CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH OA/310/01164/2016 Dated this 18^th day of December, Two Thousand Twenty Four CORAM :

HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)

AND HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)

Mahesh Tula, S/o Mallaiah, Door No.2-50/1, Ratnapur Post, Kamanpur Mandal, Karim Nagar District, Telangana State. .. Applicant By Advocate M/s. T.S. Rajamohan Vs.

The General Manager, Ordnance Clothing Factory, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Avadi, Chennai .. Respondent By Advocate Mr. K. Rajendran, SCGSC

ORAL ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, judicial Member) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

“To call for the records of the respondent sequel to the Adv. No. ORDFYS / OCFAV/ DAVP/ 07/ 2015 – 16 /ESTT/ 01, dated 26.09.2015, the selected candidates list that was published on internet on 04.07.2016 and quash the same as illegal, besides ultra vires, unlawful, without jurisdiction and consequently , to direct the respondent to conduct the selection process based on the guidelines of National Council for Teacher Education dated 11.02.2011 and publish the marks obtained by the individual candidates who have appeared for the exams for the posts of Teacher (Primary) within the time frame to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Tribunal”.

2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:

The respondent, through an Employment Notice, dated 26.09.2015, invited applications from suitable candidates for various posts, including Trained Graduate Teacher in the disciplines of Maths, Tamil, and Teacher (Primary), among others. The applicant, a graduate in Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry, also holds a Diploma in Education and has qualified in the TET. Based on the results of the Written Examination, the applicant was initially selected. He then appeared for a skill assessment test, which included communication skills and teaching methodology.

However, his name was not included in the list of selected candidates for the post of Teacher (Primary). Aggrieved by his non-selection, the applicant has filed the OA seeking the aforementioned relief.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the guidelines for conducting the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), issued by the National Council for Teacher Education on 11.02.2011, stipulate that a person scoring 60% or more in the TET exam should be given weightage in the recruitment process. He further submitted that the respondent has not specified the percentage of weightage allocated for teacher selection. Additionally, while the respondent claims that selection is based strictly on merit according to the written examination, they have failed to clarify how candidates are selected based on the marks obtained.

4. He further submitted that the recruitment process adopted by the respondent is not transparent and does not comply with the guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher Education. Despite specific guidelines indicating that weightage should be given to candidates who have passed the TET, the respondent has failed to specify this in the notification dated 26.09.2015, rendering the notification illegal and unlawful.

5. He also cited a ruling by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which held that the marks obtained by candidates in the written examination should be disclosed. Furthermore, the answer keys should be published by the department conducting the recruitment, in line with the transparency principle followed in candidates selection. Therefore, he sought the relief as requested in the OA.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent, in contrast, contended that the recruitment process, from the online application stage to the publication of the written test results, was outsourced to M/s. HT Media Limited, New Delhi. Eligible candidates submitted their applications online, and the system automatically generated a unique application number for each candidate. The exam date was communicated via the webs