Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1725 (MAD)

M. Santhi v. Chairman Teachers Recruitment Board

2012-04-03

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a Post Graduate in Zoology with qualification of B.Ed. The petitioner got her name registered with the employment exchange. 2. In pursuant to the advertisement, she appeared in Group IV examination and was selected and appointed as Junior Assistant in medical department on 02.08.1986 on recommendations of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The petitioner thereafter was transferred to the Education department on 23.12.1989. 3. In view of the fact that the petitioner was holding the qualification of M.Sc., B.Ed., she filed a representation with the respondents, to consider her for appointment as teacher. 4. The petitioner also got her name registered with the employment exchange in the year 1987 for appointment as teacher. Every year, when the vacancies arose for the post of teachers, the petitioner made representations to consider her for appointment as teacher. Even after 11 years, the petitioner was not appointed as teacher. Finally, to the representation dated 25.07.2001, seeking appointment as a teacher, vague reply was received declining her request. 5. The petitioner challenged the order in not recommending her name for appointment as teacher on the ground, that the petitioner was working in education department since 1989, therefore, the first respondent should have selected and appointed the petitioner in view of her qualification. 6. It is also the submission of the petitioner, that repeated representations of the petitioner were ignored. It is the stand of the petitioner, that no previous teaching experience is required for a person who passed the Plus 2 with Teacher Training Course. The petitioner therefore, could not have been denied the right of consideration for want of experience. 7. Finally, it is submitted that inspite of requisite qualification and experience in education department, the authorities failed to consider the legitimate claim of the petitioner, as the petitioner had filled up a form for appointment in the Government schools. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board, petitioner submitted an application for appointment as teacher by way of transfer. 9. The petitioner was called for interview, but she was not selected by treating her to be the applicant against direct recruitment, whereas she was entitled to appointment by transfer, therefore, the action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner cannot be sustained. 10. 9. The petitioner was called for interview, but she was not selected by treating her to be the applicant against direct recruitment, whereas she was entitled to appointment by transfer, therefore, the action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner cannot be sustained. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents ignored G.O.Ms.No.720 Education department, dated 20.04.1981 framing special rules for Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Education service. Under the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Education service, the teacher in academic subject could be appointed either by direct recruitment or by transfer from Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service, furthermore, in case no qualified and suitable candidates were available for appointment by these methods, such vacancies can be filled by transfer from other State services. The petitioner therefore, had a right to appointment under the special rules. 11. On consideration, I find that the writ petition is totally misconceived. Mere eligibility does not give right to appointment to the post. The vacancies which are available can be filled up by direct recruitment or appointment by transfer, by calling application from all eligible persons. It is required to be noticed as to whether the posts falls in quota for direct recruitment or appointment by transfer. The State Government calls for application for appointment by either mode, so that all the eligible persons can compete for appointment. No appointment can be made on the representation of an employees. Any such appointment if made will be hit Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is settled law that all public appointment can only be made after due publicity so as to enable the candidates fulfilling the qualification to compete for the post. 12. The appointment therefore, can be made only after considering all the eligible persons falling under the category under which posts have to be filled. Nothing has been pleaded or shown, in the writ petition as to whether applications were invited for appointment by transfer or by direct recruitment. The petitioner having applied in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board for appointment against the post by direct recruitment, cannot claim appointment by transfer, after having failed to come in merit. No merit, dismissed. No costs.