IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20-3-2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P.No.36138 of 2007 M.P.No.2 of 2007 P. Gowri ... Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, E.V.K.Sampath Maaligai, 4th Floor, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. ... Respondents Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the impugned list of candidates provisionally selected for appointment in the Direct Recruitment of Lecturers (History) for Government Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges of Education 2006-2007, dated 19.11.2007 and quash the Sl.No.80 alone of the said list and consequently direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the selected list for the appointment of Lecturers in History for the Government Colleges and fix seniority accordingly. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Chinnaswamy, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.T.S.Murthi For Respondents : Mr.G.Sankaran, Spl.Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the list of candidates provisionally selected for appointment in the Direct Recruitment of Lecturers (History) for Government Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges of Education - 2006-2007, dated 19.11.2007 insofar as Sl.No.80 of the said list and consequently direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the selected list for the appointment of Lecturers in History for the Government Colleges and fix seniority. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she applied for direct recruitment for the post of Lecturers in History in Government Arts and Science Colleges, 2006-2007 to the second respondent-Teachers Recruitment Board pursuant to the notification No.4/2006-2007 published in the news papers on 18.9.2006. Petitioner has secured first class in M.A. (History) and also passed M.Phil (History) with first class marks in April, 1986 from Madurai Kamaraj University. She worked as Lecturer from 7.1.2000 to 4.1.2002 in the Department of History in Standard Fire Works Rajarathinam College for Women, Sivakasi, which is a Government Aided College. Thereafter, she was appointed as a guest lecturer in the department of History in Queen Mary's College, Chennai-4 (Autonomous) from July, 2004 to April, 2005. Thus, the petitioner claims three years teaching experience and she belongs to denotified community (MBC). 4. On 25.6.2007, the second respondent issued a call letter for certificate verification to be held on 17.7.2007. The certificates were verified on 17.7.2007 and the authorities who verified the certificates insisted the petitioner to get fresh certificate from the Principal, Standard Fire Works Rajarathinam College for Women, Sivakasi, countersigned by the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region. According to the petitioner, she obtained experience certificate in Annexure-3, which was duly countersigned by the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, on 19.7.2007 and submitted the same to the second respondent Board on 20.7.2007. 5. Petitioner further states that she attended the interview on 21.9.2007 pursuant to the interview call letter issued on 12.9.2007 and on the said date the certificates were again verified including the experience certificate, countersigned by the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, on 19.7.2007. The second respondent declared the results of the provisionally selected candidates on 27.11.2007 and the petitioner came to know that she https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ secured 13 marks out of total 39 marks, i.e., for Teaching experience 2; Educational qualification 6; books and articles 0; and interview marks 5; thus totally 13 marks and she was not selected provisionally. According to the petitioner, the award of two marks under the heading teaching experience is improper as she is having three years of teaching experience, for which she is entitled to get six marks i.e., two marks for each year and if six marks are awarded to the petitioner towards teaching experience, her total marks will be 17 instead of 13 and in that event, she is eligible to get selected as the cut-off marks for MBC Women candidate is 16. 6. On 28.11.2007, petitioner sent a representation to the second respondent claiming four marks for two years experience which was omitted to be given to the petitioner and no action having been taken she filed this writ petition on the ground that the selected candidates having secured 16 marks under MBC category, if four marks are awarded to the petitioner for two years experience, petitioner's marks will be 17, and denial of four marks for two years of experience in spite of producing certificate is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has submitted a representation on 28.11.2007 claiming four marks for two years experience for which no reply is given to the petitioner till date. The learned counsel further submitted that on 12.9.2007, interview call letter was issued for certificate verification and at that time, petitioner produced the experience certificate countersigned by the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, on 19.7.2007, however no mark was awarded for the experience certificate produced. The interview call letter issued to the petitioner dated 12.9.2007 is filed in the typed set of papers at page No.15. 8. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 on instructions submits that the said experience certificate was not taken into consideration as the same was not produced on the earlier date of certificate verification, that was on 17.7.2007 and therefore no mark is awarded to the petitioner. 9. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel on both sides. The file containing selection of Lecturers in the Government Colleges is produced before me and I have perused the same. 10. In the file produced before me, petitioner's representation dated 28.11.2007 and the interview call letter issued to the petitioner dated 12.9.2007 are available. Even though in the prospectus it is not stated that the person claiming marks for experience can produce the experience certificate without stating https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ anything about getting counter signature from the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, in the subsequent Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.146 Higher Education Department, dated 11.6.2007, which was issued pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.37000 of 2006 etc., batch order dated 24.3.2007, the Government has ordered to get countersignature from the Regional Joint Directors for accepting the experience Certificate as valid and two marks are ordered to be awarded for each completed year of service and if the period of experience is less than six months, one mark was directed to be awarded. Hence I am of the view that insisting the petitioner to produce experience certificate, countersigned by the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, is justified even though it is not stated in the prospectus issued for selection. 11. The countersignature obtained by the petitioner in the experience certificate is dated 19.7.2007 and the same is not in dispute. The second respondent called for the petitioner for certificate verification for the second time on 21.9.2007 by communication dated 12.9.2007 is also beyond doubt. The respondents having called the petitioner for certificate verification for the second time as stated supra and the petitioner having produced the said certificate on the said date, the respondents are bound to consider the said certificate for awarding marks, as it was submitted two months before finalising the selection list. If no second interview was conducted, petitioner may not have any right to be awarded marks for the experience certificate, which was countersigned subsequent to the first date of certificate verification, which was on 17.7.2007. 12. In the light of issuance of second interview call letter on 12.9.2007 and having conducted certificate verification on 21.9.2007 for the second time and the certificate is also available in the file produced before me, the second respondent is directed to award four marks based on the petitioner's representation dated 28.11.2007 and pass orders thereon taking note of the experience certificate produced by the petitioner on 21.9.2007, which was countersigned by the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai, on 19.7.2007. The second respondent is directed to pass necessary orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar vr To 1. The Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, E.V.K.Sampath Maaligai, 4th Floor, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. +1cc to Mr.S.T.S.Murthi,Advocate Sr 15893 +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 15913 TM (CO) km/28.3. W.P.No.36138 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/