Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 686 (MAD)

M. Velu v. Chairman Teachers Recruitment Board

2013-01-31

K.CHANDRU

body2013
ORDER 1. These Writ Petitions came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court vide order dated 4.12.2012. 2. All these Writ Petitions raise identical issue that the petitioners seek to challenge the provisional list of selection made by the Teachers Recruitment Bureau (for short 'TRB') in respect of recruitment of Physical Education Teachers based upon the State Seniority list of 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. The TRB recruited candidates on the basis of the State level seniority and published the list of selectives on the basis of rule of reservation framed by the State Government. 3. The contention of the petitioners was that they belong to priority categories as provided under G.O.Ms.No.188, P&AR Department dated 28.12.1976 and they also belong to Scheduled Caste community and within the Scheduled Caste priority candidates, the respondents have not followed any seniority and they have arbitrarily chosen the persons, who are juniors to the petitioners. In that premise, the Writ Petitions came to be filed. 4. In W.P.No.6227 of 2012, the petitioners seek for a direction to the respondents to consider the seniority in all priority categories in the process of appointment of Physical Education Teachers based on their date of registration under the employment exchange. 5. On notice from this Court, the respondents TRB has filed a counter affidavit dated 18.1.2013. It is the admitted case that the petitioners have not come within the cut of point mentioned for the Scheduled Caste candidates, who have been selected under the Scheduled Caste category. The only claim of the petitioners was that they are land losers. In the case of M.Velu, who has filed the two Writ Petition Nos.6227 and 21475 of 2012. It is stated by him that he had parted agricultural land and the family has lost its means of income. As per the Certificate issued by the Special Tahsildar, the first petitioner's father Manickam parted with the land pursuant to the acquisition made under the Land Acquisition Act and the land was taken over for locating a burial ground. The total land parted by the petitioner works out to 0.27 Cents and as per the Certificate, it is claimed that the annual income of the land was only Rs.4,000/-. 6. The total land parted by the petitioner works out to 0.27 Cents and as per the Certificate, it is claimed that the annual income of the land was only Rs.4,000/-. 6. Even though this Court had given directions to the State Government that the jurisdictional Tahsildar should strictly confirm while issuing the Certificates for land losers, the purport of G.O.Ms.No.188, P&AR Department dated 28.12.1976 is to follow the order of priority in regard to provision of employment assistance through Employment Exchange and authorises the Tahsildars to follow the same. But the Tahsildars have issued certificates without referring to the norms. The norms prescribed by the G.O clearly show that in respect of the members of the family, whose lands have been acquired for the Government purpose as well as for the projects of the public sector undertakings, the preference should be given to those who are dependent for their livelihood primarily or wholly on the lands acquired and from among them to members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes who may be eligible for employment. These norms were never followed by the authorities. In any event, certificates have been issued to the petitioners that they were the land losers. Be that as it may, the only question in these Writ Petition is whether irrespective of the priority claim, seniority should be preferred in respect of each communal roster. 7. Mr. Arokia Maniraj, learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance upon para 3 of G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 28.12.1976, wherein it is stated that rules of reservation shall be made applicable to all vacancies whether they are filled by priority or non-priority category. It only meant that priority has to be made in respect of each communal roster point. But, however, in the present case, the priority list that has been published pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.188 clearly shows that the Government issued G.O regarding the order of priority to be made and such order was made on the basis of priority laid down by the Government of India. The total numbers of priority candidates have been grouped under different groups and even among these four Groups, further sub divisions have been made. The persons who are land losers will come GROUP-II para (v). Under GROUP-II, there is a category of Destitite Widows, Inter-caste married couple, Ex-servicemen and Indian Nationals returning from Burma, Srilanka and East African Countries. The total numbers of priority candidates have been grouped under different groups and even among these four Groups, further sub divisions have been made. The persons who are land losers will come GROUP-II para (v). Under GROUP-II, there is a category of Destitite Widows, Inter-caste married couple, Ex-servicemen and Indian Nationals returning from Burma, Srilanka and East African Countries. The petitioner belongs to (v) Sub Group of Group II and therefore the contention is that the seniority list should be prepared on priority basis. Notwithstanding the same, his case was not considered on priority categories. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that provisional list of selected candidates was published in the website of Teachers Recruitment Board on 27.7.2012. But the list was subsequently withdrawn by the TRB as an additional list was sent by the Employment Exchange regarding the special reservation of 5% exclusively meant for ex-servicemen category. Thereafter, the TRB conducted certificate verification on 17.9.2012 and 25.9.2012. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, their date of registration was as follows: "1. M.Velu 8.7.2002 2. R.Arulmozhi 29.7.2003 3. K.Adimoolam 12.8.2003 4. M.Murugan 28.7.2003" Therefore, it is submitted that on completion of certificate verification, the Board drew merit list and provisional selection list. Insofar as category of land acquisition priority is concerned, the petitioners had not reached the selection list and they were not selected under the priority category. As per G.O.Ms.188, order of priority has been indicated as groupwise and sub-groupwise. It is finally stated that among the priority categories, selection has been made only upto Inter Caste Marriage Priority category. It is further stated that while selecting candidates on priority category, after exhausting one priority category, another priority will be taken up for selection. In the recruitment of Physical Education Teacher, the last candidate was selected with SG Pr.Inter Caste Marriage Category with date of registration as 19.5.2010. Therefore, in the absence of the petitioners priority group being considered, their contention cannot be accepted. 9. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that such a classification is erroneous and does not stand to reason. It must be noted that the very concept ofpriority of some candidates outside the rank list is an exception to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that such a classification is erroneous and does not stand to reason. It must be noted that the very concept ofpriority of some candidates outside the rank list is an exception to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. When once the petitioners seek under the exceptional category, then the selection must be made as per the orders of the Government for various priority categories. In the Government Order, they have set out order of priority by group-wise and sub-groupwise. In the absence of the petitioners' category being considered, no fault can be found with the TRB. Admittedly, they were not selected under the priority category, even though the respondents have followed the communal roster to which they belonged to. Since the petitioners have relied upon the right based upon the priority categories, then the order of the priority also will have to be strictly followed. The respondents have correctly followed the G.O. Their further prayer seeking for combined seniority list of priority category also does not stand to reason in the light of the G.O referred to above. 10. Hence, all the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.