Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67403
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Suresh Kumar, Hemant Chandangoudar, JJ
Teachers Recruitment Board – Appellant
Versus
K.Sudarmathi – Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 2744 of 2025 | CMP.No. 22035 of 2025 | W.P.No. 21040 of 2009
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. R.Neelakandan, AAG, Mr C. Kathiravan
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Sathiaseelan, Mr.J.C. Durairaj, AGP, Mr. E.Vijay Anand
Eligibility for appointment should be determined by the criteria in place at the time of application, respecting the rights of qualified candidates under disability laws.
Headnote:(A) Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Section 2(t) - Eligibility criteria for appointment of hearing impaired candidates - Writ petition allowed as petitioner certified with 60% hearing impairment was entitled to appointment under 1% reservation without retrospective application of 2018 guidelines. (Paras 4, 8, 10, 11)
(B) Arbitrary denial of appointment - The court reaffirmed the principle of discrimination against qualified disabled individuals, emphasizing that applicants should be assessed based on criteria applicable at the time of their application, not subsequent changes. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The first respondent applied under a reservation for disabled candidates but was not appointed despite her qualifications. A writ petition led to a favorable judgment affirming her eligibility.
Findings of Court:
The appointment was directed as the petitioner met all criteria under the applicable law at the time.
Issues: The legality of applying newer guidelines to a recruitment process initiated in 2009.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the applicant’s disability status and qualifications must be evaluated based on the provisions in place at the time of application, thus upholding her rights.
Result: The appeal was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eligibility criteria and arguments regarding the applicant's qualifications. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. judicial observations on the applicant's impairment and qualifications relevant to the case. (Para 5 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. court's agreement with the learned single judge's reasoning. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. final decision on the appeal. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT
(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 21040 of 2009. By the said order, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to select and recommend the name of the first respondent/writ petitioner to the third respondent, and in turn, the third respondent was directed to appoint the first respondent/writ petitioner to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal are as follows. Pursuant to the notification dated 12.01.2009 issued by the appellant, the first respondent/writ petitioner submitted her application seeking consideration for selection and appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher under the 1% reservation provided for the hearing impaired category. On learning that similarly situated candidates had been selected and appointed, the writ petitioner made several representations to the appellant requesting selection and appointment to the said post. However, no orders were passed on her request. The writ petitioner, asserting that she was fully qualified and eligible for appointment, approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 21040 of 2009 seeking a writ of mandamus, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge under the impugned order.
3. Mr. R. Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant, submitted that the first respondent/writ petitioner does not satisfy the eligibility criteria as per the guidelines issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities vide notification dated 05.01.2018, published in the Gazette of India. It was contended that in view of the said guidelines, the learned Single Judge erred in directing the appointment of the writ petitioner, and therefore, the impugned order is not legally sustainable.
4. Per contra, Mr. S. Sathiaseelan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner, submitted that the recruitment notification was issued in 2009 and therefore the rules and criteria applicable at that time alone are relevant. The writ petitioner, who is suffering from 60% hearing impairment, was fully qualified and eligible to be considered under the 1% quota reserved for hearing impaired persons under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act , 1995. The learned counsel further submitted that the guidelines issued in 2018 cannot be applied retrospectively, and therefore, the learned Single Judge had rightly held that the writ petitioner was entitled to appointment. It was thus contended that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court.
5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials placed on record.
6. It is not in dispute that the appellant issued a notification dated
12.01.2009 inviting applications for recruitment to 5773 posts of Secondary Grade Teachers in the Tamil Nadu Elementary Educational Subordinate Services for teaching Standards I to IV in Elementary and Middle Schools, covering all mediums of instruction including Tamil medium. The writ petitioner, who possessed the requisite qualifications, applied under the 1% quota reserved for candidates suffering from hearing impairment. Her candidature, however, was not considered, which compelled her to approach this Court.
7. The learned Single Judge relied upon Section 2 (t) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Parti
