1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22-12-2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)Nos.6864. 7360, 12901 and 13085 of 2011 And M.P.(MD) Nos.1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3 and 4 of 2011 M.Samundeeswari Prabha .. Petitioner in WP 6864/2011 R.Suresh .. Petitioner in WP 7360/2011 RA.Vijippriya .. Petitioner in WP 12901/2011 M.Sumathi Sai Priya .. Petitioner in WP 13085/2011 vs. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, E.V.K. Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, 4h Floor, College Road, Chennai-6. .. R-1 in WPs 6864, 7360, 12901 & 13085/2011 Teachers Recruitment Board, E.V.K. Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, 4h Floor, College Road, Chennai. .. R-2 in WP 6864/2011 The Secretary, Law Department, Secretariat, Chennai. .. R-2 in WPs 7360 & 13085/2011 The Director of Legal Studies, Purasaivakkam, Chennai. .. R-2 in WP 12901/2011 N.Gowthaman .. R-3 in WP 7360/2011 (R-3 impleaded as per order of Court dated 19.12.2011 in M.P.No.4 of 2011) W.P.No.6864/2011 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for their records in respect of notification dated 30.3.2010 issued via Advertisement No.512010 and the Corrigendum on 22.6.2011 by the first respondent and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to issue a fresh notification in order to enable the petitioner to write the TRB exams in future or any other mode of selection made by the respondents for the direct recruitment of Lecturers (Senior Scale) in Government Law Colleges. W.P.No.7360/2011 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in respect of notification No.5 of 2010 dated 30.3.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 issued by the first respondent and consequential corrigendum issued on 22.6.2011 and to quash the same and to direct the first and second respondents to issue a fresh notification in order to admit the petitioner to write the TRB exams in future or any other mode of selection made by the respondents for the direct recruitment of Lecturers (Senior Scale) in Government Law Colleges. W.P.No.12901/2011: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records passed by the first respondent dated 26.8.2011 in Rc.No.3982/B3/2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent herein to relax the qualification in Clause (5) of the notification dated 30.3.2010. W.P.No.13085/2011: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in respect of notification No.5 of 2010 dated 30.3.2010 issued by the first respondent and consequential corrigendum issued by the first respondent on 22.6.2011 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to issue a fresh notification in order to admit the petitioner to appear for the exams conducted by the TRB in future or any other mode of selection made by the respondents for the direct recruitment of Lecturers (Senior Scale) in Government Law Colleges. For Petitioner in WP 6864/2011 : Ms.M.Samundeeswari Prabha (Party-in-person) For Petitioner in WP 7360/2011 : Mr.R.A.S.Anandharaj For Petitioner in WP 12901/2011: Ms.N.Muthulakshmi For Petitioner in WP 13085/2011: Ms.M.Sumathi Sai Priya (Party-in-person) For Teachers Recruitment Board : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, R1 & R2 and Government Additional Government Pleader. Respondents in all cases For R-3 in WP 7360/2011 : Mr.K.Rajasekaran C O M M O N O R D E R The Teachers Recruitment Board issued a notification in advertisement No.5 of 2010 dated 30.3.2010 inviting applications for direct recruitment to the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) and Lecturer (Senior Scale)(Pre-Law), in the Government Colleges, for the years 2007- 2008 and 2009-2010. In respect of the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale), 10 vacancies were notified as backlog vacancies and 19 vacancies were notified as current vacancies taking the total to 29. In respect of the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) (Pre-Law), a total of 16 vacancies were notified. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 2. For the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale), the notification dated 30.3.2010 prescribed the following qualifications (i) Master Degree in Law with not less than 55% marks for all candidates and 50% marks for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (ii) a pass in the National Eligibility Test or an Accredited Test and (iii) an enrolment in the Bar Council. 