1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.8945 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 M.Panneerselvam ... Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Member-Secretary Teacher Recruitment Board College Road Chennai - 6 2. The District Employment Officer District Employment Office Tirunelveli Collectorate Tirunelveli ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and include the name of the petitioner for the post of Graduate Teacher in the selected list of candidates to be published in August 2011 by the 1st respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Arumugam For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalenthi Special Government Pleader O R D E R Seeking for a Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and include the name of the petitioner for the post of Graduate Teacher in the selected list of candidates, scheduled to be published in August 2011 by the Member-Secretary, Teacher Recruitment Board, Chennai, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. Pleadings disclose that after a legal battle, the petitioner has got her employment seniority with his original date of registration and accordingly, she was issued an Identity Card on 28.07.2011. Based on the news item published in Dinamani, dated August 2004, that the Teacher Recruitment Board, Chennai, has decided to publish a revised list of selected candidates for the post of graduate teachers and alleging that many of the candidates selected for this year are her juniors, the petitioner has sought for a Mandamus, as stated supra. 3. Newspaper report cannot be acted upon unless the petitioner supports the contents of the same with material documents. Useful reference can be made to the following decisions. 4. In Samant N.Balkrishna and another Vs. George Fernandez and others reported in 1969 3 SCC 238 at paragraph 26, wherein the Apex Court observed as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 "A newspaper item without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at best a second hand evidence. It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publish it. In this process truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible". 5. The Supreme Court in Lakmi Raj Shetty and another Vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in 1988 (3) SCC 319, opined thus: "...We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein". 6. In Quamarul Islam Vs. S.K.Kants reported in 1994(1) SCC 452, the question as to whether mere production of a copy of the newspaper, be treated as proof of the report of the speech (news item) contained therein, came up for consideration. The Apex Court in Paragraph 48 of the Judgment held as follows:- "Newspaper reports by themselves are not evidence of the contents thereof. Those reports are only hearsay evidence. These have to be proved and the manner of proving a newspaper report is well settled. Since, in this case, neither the reporter who heard the speech and sent the report was examined nor even his reports produced, the production of the newspaper by the Editor and publisher, PW4 by itself cannot amount to proving the contents of the newspaper reports. Newspaper, is at the best secondary evidence of its contents and is not admissible in evidence without proper proof of the contents under the Indian Evidence Act. The learned trail Judge could not treat the newspaper reports as duly 'proved' only by the production of the copies of the newspaper. The election petitioner also examined Abrar Razi, PW5, who was the polling agent of the election petitioner and a resident of the locality in support of the correctness of the reports including advertisements and messages as published in the said newspaper. We have carefully perused his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 testimony and find that his evidence also falls short of proving the contents of the reports of the alleged speeches or the messages and the advertisements, which appeared in different issues of the newspaper. Since the maker of the report which formed basis of the publications, did not appear in the court to depose about the facts as perceived by him, the facts contained in the published reports were clearly inadmissible. No evidence was led by the election petitioner to prove the contents of the messages and the advertisements as the original manuscript of the advertisements or the messages was not produced at the trial. No witness came forward to prove the receipt of the manuscript of any of the advertisements or the manuscript of any of the advertisements or the messages or the publications of the same in accordance with the manuscript. There is no satisfactory and reliable evidence on the record to even establish that the same were actually issued by IUML or MYL, ignoring for the time being, whether or not the appellant had any connection with IUML or MYL or that the same were published by him or with his consent by any other person or published by his election agent or by any other person with the consent of his election agent". 7. Though the petitioner has contended that many of her junior have been included in the revision selection list, no particulars have been furnished to support the said contention. In Bharat Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1988) 4 SCC 537 at Paragraph 13 is held as follows:- "When a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. In this regard there is a writ petition or a counter affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it." 8. Apparently, no supporting materials have been furnished in the typed set of papers to establish the averment that many of the petitioner's juniors have been selected. Yet another contention that the respondents, being a statutory authority, ought to have given appointment to the petitioner in accordance with the employment seniority, also cannot be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 countenanced for the reason that it is not a mandatory that the Teachers of the Recruitment Board, Chennai, should provide appointment, automatically. All that the petitioner can claim is for only a direction to sponsor her name, if the concerned employment exchange fails to sponsor her name, on the basis of employment. 9. Right to employment is not a fundamental right and therefore, the contentions of the petitioner are untenable in law. In the light of the abovesaid discussion, the prayer to consider her name and include the name of the petitioner for the post of Graduate Teacher in the selected list of candidates is wholly misconceived. Mandamus sought for cannot be granted. 10. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs. SD/- Assistant Registrar (T & P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1. The Member-Secretary Teacher Recruitment Board College Road Chennai - 6 2. The District Employment Officer District Employment Office Tirunelveli Collectorate Tirunelveli +1. CC to Mr.C.M.Arumugam, Advocate, SR.No. 27092 +1. CC to Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 27594 vsg W.P.(MD).No.8945 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 10.08.2011 TR : 25.08.2011: 4P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/