IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.02.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition No.44787 of 2006 (O.A.No.8886 of 2000) Mathiazhagan ..Petitioner Vs 1.Teachers Recruitment Board Rep. By Member Secretary Chennai 2.The Director Director of Teacher Education and Research Training Madras-4 ..Respondents Prayer:-This writ petition has been originally filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal O.A.No.8886 of 2000 and transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.44787 of 2006 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner as a Lecturer (English) for appointment in the Directorate of Teacher Education, Research and Training and in the District Institution of Education and Training in Tamil Nadu pursuant to his written examination on 16.07.2000 and oral interview on 05.09.2000 under Registration No.213104. For petitioner ... Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan For respondents ... Mr.R.Murali,Govt.Advocate O R D E R The petitioner was an aspirant for the post of Lecturer in English coming under the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Service. Pursuant to the notification issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB), the petitioner applied for the post of a Lecturer. The number of vacancies notified for the post of Lecturer (English) was 38. The petitioner was called for an interview to be conducted on 05.09.2000 pursuant to his application. It is the case of the petitioner that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ he had appeared for the interview and done extremely well. He had answered all the questions correctly. Notwithstanding his good performance, he was not selected in the final selection. Therefore, he filed O.A.No.8886 of 2000 before the Tribunal. 2. The Tribunal ordered notice of motion on 05.12.2000. Pending the Original Application, the Tribunal directed one post to be kept vacant. On notice from the Tribunal, the first respondent had filed a counter affidavit dated 17.08.2001. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P.No.44787 of 2006. 3. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the selection was based upon not merely on the basis of the academic attainments, but also based upon the personality bearing, general knowledge, capacity to express ideas in subject, previous experience, higher qualification, academic performance and extra curricular activities. All these factors have also been taken into consideration by the Selection Committee while selecting the candidates for the post of English Lecturer. It was further stated that out of 38 vacancies, 32 candidates were selected and the results were displayed in the Teachers Recruitment Board;s office notice board. It was also published in the 'Daily Thanthi' newspaper on 25.09.2000. The successful candidates were duly informed of their result. Since the petitioner did not obtain adequate total marks, he was not given any appointment order. 4. In paragraph 12 of the Counter affidavit, it was stated that in the written examination comprised of two papers for 200 marks each. For teaching experience, it was prescribed that minimum 3 years of teaching experience was required as basic qualification and maximum of 14 marks was assigned. For academic performance of the candidates, who had secured more than 60% of marks, weightage was to be given at the rate of 2 marks for every additional 10% of marks and for which 8 marks was assigned. For the performance in basic professional courses, offered by the candidates who have secured more than 60% of marks weightage was to be given at the rate of 2 marks for every additional 10% of marks for which 8 marks was assigned. For possessing Ph.Ds etc additional marks were also given. Like wise, for having certificates in Extra curricular activities like NCC, NSS and Sports, 3 marks was given. It was also stated that for the oral interview, maximum marks assigned was 9 only. The candidates were assessed out of 450 marks and those whom came within the selection norms were selected. 5. The petitioner having gone through the selection process filed O.A.No.8886 of 2000 stating that the candidates were not informed of the marks obtained by them in the written examination and oral interview. The actual marks allotted to the candidates attended https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the interview and the basis of the marks allotted to them were not made known to the candidates. The selection committee members were using pencils while awarding marks for manipulation. The manner of the conduct of the interview and the selection process was biased, illegal, arbitrary and based on favouritism. A pick and choose method was adopted without any regard for merit and performance. It was also stated that the petitioner having scored high marks in the interview and coming under the Backward quota was unjustly not selected and the selection process was totally vitiated. 6. However, a denial was made in the reply affidavit in paragraph 14 to the above submissions of the petitioner and it was averred as follows:- " The allegation made by the applicant that the selection process is biased, illegal and based on favouritism are totally false and is motivated by the applicant with a malicious view frustrated by his non selection for the post of Lecturer." 7. Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel for the petitioner took pains to narrate the actual questions asked and the answers given by the petitioner in the interview, for which, the petitioner had kept a personal record. Hence, there is no possibility of denying him an appointment. He also stated that there was bald denial of the submissions made by the petitioner in the counter statement and the veracity of the claim of the petitioner was not denied. 8. However, this court is not inclined the entertain the writ petition for more than one reason. In the matter of selection of this nature, it is only when the petitioner establishes that the interview marks were kept so high so as to tilt the balance in ignoring the academic performance, the court cannot interfere. Only 9 marks were assigned for the candidates in the interview out of 450 marks. Therefore, there was little scope for subjective element creeping into the selection procedure so as to deny a meritorious candidate being edged out of the process. 9. With reference to the petitioner's assertion that he had answered all the questions correctly and that the respondents had not controverted the same, the sad issue cannot be decided in isolation. Unless the petitioner gives details and comparative marks obtained by other candidates in the interview, his assertion that he had done extremely well cannot take his case further. It is also necessary to state that the committee members will have to award marks on the basis of overall performance of the petitioner in the interview. Hence, the statement of the petitioner that he had done extremely well in the interview will not automatically invalidate the selection process. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. With reference to the submission that the committee members used pencils to award marks with a view to alter the marks obtained by the candidates in the interview later, this court is not inclined to render any finding. The members of the committee have not been made parties to the petition. It is not the case of the petitioner that the selection committee comprised of members who did not have any credentials. There was no mention of the names of persons who sat in the committee. It is also to be noted that once the petitioner had participated in the selection process, he cannot turn back and question the method and manner in which the selection process was done. Out of curiosity, this Court went through the questions and answers given by him enclosed by the petitioner, which were allegedly put to the petitioner in the interview and enclosed in the typed set. It is not as if the petitioner had correctly answered all the questions as claimed by him. He ded not give the correct answer regarding the year in which the MISA was enacted by the Parliament and the name of the Minister of Forest at the relevant time. These facts are recorded only to show the assertion made by the petitioner were not upto the mark. 11. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in K.A.Nagamani Vs. Indian Airlines and others reported in (2009) 5 SCC 515, has held that in such cases, the unsuccessful candidates after participating in the selection process cannot be allowed to challenge the very process by which the selections were made. 12. Regarding the contention raised by the petitioner that records were not produced before this Court to show the relative marks secured by the candidates, Mr.R.Murali, learned Government Advocate relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in TRIVEDI HIMANSHU GHANSYAMBHAI VS. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS reported in (2007) 8 SCC 644, wherein, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "21. .... In our view, in the absence of any material on record, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 that the records were not produced by the Corporation due to mala fide intention. In this connection, the finding of the learned Single Judge on the question whether an adverse inference could be drawn against the Corporation for non- production of the records before the High Court and whether for such non-production, a case of mala fide could be found, may be seen. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, on consideration of the entire materials on record, came to a finding that in the absence of any specific averment of mala fides against the Members of the Committee holding the interview test, it was neither possible to strike down the result of the interview nor https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ would it be proper to conclude that the Corporation had conducted the interview in an illegal or unlawful manner." 13. In view of the above, there is no case made out to grant the relief claimed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar nvsri To 1.The Member Secretary Teachers Recruitment Board Chennai 2.The Director Director of Teacher Education and Research Training Madras-4 1 cc To Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, Advocate, SR.9131 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.9335 W.P.No.44787 of 2006 (O.A.No.8886 of 2000) MRD (CO) RH (22.2.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/