IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.02.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA W.P.No.14094 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.17500 of 2020 R.Kathiroli ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Chairman, Teacher Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maaligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.

2.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for selection to the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) under SCW category based on the marks secured by the petitioner in the selection in pursuant to Notification No.10/2019 issued by the first respondent, by following the principles of selection adopted for the post of Computer Instructor by the first respondent for implementation of Women Quota for Scheduled Caste category, by considering the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 03.02.2020, with all consequential and other attendant benefits, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan For Respondents : Mr.P.Gurunathan, AGP for R2 Mr.R.Siddharth for R1

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for selection to the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) under SCW category based on the marks secured by the petitioner in the selection in pursuant to Notification No.10/2019 issued by the first respondent, following the principles of selection adopted for the post of Computer Instructor by the first respondent for implementation of Women Quota for Scheduled Caste category, by considering the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 03.02.2020, with all consequential and other attendant benefits, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. Heard Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.Gurunathan, Additional Government Pleader for R2 and Mr.R.Siddharth, learned counsel for R1.

3. The first respondent has issued notification in the year 2019 for direct recruitment to the post of B.T.Assistant (Tamil). The petitioner had applied for the said post in the reserved category of SC(Women) and written the examination. The petitioner has secured 93 marks. However, the cut-off is 94 marks for the SC General category and SC Women category. The contention stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cut-off mark for SC General and SC Women category is fixed at 94 only because the SC General category candidates have also been included in SC Women category.

4. The petitioner has lost her opportunity in the appointment. As per the notification, total number of vacancies earmarked against SC candidates for B.T.Assistant (Tamil) is 25. In the notification, 11 posts have been earmarked for SC Women. Now the contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner being SC Woman, if one Sadhana who stands in S.No.178 and who had secured 97 marks was placed under SC General category against 25 vacancies, she would get her chance for appointment.

5. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the second respondent submitted that the reservation for SC Women within the total posts of SC General category is a horizontal reservation and hence the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of vertical reservation. He also relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan public Service Commission and Others, reported in 2007 8 SCC 785

6. The above case is a classic case which explains what can be falling under vertical reservation and how horizontal reservation have to be considered for special reservations made within the horizontal reservation. For e.g. social reservations like SC, ST and OBC under Article 16(4) are considered as vertical reservation. Within the vertical reservation some special reservations in fav