The court emphasized that adherence to service rules is essential and cannot be altered based on pragmatic assumptions.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.06.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR W.P.(MD).No.9500 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.7475 to 7477 of 2019 N.Vijayakumar .. Petitioner Vs.

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

2.The Assistant Director, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

3.The Director of Government Examinations, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned Tentative Provisional Selection List issued by the 1^st and 2^nd respondents in the subject Drawing pertaining to the Department of Directorate of School Education in pursuant to CV date: 13.08.2018 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to redraw the selection list and appoint him as Drawing Teacher in the quota reserved for candidates who studied in Tamil Medium. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Anandakumar For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjad Khan Government Advocate

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned Tentative Provisional Selection List issued by the first and second respondents in the subject Drawing pertaining to the Department of Directorate of School Education in pursuance to CV date: 13.08.2018 and consequently, to direct the first and second respondents to redraw the selection list and appoint him as Drawing Teacher in the quota reserved for candidates who studied in Tamil Medium.

2. Admittedly, the issue involved in this Writ Petition is no longer res integra and more particularly, the petitioner herein is mainly relying on the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the case of G.Anandhakrishnan Vs. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board and others in W.P.Nos.28458 of 2018 etc., batch dated 12.03.2019. However, the very same order was challenged before the Division Bench in the case of the Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai Vs. R.Vijayalakshmi in W.A.Nos.404 of 2020 etc., batch. The Division Bench, by judgment dated 16.03.2020, has elaborately discussed the issues raised including the issue raised by the petitioner herein and has held that the candidates are not entitled to get any benefit and had set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:

“44. Now coming to the impugned judgments, what we find is that the learned Single Judge has proceeded on the strength of a pragmatic approach and on the basis of assumption drawn in paragraphs 8 to 10 of the impugned judgment. In our opinion, hypothetical calculations without any facts or figures, and on mere presumptions that calling upon the candidates to obtain certificates would generate some corrupt practice, cannot be a ground to write off the rules, the law laid down in this regard and the arguments based on facts that were before the learned Single Judge. We find this approach of the learned Single Judge to be non-judicious and pragmatism cannot take over legalism. We should remember whatever is legal is just, but while doing justice, we cannot ignore the law particularly in service jurisprudence where it is governed by a set of Rules. As observed above, any deviation from the Rule would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, the approach of the learned Single Judge to carve out a pragmatic approach and then to issue directions on the ground that the authorities are bound to verify the same does not appear to be correct. The certification is an evidence of the fact that the concerned candidate has acquired the qualificati