Public employment rights under Articles 14 and 16 require diligent adherence to application procedures for eligibility; failure to provide necessary documentation precludes claims for weightage.

ORDER :

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

Aggrieved by the non-inclusion of the petitioners name in the revised provisional seniority list for the post of Graduate Teacher/BT Assistant by not awarding marks for the TET qualification obtained by the petitioners inspite of directions given in G.O. Ms. No.147 , School Education (TRB) Dept., dated 22.8.2023, the present petition has been preferred before this Court, with a prayer to quash the revised provisional seniority list and to include the names of the petitioners by granting the requisite marks as mandated in the aforesaid G.O. Ms. No.147 .

2. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the notification dated 25.10.2023 issued by the 3^rd respondent calling for applica Graduate Teachers/Block Resource Teacher Educators (for short ‘BRTE’), the petitioners applied for the said post by submitting their application for subject History. Further, the 1st petitioner applied under the PSTM category.

3. The petitioners uploaded their application along with the requisite documents, including the TET qualification certificate and attended the competitive examination conducted on 4.2.2024 for which results were published by the 3rd respondent on 18.5.2024. Both the petitioners obtained 80.50 marks including weightage marks and they belong to MBC category. Thereafter the petitioners participated in the certificate verification. During the process of certificate verification, the petitioners produced the TET certificate obtained by them in the year 2013 and 2017 by the 1^st and 2^nd pe of weightage marks as per G.O. Ms. No.147 as they are eligible to get 5 marks and 3 marks respectively.

4. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 3rd respondent published the provisional selection list on 1.8.2024 in which the petitioner’s name were not found, which prompted the petitioners to approach the 3rd respondent, whereupon, they were informed that since they had uploaded the TET certificate of the year 2022 alone, they were awarded only 0.5 marks as weightage marks. It is the further averment of the petitioners that persons like the petitioners, who completed additional degree were granted marks as weightage as per G.O. Ms. No.147 and, they sought for the same treatment, however, they were not provided with the same.

5. It is the further averment of the petitioners that as per the recruitment notification, weightage marks is envisaged for those who are qualified to be appointed even in 2013. If the petitioners are awarded weightage marks as provided for in G.O. Ms. No.147 , they would have obtained 85 and 83 marks respectively, which would be above the cut-off marks of 81 and, therefore, would be qualified to be selected and included in the provisional selection list, as, as per G.O. Ms. No.147 , weightage marks are to be awarded from the date of the earlier year of passing of TET.

6. Alternatively, it is averred by the petitioners that even if the petitioners are to be held that they became eligible for the post of BT Assistant in the subject History only in 2019 and 2020 respectively when they completed their additional degree, they would have to be given weightage atleast from the year 2019 when they obtained the TET certificate and, therefore would have to be awarded atleast 2 marks, which would also enable the petitioners to be above the cu-off marks, but the not-grant of weightage marks as per the Government Order has resulted in the petitioners losing their chance of appointment. Inspite of the representation of the petitioners, they have not been considered and, therefore, left with no alternative, they have