Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1702 (MAD)

N. Manonmani v. State of Tamil Nadu

2015-03-30

V.M.VELUMANI

body2015
Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition praying to direct the second respondent to award 2 marks to the petitioner as given by the scrutiny committee in the interview process and consequently recruit the petitioner as a Lecturer in Chemistry in the Government Collegiate service. 2. The educational qualification of the petitioner is Doctorate in Chemistry. She had published three articles in Chemistry subject in the year 2008 and the petitioner is having 8 years teaching experience in the collegiate service. The second respondent called for the recruitment for the post of lecturers for Government Arts and Science Colleges and Collegiate of Education for the year 2008-2009. The estimated vacancies for lecturers is 1195 posts. 3. As per the Prospectus, the total marks were fixed as 39 marks were fixed for selecting the Lecturers. As per the Prospectus in the Government order is as follows: Teaching Experience 15 marks Educational Qualification 09 marks Books/Articles 05 marks Interview 10 marks Total 39 marks 4. The petitioner applied for the said post. She was called for certificate verification. Subsequently, she was called for interview held on 10.06.2009 under General Turn, though she belonged to Backward Class. The Scrutiny Committee examined the Articles of the petitioner on Research contribution at that time. On 30.06.2009, list of provisionally selected candidates for appointments were published. The petitioner's name was not in the provisional list. On verification, she found that totally 27 marks were allotted to her and no marks were allotted to Books/Articles. Marks allotted to the petitioner is as follows:- Teaching Experience 12 marks out of 15 marks Educational Qualification 09 marks out of 09 marks Books/Articles 00 marks out of 05 marks Interview 06 marks out of 10 marks Total 27 marks 5. The cut off marks for open category is 29. Had the second respondent taken 2 marks for Books and Articles awarded by the Scrutiny Committee, she would have got 29 marks and would have been included in the provisional list. Therefore, she has approached this Court by way of the writ petition. 6. The second respondent has filed the counter affidavit and admitted various facts with regard to the qualifications, selection process as stated by the petitioner. The second respondent has stated that the Articles published by the petitioner did not find anywhere in the approved list given by the Teachers Recruitment Board. 6. The second respondent has filed the counter affidavit and admitted various facts with regard to the qualifications, selection process as stated by the petitioner. The second respondent has stated that the Articles published by the petitioner did not find anywhere in the approved list given by the Teachers Recruitment Board. The second respondent has stated that verification will be made by the Certificate Verification Board and weightage marks would be awarded by the Board. The same would be verified by the officials of the second respondent. At the time of such verification, it was noticed that the Articles published by the petitioner were not in the approved list given by the second respondent. Therefore, no marks were awarded by the second respondent for the Articles/Journals published by the petitioner. 7. Further it is stated in the counter that by G.O.Ms.No.412 Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 07.12.2009 awarding of weightage marks for books/articles published has been dispensed with as a policy decision of the Government. Therefore, rejection of the petitioner's candidature is valid and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 9. The petitioner is qualified to be appointed as Lecturer in Government Arts and Science Colleges and in the Collegiate service. The second respondent issued Prospectus specifying the qualification and weightage marks that will be awarded in selection of Lecturers. 10. As per Clause 11 of the Prospectus, under the heading Scheme of Selection has specified the weightage marks to be awarded in selection. Scheme of selection involves two stages. Marks will be awarded to all candidates based on the information given by them in their Application forms during the time of CV as per criteria and also the marks awarded during the time of Interview, as per G.O.Ms.No.306, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 10.09.2007. 11. Clause 11(3) relates to Research Contribution for Books and Articles published before 29.09.2008 related to the relevant subject 2 marks per book and 1 mark per Article would be awarded. But the total marks would be awarded only 5 marks. 12. It is admitted case that the petitioner published three articles in the relevant subject of Chemistry. In the interview two marks were awarded for the Articles published by her and signature was obtained at the time of awarding marks in the Research paper. But the total marks would be awarded only 5 marks. 12. It is admitted case that the petitioner published three articles in the relevant subject of Chemistry. In the interview two marks were awarded for the Articles published by her and signature was obtained at the time of awarding marks in the Research paper. The second respondent has admitted that certificate verification was done by the Board Constituted by the second respondent would verify all the documents and award weightage marks. 13. The second respondent has not denied that in the Certificate Verification Board awarded 2 marks for weightage marks for the Articles published by the petitioner. Their contention is the Articles published by the petitioner did not found place in the approved list. This contention is untenable. In the prospectus it has been mentioned that marks would be granted for books/Articles published before the 29.09.2008 related to relevant subject i.e., Chemistry. It is not the case of the respondent that Articles published by the petitioner did not relate to the relevant subject i.e. Chemistry. Therefore, the second respondent erred in not taking account the three Articles published by the petitioner and not granting two marks awarded by the Board at the time of certificate verification. 14. The other contention that G.O.Ms.No.412 Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 07.12.2009 awarding of weightage marks for the Books/Articles published has been dispensed with has not relevant to this case. In the present case, the selection process was over on 30.06.2009 itself and the provisional list was published. Therefore, the reason given by the respondent for not awarding two marks to the petitioner for Articles published by her is invalid. 15. At the time of admission, this Court, by an order dated 09.07.2009, directed to respondents to keep one post vacant. 16. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to award two marks to the petitioner for the Articles published by her and issue appointment order to the petitioner to the post, which is kept vacant as per the orders of this Court, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.