1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(md).No.9290 of 2011 V.Jayanthi : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Director of School Education, Department of School Education, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, D.P.I. Compound, Chennai. 3.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, D.P.I. Compound, Chennai. 4.The Director of Elementary Education, Department of Elementary Education, E.V.K Sampath Maligai, D.P.I. Compound, Chennai. 5.The District Employment Officer, District Employment Exchange Office, Virudhunagar. 6.The Commissioner, TamilNadu Employment Directorate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. : Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for being appointed to the post of Bachelor of Teaching Assistant in any of the Government Schools in Tamil Nadu for teaching classes 1 to 8 during the enquiry selection process for the said post. For Petitioner : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondents : Mr.S.Chandrasek Government Advocate ORDER Mandamus sought for is to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner for being appointed for the post of teacher for teaching classes 1 to 8 cannot be granted, for the reason that the qualifications prescribed for the post of B.T Assistant as per annexure 5 of Tamil Nadu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 is as follows. Name of the Post Qualifications B.T.Assistant B.A or B.Sc or its equivalent and B.T or B.Ed or L.T and Trained Teachers Certificate to Collegiate Grade 2.Though the petitioner has contended that the National Council of Teacher Education has clarified that B.Com graduates can be included in the eligibility criteria for appointment of teachers for classes 1 to 8, no authenticated document has been filed before this court. The document enclosed at Page No.5 of typed set of papers does not have any reference Number, the name of the department and there are no details of the signatory of any department of Human Resource or Government of India. Therefore it cannot be considered as evidence to support the contention of the petitioner. As on today, B.Com qualification has not been included as one of the educational qualifications prescribed for the post of B.T Assistant. 3.In P.U.Joshi and others vs. Accountant General Ahmedabad and others reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court cases 632 at paragraph 10 of the judgement, the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows: "Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to the fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment of eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service. 4.In view of the above decision, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not established that he has a right of mandamus on the basis of the documents, enclosed in the typed set of papers. 5.Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Director of School Education, Department of School Education, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, D.P.I. Compound, Chennai. 3.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, D.P.I. Compound, Chennai. 4.The Director of Elementary Education, Department of Elementary Education, E.V.K Sampath Maligai, D.P.I. Compound, Chennai. 5.The District Employment Officer, District Employment Exchange Office, Virudhunagar. 6.The Commissioner, TamilNadu Employment Directorate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. +1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.28355 +1cc to Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, Advocate, SR.No.28382 vs GH : 08.09.2011 : 3p/9c W.P.(MD)No.9290 of 2011 18.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/