Miss. S. Radha vs The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board

P. Jyothimani, J.—This writ petition is filed for direction against the respondents to issue order of appointment to the petitioner for the post

of Graduate Assistant for Government Middle/High/Higher Secondary School 2006-2007 in English subject based on the marks released on

01.12.2006 in the written examination held on 05.11.2006 with registration No. GO 2300037/MBC.

An advertisement was issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board dated 02.09.2006, calling for applications for appointment to the post of

Graduate Assistants for various subjects in Government Middle/High/Higher Secondary Schools, to fill up the total vacancy of 3488, out of which

for English subject the number of vacancy was 564. The number of posts reserved for the Most Backward Community (MBC) was 201 and 119

were earmarked for woman candidates as per the prospectus. The petitioner having pass� her B.A., in English in May, 2005 from Periyar

University and B.Ed., in May, 2006 from Annamalai University, has applied for the said post and appeared in the written examination conducted

by the respondent Board on 05.11.2006. On 01.12.2006, the examination marks were released. The petitioner has secured 86 marks out of 150.

The respondent Board has directed the petitioner to appear for certificate verification on 13.12.2006. The respondent Board has directed the

petitioner to appear for certificate verification on 13.12.2006 at Tamil Nadu Parent Teachers Association, DPI Compound, College Road,

Chennai 600 006 and her serial number in the list was 476. According to the petitioner, she has produced the certificates as required in the call

letter dated 04.12.2006 in original, and the same was verified.

In the provisional list published on 12.01.2007, the petitioner''s name did not find place. On verification, it was found that she has secured higher

marks than the persons who have got selected. It is the case of the petitioner that some persons who have not produced the original certificates

and who have given undertaking were directed to appear for further certificate verification on 10.04.2007 and a supplementary provisional list of

selected candidates was published after second certificate verification and in that list also the petitioner''s name was not found. When contacted the

respondent, the respondent has informed the petitioner that she will be given appointment order, however, the appointment order was not issued. It

is the further case of the petitioner that a third certificate verification was made for unfilled vacancies on 15.04.2007 and selection was published.

According to the petitioner, since she got 86 marks out of 150 and in the list of selected candidates, persons who have got less than the said mark

have got selected and therefore, she is entitled for selection.

The respondent has filed a counter affidavit. According to the respondent, the Teachers Recruitment Board is following the transparent

recruitment process by introducing OMR (Optical Mark Reader) sheets for the written examination and the provisional selection was made purely

based on the written examination marks, apart from the weightage marks secured by the candidates, and as per communal roster. The provisional

list of candidates shortlisted for certificate verification based on merit-cum-communal rotation was made on 01.12.2006 and after certificate

verification, final list of provisionally selected candidates was published on 12.01.2007. At the time of certificate verification, the original certificates

of the candidates are verified. It was only at that time the respondent would come to know about the particulars of the candidates in respect of

their educational qualifications, recognised Universities, Teaching Experience, Employment Registration. Therefore, on verification, even after the

candidate passed in the written examination if it was found that the certificates are not proper, such candidates are not eligible for selection.

The respondent also states that in the prospectus it is clearly mentioned that the certificates in respect of community, employment registration,

qualification, date of birth should have been obtained by the candidates on or before 25.09.2006 and therefore, it is only those certificates which

were obtained before 25.09.2006 will be considered during the certificate verification and the said cut-off date is fixed to ensure level playing field

for all candidates, and to discourage candidates who secured low marks from claiming reservation category after knowing their marks. According

to the respondent, while it is true that the petitioner has applied for Post Graduate Assistant in English on the communal reservation of MBC

category, and she has secured 86 out of 150 marks in the written examination and she was also called for certificate verification on 13.12.2006, as

far as the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to MBC, on scrutiny of the original certificates produced, it was found that the ""MBC"" community

certificate issued by the Zonal Deputy Tahsdildar, Thirupathur was dated 11.12.2006, which is much after the cut-off date mentioned in the

prospectus, viz., 25.09.2006. Therefore, it is the case of the respondents that as per the prospectus the petitioner was not eligible to be

considered.

Even though Mr. N. Kannan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in fact the petitioner was having a certificate issued

by the competent authority, viz., the Deputy Tahsildar, Thirupattur dated 21.06.2006, the petitioner as a matter of abundant caution has obtained

another certificate from the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Thirupattur on 11.12.2006 and she has produced the later certificate to the respondent at the

time of certificate verification, it remains a fact that the said certificate produced by the petitioner dated 11.12.2006 is not acceptable as per the

contents of prospectus, which clearly shows that the certificates should have been obtained before 24.09.2006.

In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner has produced her community certificate dated 11.12.2006, which is much after the cut-off date

shown in the proceedings issued by the respondent. Mere fact that the petitioner was having another certificate dated 21.06.1996, issued by the

Deputy Tahsildar, which was prior to the cut-off date, is not sufficient. The very fact that the petitioner has not produced that certificate at the time

of verification and she has chosen to produce the later certificate shows that she is not eligible to be considered as per the terms of the prospectus.

The petitioner having bound by the terms of the prospectus issued by the respondent, based on which has made application is certainly bound by

the said terms and in any event this Court cannot issue direction to the respondent to act against its own prospectus.

Mr. N. Kannan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in respect of similar candidates who have produced certificates

bearing the date later than the cut of date mentioned in the proceedings, they were called for second verification and third verification and were

given appointment. On the basis of the said contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate was directed to

find out as to whether such second and third verification were conducted for the purpose of enabling the candidates to produce fresh certificate.

The Member Secretary to Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai in her further affidavit has stated that in fact in respect of the petitioner she was

informed by a phonogram dated 18.12.2006 to produce two attested copies of community certificates issued in the name of her father obtained

prior to the cut-off date, viz., 25.09.2006. However, the petitioner has not turned out and it was thereafter, the list was finalised and published on

12.01.2007. It is also specifically stated that the selection for the year 2006-07 for all candidates in respect of three rounds of selection was based

on certificates produced by candidates prior to the cut-off date viz., 25.09.2006. Further, the selection of candidates pertaining to the three rounds

of selection was on merit-cum-communal rotation subject to rules of reservation in force. It, is also stated that only those candidates who were left

out and eligible in the first round were called subsequently for selection based on merit-cum-communal foster. Since the petitioner was not eligible

in the first round itself, she was not subsequently called for.

In view of the above said factual position ascertained by this Court, viz., that the phonogram was in fact sent by the respondent to the petitioner

and also the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that similarly situated persons like that of the petitioner who have not produced the

certificate pertaining the date which is prior to the cut-off date were called for second verification is found to be not true as it is seen in the affidavit

filed by the respondent, I do not see any reason to grant any relief to the petitioner. In view of the same, the writ petition fails and the same is

dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.