Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 863 (MAD)

G. Kala v. State of Tamilnadu

2014-04-08

M.SATHYANARAYANAN, N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2014
Judgment : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. These writ appeals are filed against the orders dated 05.1.2012 made in W.P.Nos. 272, 286, 287, 289 and 290 of 2012 respepctively wherein the appellant(s) have sought for quashing of the Proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 10.1.2011 in Na.Mu.Ka.No.7959/Sa UThi 1/2010 and also directing the 4th respondent to sent the appellant(s) for selection to the post of Graduate Assistant Teachers under the 3rd respondent pursuant to the Notification dated 25.10.2010 issued by the 4th respondent. 2. The facts leading to the filing of writ appeals are:- (i) Appellant(s) were working as Noon Meal Organisers in Government Higher Secondary Schools and they possess B.Ed/B.Lit respectively and are eligible for the post of Graduate Teachers. The Association had made representation to the Government stating that the graduate Noon Meal Organisers with B.Ed/B.Lit qualification are taking classes for the school students, where they are working and sought for appointment to the post of Graduate Teachers. Considering the said representation, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.64 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (NMP1) Department, dated 23.4.2003 for recruiting the Noon Meal Organisers/Anganwadi workers as Graduate Teachers, by conducting special examination through Teachers Recruitment Board. As per the said Government Order, special examination was conducted and out of 883 Non Meal Organisers, 218 Noon Meal Organisers were selected and appointed as Graduate Teachers. (ii) The persons who failed in the special examination had made representation to the Government requesting the Government to appoint all the Noon Meal Organisers by conducting another special examination. Based on the said representation, the Government had issued another Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.157 School Education (Q2) Department, dated 12.8.2005. Pursuant to which, the 4th respondent had conducted second special examination and 650 Noon Meal Organisers were appointed and were working as Graduate Teachers and the appellant(s) alone were left out. Thereafter, the appellant(s) and their Association made representation to the Government and the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.4 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (NMP1) Department dated 5.1.2010 to conduct another special examination for the third time. Pursuant to the said Government Order, the 4th respondent issued Notification dated 25.10.2010 and special examination was scheduled on 21.11.2010 preceded by certificate verification and the appellant(s) applied for the said post. However, the said examination was not conducted on that date and postponed. Pursuant to the said Government Order, the 4th respondent issued Notification dated 25.10.2010 and special examination was scheduled on 21.11.2010 preceded by certificate verification and the appellant(s) applied for the said post. However, the said examination was not conducted on that date and postponed. (iii) The 4th respondent issued a communication dated 13.1.2011 in a format asking the appellant(s) to furnish details and re-submit the same on or before 24.1.2011 along with educational certificates. In response to the said communication, the appellant(s) have submitted the filled format along with the certificates. When the appellant(s) approached the 4th respondent about the non-receipt of Hall Tickets, they were informed that since the appellant(s) have not acquired the qualification before the cut off date, the Hall Tickets were not issued to them. Immediately, the appellant(s) made representation to the 4th respondent to issue Hall Tickets. Since the 4th respondent has not taken steps to consider the representation, the appellant(s) have filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.3870, 3872, 3873, 3874, 4032 of 2011 praying to issue writ of mandamus directing the 4th respondent to accept the application of the appellant (s) for the selection to the post of Graduate Assistant Teachers under the 3rd respondent and the learned single Judge has passed an interim order directing the 4th respondent to permit the appellant(s) to sit for the special qualifying examination to be held on 20.2.2011, however, the results were subject to the result of the writ examination and the respondents were at liberty to withhold the result of the examination. The examination which was scheduled on 20.2.2011 was not conducted on that date. When the writ petitions filed by the appellant(s) came up for hearing, the respondents have produced a letter dated 10.1.2011 issued by the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare and Noon Meals Scheme (Sa UThi) Department stating that those who have acquired qualification as on 5.1.2010 are alone eligible to write the special examination, which was challenged by the appellant(s) in W.P.Nos. 272, 286, 287, 289 and 290 of 2012. The learned single Judge has dismissed all the writ petitions by the order dated 05.1.2012, which are challenged in these writ appeals. 3. 272, 286, 287, 289 and 290 of 2012. The learned single Judge has dismissed all the writ petitions by the order dated 05.1.2012, which are challenged in these writ appeals. 3. The contention of appellant(s) is that they being appointed as Noon Meal Organisers and participated in the special examination for absorption in the teaching post – B.T. Assistants, as per the Government Order, they should be appointed without reference to the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). 4. It is not in dispute that G.O.(Ms) No.181 School Education (C2) Department dated 15.11.2011 was issued in terms of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 read with Rule 18(5) of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules. The teachers to be appointed to the post of Secondary Grade and B.T. Grade have to pass Teacher Eligibility Test. The appellants have not passed the Teachers Eligibility Test till date. 5. The appellant(s) having not passed Teacher Eligibility Test, they cannot insist that they should be appointed as B.T. Assistants, without reference to Teacher Eligibility Test pass even though, they were appointed and serving as Noon Meal Organisers. 6. In W.A.No.1736 of 2012 dated 22.8.2012 (R.Rajmohan v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others), this Court held that no one can claim a right to be appointed without passing Teacher Eligibility Test on the ground that the process of recruitment commenced much earlier and even empaneled candidates did not have indefeasible right to claim appointment against the advertised posts by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 637 (Raki Ray v. High Court of Delhi). 7. Thus the learned single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petitions. It is made clear that this order will not preclude the appellants right to write Teacher Eligibility Test, if they are fully qualified to appear for the examination. In case, if they pass the Teacher Eligibility Test, the respondents are directed to consider their claim for appointment to the post of B.T. Assistants as and when vacancies are notified. 8. In fine, the order of the learned single Judge is confirmed, with the above said observation and these writ appeals are dismissed. No costs.