IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 18.09.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. NAGAMUTHU W.P.No.12429 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2009 P.Ananthanayagi ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Chairman Teachers’ Recruitment Board College Road, Chennai 600 006. 2.R.Chandrasekaran 3.P.Thiravidamani 4.I.Sahayamary ... Respondents R3 & R4 impleaded as per order dt.20.7.09 by KNBJ in MP.3/09 in WP.12429/09 Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to calling for the records 1st respondent relating to the impugned provisional selection for appointment of the second respondent to the post of Lecturer (Tamil) in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service for Government Arts and Science Colleges under the Direct Recruitment for the year 2008-09 made on 24.06.2009 as published in website and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of the Lecturer (Tamil) in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service for Government Arts and Science Colleges. For Petitioner : Mr.R.M.vijayanarayan (SC) For R.1 : Mr.G.Sankaran (Spl.G.P) (EDN.) For RR.2 & 4 : No appearance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER The first respondent Teachers Recruitment Board, Government of Tamil Nadu issued an advertisement calling for applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Lecturers in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service for Government Arts & Science Colleges, 2008. There were as many as 94 posts notified for Lecturers in the Subject Tamil. Since the petitioner is qualified, she submitted her application. Respondents 2 to 4 also made their applications. As per G.O.Ms.No.146 Higher Education (F2) Department dated 10.09.2007, selection shall be made on the basis of the marks awarded for teaching experience, additional qualification like (a) Ph.D in concerned subject, (b) M.Phil with SLET/NET (or) M.Phil prior to 31.12.1993 and (c)PG & SLET/NET; research contribution/Books/Article Published and interview. The total number of marks shall be 39. As per the said G.O., awarding marks under the various heads shall be as follows:- 1 For teaching experience in Universities/Government/aided colleges/self financing colleges in the approved post including the teaching experience (in the relevant subject) of the candidates in Medical/Engineering/Law Colleges. (2 marks for each year subject to a maximum of 15 marks) 15 marks 2 Qualification a)For Ph.D in concerned subject - 9 b)For M.Phil with SLET/NET (or) M.Phil prior to 31.12.1993 - 6 c)For PG & SLECT /NET - 5 9 marks (maximum) 3 Research contribution/Books/Article Published 5 marks 4 Interview 10 marks Total 39 marks 2.The petitioner was called for certificate verification. At that time, she was awarded 9 marks for possession of Ph.D., then 5 marks for Research Contribution/Books/Article published, 8 marks for interview and 14 marks for teaching experience. Thus, the total number of marks awarded to the petitioner was 36. The respondents 2 to 3 were awarded 37 marks each, Since the petitioner had secured one mark less than respondents 2 to 4, they were appointed. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ present writ petition. 3.According to the petitioner, for teaching experience, she should have been awarded 15 marks. But erroneously, only 14 marks have been awarded. Her contention is that, she has got total experience of 7 years 1 month and 9 days as a Lecturer in Thiruthangal Nadar College, Selavayal, Chennai. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai Region, Chennai has counter signed the same thereby certifying that her total experience is 7 years 1 month and 9 days. 4.Apart from that, for having worked in Sri Saradha Niketan College for Women, Amaravathipudur, the petitioner has been given teaching experience certificate for 2 years 8 months 18 days. The same has also been counter signed by the Joint Director Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, Madurai. Thus, the total experience put in by the petitioner is 9 years 9 months 27 days and for which, she is entitled for 15 marks. According to the prospectus, for teaching experience, two marks should be awarded for more than six months in a year but subject to 15 marks. In this case, as per the prospectus the petitioner’s experience is 9 years 9 months and 27 days and so, she is eligible for 15 marks. 5.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent has produced a letter from the Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai in Rc.No.3042/A6/2009 dated 18.09.2009 wherein, it has been explained as to why the petitioner was awarded only 14 marks out of 15 marks for teaching experience. The same reads as follows:- “The decision of the Certificate verification Board is final in awarding marks. According to the prospectus of Teachers Recruitment Board that separate weightage marks will be awarded for Higher Qualification and Teaching Experience. But in the present case, the writ petitioner was awarded 9 marks for possession Ph.D Degree in August 2008. She also produced the Teaching Experience for the following period: Years Months Days 18.08.1997 to 06.05.2000 2 8 18 20.08.2001 to 29.09.2008 7 1 9 Total 9 9 27 The period of she doing the Ph.D Degree Course was also included in the Teaching https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Experience. Therefore the Certificate Verification Board declined to award marks to the period during which it was shown by the candidate thus she was doing Ph.D and also done Teaching at the College/University level. While awarding the marks for Teaching Experience the Certificate Verification Board required the exact date of joining the Ph.D. Degree by the writ petitioner. But the writ petitioner has not mentioned the date of joining to the Certificate Verification Board. In the absence of the relevant information the Certificate Verification Board which scrutiny certificate of writ petitioner reduced the period of 3 years, the duration she underwent Ph.D Degree course on regular basis from the Teaching Experience and awarded 14 marks for the period of 6 years and 9 months. Even though separate marks will be awarded for qualification and Teaching Experience one individual could not be given marks for both if it was undertaken within the same period.” 6.Relying on the said letter, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent would submit that the petitioner was rightly awarded 14 marks and she is not entitled for 15 marks. 7.I have considered the rival submissions. 8.A close reading of the prospectus would make it abundantly clear that for gaining teaching experience one need not be qualified with Ph.D., at all. For possessing Ph.D., qualification, 9 marks is to be awarded separately. To put it other wise, a candidate who does not have Ph.D., can also gain teaching experience and she would be entitled for marks, subject to a maximum of 15 marks. Therefore, the first respondent was not right in saying that the petitioner would be entitled for marks for teaching experience only for the period after she had acquired Ph.D., qualification. As I have already stated, with or without Ph.D., qualification, the petitioner has got more than 9 years of experience for which she is entitled for 15 marks. The stand taken by the first respondent is unreasonable and it is based on misunderstanding of the prospectus. 9.In view of the above, if the petitioner is awarded 15 marks for teaching experience, the total marks would be 37. The respondents 2 to 4 also have secured 37 marks. As per the prospectus, when more than one candidate has secured equal number of marks, then the selection shall be made on the basis of their date of birth. If that is done, the petitioner should be ranked above the respondents 2 to 4 and she would be entitled for appointment for the post of Tamil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Lecturer. If this exercise is done, the fourth respondent who is the junior most would be in-eligible for appointment to the said post. But at the same time, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, the fact that the fourth respondent has already been given appointment order and she has also been working and also going by the fact that there are vacancies, even now available with the department, it would be in the interest of justice not to disturb the fourth respondent. In my considered opinion, the appointment of the fourth respondent to the post, may be adjusted as against any vacancy which has not been notified. 10.In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the first respondent is directed to award 37 marks to the petitioner and rank her above the respondents 2 to 4 and appoint her as Tamil Lecturer accordingly. 11.As indicated above, while doing the said exercise, the fourth respondent shall not be disturbed and instead, her appointment shall be adjusted as against any vacancy, which has arisen subsequent to the notification. The said exercises shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar jbm To 1. The Chairman,Teachers’ Recruitment Board College Road, Chennai 600 006. + 1 CC to Mr.V.Chandrasekaran,Advocate,SR.48342 + 1 CC to Government Pleader,SR.48806 W.P.No.12429 of 2009 PKB(CO) EM/25.9 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/