CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated this the 2^nd day of December, Two Thousand Twenty Five CORAM :

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

AND HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)

R. Saranya, D/o Radhakrishnan, No. A-1/9, Housing Board, Nehru Nagar, Kovikupathu, Karaikal. .. Applicant By Advocate M/s. V. Ajayakumar Vs.

1. Union of India rep by the Government of Puducherry through the Secretary to Government for Education, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry

2. The Director of School Education, Directorate of Education, Kamarajar Centenary Education Complex, 100 Feet Road, Anna Nagar, Puducherry

3. M. Prithiga, Working as Primary School Teacher, Education Department, Puducherry

4. M. Devamani Working as Primary School Teacher, Education Department, Puducherry.

5. A. Vadivukarasi Working as Primary School Teacher, Education Department, Puducherry .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. R. Syed Mustafa for R.1 & 2

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

Aggrieved by the selection of the respondents 3 to 5 as Primary School Teacher, by the impugned Select List, dated 12.10.2015, the applicant has filed OA for quashing of the said select list in respect of the said respondents and for a direction to appoint her to the said post with effect from the date on which the respondents 3 to 5 are appointed with all other consequential reliefs including arrears of wages, seniority etc.

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant are as follows: The Applicant has completed an M.A. degree, B.Ed., and D.Ted., and is therefore fully qualified for the post of Primary School Teacher. The Applicant passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) on 22.02.2015 and completed the D.Ted. course in 2007 with 77.41% (929 marks). The Applicant belongs to the OBC category and completed the B.Ed. course under the Government quota. At the time of completion of the course, an additional fee of Rs. 50,000/- per student was demanded, against which the Applicant filed W.P. No. 20062/2008 before the Hon’ble High Court. The Writ Petition was allowed by order dated 17.10.2008, and the subsequent Writ Appeal filed by the Government was dismissed. Pursuant to the Recruitment Notification for the post of Primary School Teacher, which prescribed HSC, D.Ted., and TET as qualifications, the Applicant applied and secured 75.17% marks as per her calculation. Respondents 3 to 5, who secured lesser marks, were selected, while the Applicant was not appointed. Hence the present Original Application has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the Applicant contends that the Applicant is entitled to appointment as a Primary School Teacher in the OBC category, having secured higher marks than Respondents 3 to 5. The Applicant is entitled to the benefit of reservation as well as employment seniority, and denial of the same is discriminatory, arbitrary, and illegal.

4. It is further submitted that including employment weightage, the Applicant secured 75.17% marks, whereas the 3rd respondent secured only 75.06%, the 4th respondent 74.95%, and the 5th respondent 74.92%. Therefore, the Applicant, having the highest marks among them, ought to have been appointed.

5. The Applicant’s counsel further submits that the select list shows candidates with higher marks being placed under the OBC category, while candidates with lower marks are included in the General category, which is contrary to law. The last selected candidate under the General category secured only 77.29 marks, whereas candidates with marks above 83 were placed under the OBC category. Had such higher-scoring OBC candidates been considered in the General category, the Applicant and similarly placed OBC candidates would have secured appointment. Hence, the Applicant seeks the relief prayed for in the OA.

6. In contrast, the learned counsel for the Respondents opposes the Applicant’s submissions, relying on the reply statement filed. He submits that under G.O. Ms. No. 50 dated 11.05.2009 of the Department of