SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 548

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
R. Kuzhanthairani - Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 27332 of 2008
Decided On : 11-02-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S.Silambanan, Senior Counsel.
For the Respondents:C. Munuswamy, Special Government Pleader, K. Bhuvaneswari, Additional Government Pleader, S. Suresh Kumar, Government Advocate.

The court emphasized the importance of timely action in seeking remedies and the feasibility of granting relief after a significant lapse of time.

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Appointment of Agriculture Instructor - NIL - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to call upon the petitioner for Certificate Verification for appointment/recruitment to the post of Agriculture Instructors for Government Higher Secondary Schools and issue final selection letter and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue the order of appointment to the petitioner appointing her as Agriculture Instructor in a Government Higher Secondary School as per the seniority ranking of such candidates selected for appointment of Agriculture Instructors for the years 2007-08, 2008-09.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to call upon her for Certificate Verification for appointment/recruitment to the post of Agriculture Instructors for Government Higher Secondary Schools and issue final selection letter. The petitioner claimed to have completed her B.Sc (Botany) in 1985 and B.Sc., (Agriculture) in 1989 and registered her name in the office of the third respondent in 1989. The petitioner's name was not found in the list of provisionally selected candidates, and she filed the writ petition seeking one more chance for Certificate Verification and selection to the post of Agriculture Instructor.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the communication for Certificate Verification was sent to the petitioner, and the petitioner's non-appearance cannot be attributed to the first respondent. The court also noted that the prayer for mandamus sought by the petitioner, more than a decade later, was not feasible.

Issues: The main issue was whether a written communication had been sent to the petitioner for Certificate Verification and whether the petitioner could be called again for Certificate Verification after more than a decade.

Ratio Decidendi: The court presumed that the communication for Certificate Verification would have been sent to the petitioner, and the petitioner's non-appearance cannot be attributed to the first respondent. The court also found that the prayer for mandamus sought by the petitioner, more than a decade later, was not feasible.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the court.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to call upon the petitioner for Certificate Verification for appointment/recruitment to the post of Agriculture Instructors for Government Higher Secondary Schools and issue final selection letter and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue the order of appointment to the petitioner appointing her as Agriculture Instructor in a Government Higher Secondary School as per the seniority ranking of such candidates selected for appointment of Agriculture Instructors for the years 2007-08, 2008-09.

1. The prayer sought for herein is to direct the first respondent to call upon the petitioner for Certificate Verification for appointment/recruitment to the post of Agriculture Instructors for Government Higher Secondary Schools and issue final selection letter and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue the order of appointment to the petitioner appointing her as Agriculture Instructor in a Government Higher Secondary School as per the seniority ranking of such candidates selected for appointment of Agriculture Instructors for the years 2007-08, 2008-09.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that, she has completed her B.Sc (Botany) in the year 1985 and B.Sc., (Agriculture) in the year 1989. With that qualification, the petitioner registered her name in the office of the third respondent on 17.08.1989.

3. Since the petitioner was anxiously waiting to get a job from the Government and after having waited for 19 years, in the year 2008 the first respondent Teachers Recruitment Board had issued a communication for Certificate Verification to fill up 200 posts of Agriculture Instructors (B.T.Assistant Scale), after having come to know this, the petitioner verified the details of the names which were sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the recruitment to the said post. The petitioner claimed to have found 483 names, in which her name was found in Serial No.42. Therefore, the petitioner was in fond hope that, since there were 200 posts allotted and the petitioner was in Sl.No.42, certainly she would be getting the selection and appointment to the post of Agriculture Instructor, which is a B.T. Assistant Scale post.

4. However, subsequently the list of provisionally selected candidates was issued, where the petitioner’s name was not found. In the meanwhile, the petitioner came to know that, on 24.10.2008 Certificate Verification was to be held but, as she did not receive any communication from the third respondent, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer to give one more chance for Certificate Verification and select her to the post of Agriculture Instructor.

5. The respondents, especially the first respondent, represented by the learned Special Government Pleader, during the last hearing had taken a stand that, though communication was sent through post to each and every candidate whose names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, including the petitioner, for attending the Certificate Verification held on 24.10.2008, the petitioner did not turn up for such Certificate Verification and therefore her name was not considered.

6. However, the said stand taken by the respondents especially the first respondent was stoutly refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and he maintained that, the petitioner has never been issued with a communication for Certificate Verification.

7. In order to resolve the same during the last hearing, this Court has directed the first respondent to produce the relevant records to establish that a communication has been sent to the petitioner to attend the Certificate Verification on 24.10.2008.

8. In response to the same, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent has produced written instructions from the Member (TET), Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai 600 006 ie., th

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top