3. Since the aforesaid notification did not indicate the vacancies subject-wise and also since any Lecturer (Senior Scale) cannot take classes for any subject without specialisation, a writ petition was filed on the file of this Court in W.P.No.10930 of 2010 by a candidate by name N.Gowthaman. The said writ petition was allowed by a judgment dated 23.12.2010, directing the respondents to issue suitable amendment to the notification dated 30.3.2010, by incorporating subject-wise vacancies for the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) and to proceed with the recruitment process thereafter in accordance with law. The respondents were granted 6 weeks time to complete the process, as a number of vacancies were lying unfilled. 4. In the meantime, a writ petition in W.P.No.5057 of 2010 was filed, seeking a declaration that the special rule prescribing the passing of National Eligibility Test as an essential requirement is unconstitutional. The writ petition was dismissed by a single Judge leading to an appeal being filed in W.A.(MD) No.467 of 2010. The writ appeal was dismissed by a judgment dated 10.2.2011 with a direction to the respondents to complete the selection process, within 3 months. 5. Therefore, the prescription of the passing of National Eligibility Test, contained in the recruitment notification dated 30.3.2010 came to continue. But in view of the decision in W.P.No.10930 of 2010, the respondents 1 to 3 were forced to issue a corrigendum to the notification dated 30.3.2010. Accordingly, the Teachers Recruitment Board issued a corrigendum dated 22.6.2011, indicating the subject-wise vacancies and the application of the rule of reservation. 6. Thereafter, the petitioners in W.P.No.6864 and 7360 of 2011 came up with their writ petitions, challenging the notification dated 30.3.2010 and the corrigendum dated 22.6.2011 and also seeking a direction to the respondents to issue a fresh notification to enable them to participate in the selection. In both these writ petitions, interim directions were issued by this Court to enable the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6864 and 7360 of 2011 to write the written examinations. 7. Subsequently, a candidate by name RA.Vijippriya came up with W.P.No.12901 of 2011, challenging a communication dated 26.8.2011 issued to her refusing to consider the qualification of a pass in National Eligibility Test acquired by her on 27.6.2010, subsequent to the notification dated 30.3.2010. While ordering notice in the writ petition, this Court permitted the petitioner also to write the written examinations. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner in W.P.No.13085 of 2011 came up with her writ petition, challenging the original notification dated 30.3.2010 and the corrigendum dated 22.6.2011. Her grievance is also that persons who qualified in the National Eligibility Test subsequent to the date of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 the first notification, but before the date of issue of Corrigendum, should be considered for selection. 9. Since all the 4 writ petitions raise the same issue, they were clubbed together and taken up for hearing and I have heard Ms.M.Samundeeswari Prabha, the petitioner in W.P.No.6864 of 2011 appearing in person, Mr.R.A.S.Anandharaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.7360 of 2011, Ms.N.Muthulakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.12901 of 2011 and Ms.M.Sumathi Sai Priya, petitioner in W.P.No.13085 of 2011 appearing in person. I have also heard Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader and Mr.K.Rajasekaran, learned counsel appearing for one Mr.N.Gowthaman, who is impleaded as the third respondent in W.P.No.7360 of 2011. 10. As stated earlier, the notification for recruitment of Lecturer (Senior Scale) in the Government Law Colleges was issued on 30.3.2010. Since the notification did not indicate the subject-wise vacancies and also since a Post Graduate in Property Law, cannot be appointed to the post of Lecturer in Labour Law and so on and so forth, a Corrigendum came to be issued on 22.6.2011. 11. The petitioners in all the writ petitions had two qualifications prescribed under the notification. In other words, all the writ petitioners have passed M.L. Degree and even more. They are enrolled in the Bar Council. But the petitioners in all the writ petitions appeared in the National Eligibility Test conducted by the University Grants Commission on 27.6.2010. They were declared qualified in the National Eligibility Test only on 8.10.2010. They received their Certificates in March 2011. 12. In other words, as on 30.3.2010, the date of issue of the original advertisement, the petitioners were not fully qualified as per the rules. It is only after the date of recruitment notification that they became qualified. But they are now trying to take advantage of two facts viz., (i) that they have acquired a pass in National Eligibility Test, before the date of issue of Corrigendum viz., 22.6.2011 and (ii) that they have been permitted by the interim orders passed by this Court, to write the written examinations. 