against her is that she did not register her B.Ed., qualification in the Employment Exchange. Though the petitioner states that she

registered in the Employment Exchange, the same is not relevant in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India,

Represented by Chief Post Master General v. R. Gopu and Anr. reported in 2009 (6) MLJ 1041.

In the said judgment, this Court after referring to the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam v.

K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and Ors. reported in 1996 SCC 1 & S 1420 and also Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti Lal

Vaghela and Others, held that in the matter of public employment, every person should have an equal opportunity to apply for the post and that

therefore, there should be a publication in the newspapers, having wider circulation calling for applications, besides making announcement in radio,

television and employment news bulletins, calling for applications for filling up the post. In this regard, paras 7 and 8 of the judgment of the Division

Bench of this Court in Union of India, Represented by Chief Post Master General v. R. Gopu and Anr. reported in 2009 (6) MLJ 1041 are

extracted here-under:

We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side as well as the materials available on record. In our

opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held that the procedure adopted in publishing the employment Notification is contrary to the law laid down by the

Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and Ors. (1996) SCC 1 & S 1420

wherein it has been held in para 6 as follows:

Having regard to the respective contentions, we are of the view that contention of the respondents is more acceptable which would be

consistent with the principles of fair play, justice and equal opportunity. It is common knowledge that many a candidate is unable to have the names

sponsored, though their names are either registered or are waiting to be registered in the employment exchange, with the result that the choice of

selection is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the employment exchange. Under these

circumstances, many a deserving candidates is deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. Better view

appears to be that it should be mandatory for requisitioning/establishment to intimate the employment exchange, and employment exchange should

sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning department for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition.

In addition, the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider

circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins; and then consider the

cases of all the candidates who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be sub served. The equality of opportunity in the matter

if Employment would be available to all eligible candidates.

Further, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela and Others, , wherein the Hon''ble

Supreme Court held as follows at P.161 of MLJ:

...The appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from eligible

candidates and holding of selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee whose members are fair and impartial through a

written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates who have applied in response to the

advertisement in the prescribed manner which may in some cases include inviting applications from the employment exchange where eligible

candidates get their names registered. Any regular appointment made on a post under State or Union without issuing advertisement, inviting

applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete would violate

the guarantee enshrined, under Article 16 of the Constitution (See B.S. Minhas Vs. Indian Statistical Institute and Others, ).

In the matter of public employment, every person should have an equal opportunity to apply for the post called for. It does not matter as to the

nature of the post. All eligible candidates should have the knowledge of such recruitment. Precisely, the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India, on this

issue, has held that Article 16 of the Constitution of India has specifically provided for equality of opportunity in the mater of public employment

and therefore any attempt, which would defeat the very object, is to be held illegal and the Union or a State has to ensure that all eligible

candidates get a fair chance to compete for such recruitment. Therefore, we find no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in O.A. 734

of 2006.

In view of the aforesaid categorical pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court and the Honourable Apex Court, the petitioner is

entitled to be considered for the post of Post Graduate Assistant, irrespective of a clause in the Notification, putting a condition that the candidates

should have registered their B.Ed., qualification in the Employment Exchange.

In these circumstances, the writ petitions are allowed and a direction is issued to the first respondent to publish the result of the petitioner and

issue necessary orders, appointing her as Post Graduate Assistant, if she was successful in the oral test. No costs.