IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 17-07-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.16147 of 2006 O.A.No.6402 of 1995 1.R.Jaisankar 2. A.Basha .. Petitioners. Versus 1.The Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Secretary, College Road, Madras. 2.The Director of Elementary Education, Madras. .. Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the select list published by the 1st respondent, on 4.1.95, and direct the respondent to declare that the applicants had passed the written examination conducted by the Director of Government Examination, on 9.10.94 and to appoint them as Secondary Grade Assistant. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Muthukannu For Respondents : Mr.T.Seenivasan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. It is stated by the petitioners that after completing the plus two course and the Diploma in Teacher's Training, they had registered their names in the employment exchange. They were fully qualified for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Assistant. Till the year 1990, appointments to the post of Secondary Grade Assistant were made based on the interview. In the year 1993, the selection for the said post was to be done through the Teacher's Recruitment Board, based on a written examination and an interview. Since the new system was adverse to those who had undertaken the plus two course and the Teacher Training Course under the old syllabus, it was challenged before this Court. Even though a direction had been issued for conducting an examination to enable the candidates who had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ studied the plus two course under the old syllabus, the first respondent had conducted the examination without following the orders passed by this Court. Though the petitioners had written the examination very well, they were not selected. The selection list announced by the proceedings, dated 4.1.95, is illegal and liable to be quashed. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.6402 of 1995, which has been transferred to this Court and re- numbered as W.P.No.16147 of 2006. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had stated that the non selection of the petitioners was only due to the fact that the first respondent had not followed the order passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioners. Further, no cut off mark was announced, before the results of the selected candidates were announced. The list of the selected candidates had also included the names of the candidates who were not registered in the employment exchange. Therefore, the list of the selected candidates announced by the first respondent, on 4.1.95, is liable to be quashed and the first respondent is to be directed to declare the petitioners as having passed the written examination conducted by the Director of Government Examination, on 9.10.1994 and to appoint them as Secondary Grade Assistant. 4. Even though no reply affidavit had been filed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted, as the decision to have the selection process by way of a written examination and an oral interview to select the candidates for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Assistant had been done in accordance with the Rules and the procedures prescribed. Further, there is nothing shown by the petitioners to substantiate their claims that the procedures followed by the first respondent are arbitrary and contrary to the existing rules and the Government Orders applicable to the case. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondents, it is seen that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause or reason to substantiate their claims. It cannot be said that the procedure adopted by the first respondent to select the candidates for the post of Secondary Grade Assistant, by conducting a written examination and an interview is arbitrary or illegal. The petitioners have not shown as to how the procedure is contrary to law. Further, it is a policy decision of the Government to adopt certain procedures to be followed while recruiting persons for the various posts in the Government Departments. Unless such procedures are shown to be contrary law or the specific rules framed for the purpose, it cannot be said to be illegal or void. Further, the petitioners have not shown the order of this Court which the first respondent is alleged to have violated. Even otherwise, if such an order had been violated by the first respondent, it was open to the petitioners to initiate necessary https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ action against the first respondent at the appropriate stage. In such circumstances, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar csh To 1. The Secretary, The Teachers Recruitment Board, College Road, Madras. 2.The Director of Elementary Education, Madras. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.38557 Writ Petition No.16147 of 2006 NTK (CO) SMK/11.8.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/