13. Taking advantage of the delay in the process of recruitment and taking advantage of the issue of the Corrigendum, the writ petitioners pray that they should also be considered for recruitment to the post of Lecturers (Senior Scale). But the said prayer is opposed by the impleaded third respondent in W.P.No.7360 of 2011 and also opposed by the Government, on the ground that the eligibility of a person should be determined only with reference to the qualifications as on the date of the notification. 14. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the passing of the National Eligibility Test, subsequent to the date of notification, can be taken into account for determining the eligibility or not. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 15. It is well settled that the eligibility of a person can be determined only with reference to the date of notification. If persons who passed National Eligibility Test subsequent to the date of notification viz., 30.3.2010, are made eligible, then persons who acquired M.L. Degree and persons who enrolled after 30.3.2010, but before 22.6.2011 should also be considered. This will result in utter chaos and confusion. It is well settled that even the employer is not entitled to modify the qualifications prescribed in the recruitment notification, when the process of recruitment is on. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners is wholly unsustainable. 16. As a matter of fact, the relief sought for in the main writ petition is in contrast to the relief sought in the interim applications. In the main writ petitions, the petitioners seek to quash the notifications themselves. In the interim applications, they sought permission to appear for the very same selection. Courts have repeatedly held that persons who participate in the selection, cannot challenge the rules of selection. 17. Moreover, the challenge of the petitioners in the main writ petitions, is not on the ground that the selection notification was contrary to any rule or U.G.C. Regulations or the provisions of the Constitution. The only ground on which the petitioners challenge the selection notification, if put in blunt terms, is that they were not qualified on the date of the notification. Therefore, the writ petitions have no merits. 18. But before dismissing the writ petitions on the ground that the prayers are not sustainable, I must also point out one thing. It is stated that for 29 vacancies advertised in the notification dated 30.3.2010, there were only 32 applicants. Even the impleaded third respondent viz., N.Gowthaman, who has applied for the post of Lecturer in Criminology, admits that for 9 vacancies to the post of Lecturer in the Department of Criminology, there are only 4 applicants. If this is the state of affairs, then all persons who applied should invariably be appointed, irrespective of their merits. This is not actually good for the system of legal education. Therefore, I am unable to dismiss the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners have no case, as it may result in any and every applicant getting appointed to the post for lack of competition and lack of sufficient number of candidates. 19. I am conscious of the fact that the recruitment process has already been delayed for nearly 2 years. But I cannot close my eyes to the prospects of appointment devoid of any competition and selection. 20. Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of, directing the Teachers Recruitment Board to re-examine the issue as to whether it is worthwhile to finalise the selection, with only those candidates who were fully qualified as on the date of notification viz., 30.3.2010 or in the alternative to issue a fresh notification, so that persons who have acquired the qualifications of M.L., and a pass in National Eligibility Test in the past 2 years would also apply, improving the standard of screening. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 21. The respondent shall re-examine and review the matter and take appropriate decision in accordance with law, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, E.V.K. Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, 4h Floor, College Road, Chennai-6. 2.Teachers Recruitment Board, E.V.K. Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, 4h Floor, College Road, Chennai. 3.The Secretary, Law Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 4.The Director of Legal Studies, Purasaivakkam, Chennai. +3ccs to Special Government Pleader,Sr.Nos.45983 to 45986 +1cc to M/s.M.Sumathi Sai Priya, Advocate, Sr.No.45232 +1cc to Mrs.N.Muthulakshmi, Advocate, SR.No.45163 +1cc to Mr.R.A.S.Anandaraj, Advocate, Sr.No.44965 +1cc to Mr.M.Samundeeswari Prabha, Advocate SR.No.45231 svn GH : 05.01.2012 : 6p/12 Order in W.Ps.(MD) 6864. 7360, 12901 and 13085 of 2011 22-12-2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/