O R D E R

State Commissionerate for Welfare of the Differently Abled, represented by the Director for Welfare of the Differently Abled, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Lady Willingdon College Campus, Chennai 600005, is suo motu added as the 4th respondent in this writ petition.

2.This writ petition has been filed challenging the ineligible list published by the

3rd respondent dated 28.03.2024 insofar as adding the name of the petitioner in that list and for a consequential direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Graduate Teacher/BT Assistant-Tamil under B.Ed (Spl.Edu.-Mentally Retarded) category in IEDSS under recruitment Notification No.3 of 2023, dated

25.10.2023.

3.When the matter came up for hearing on 06.09.2024, this Court passed the following order:

The subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition pertains to the name of the petitioner added at S.No.5 in the ineligible list dated 23.08.2024 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Graduate Teacher/B.T. Assistant-Tamil under special education in Mentally Retarded category in Inclusive Education for Disabled at Secondary Stage (IEDSS).

2.The petitioner had submitted the application for the post of Graduate Teacher-Tamil and the petitioner belongs to the SC category. The petitioner has specifically claimed for posting under the category of IEDSS. The only area of dispute in the present case is that the Addendum dated 15.11.2023, provides the qualification in which it is stated that the candidate must possess B.Ed., (Special Education) degree with specialisation in Visual Impairment/Hearing Impairment/Mentally Retardation. According to the Teachers Recruitment Board, the petitioner does not possess the qualification of B.Ed., special education and whereas, the petitioner only posses a Senior Diploma which is not enough to consider the candidature of the petitioner under IEDSS category. According to the Board, the Senior Diploma possessed by the petitioner, at the best will enable the petitioner to participate only in those vacancies notified for the Schools run by the Directorate for Welfare of Differently Abled Persons Department.

3.The petitioner has primarily raised two grounds and they are:

a) The Board is trying to make an artificial distinction between persons who teach differently abled children in the Schools run by the Department for differently abled and those run under IEDSS. According to the petitioner, in both cases, the Special Educator with the respective specialisation alone can teach the differently abled students. Therefore, it is contended that the Senior Diploma possessed by the petitioner is sufficient to consider the candidature of the petitioner under IEDSS.

b) It is also brought to the notice of this Court that 59 earlier appointments were made under IEDSS Schools and as many as eight candidates who were appointed only possessed Senior Diploma Certificates. The relevant Government Order dated 17.09.2019 along with the Annexure was placed before this Court to substantiate this submission.

4.Insofar as the first issue that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the Board was heard in length.

5.Insofar as the second issue is concerned, the learned Standing Counsel shall take instructions ane report before this Court. It is seen from records that till now, the post has not been filled up due to non-availability of a candidate.

6.Post this writ petition at the end of the motion list on

17.09.2024.

4.The matter was thereafter listed for hearing on 20.09.2024 and the following order was passed by this Court.

When the matter was taken up for hearing today, learned counsel for petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the schedule to The Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992, which specifically gives the list of approved institutions and starting from Sl.No.656 institutions in Tamil Nadu have been dealt with. The