K. Gunavathi vs V. Sangeeth Kumar & Ors

3. The reference to the recurrent dispute between the two warring groups seeking either to retain or obtain employment would necessarily require this Court to traverse the complex factual matrix once again notwithstanding the fact that in each of the challenges before the High Court as well as this Court a sequential narration of the relevant facts has been made. As, unless the same are repeated herein the issues will not crystallize and, therefore, there is no option but once again to recapitulate the events of the past.

4. Some time in the year 1999, the Government of Tamil Nadu took a policy decision to offer computer science as an elective subject to students of classes 11 and 12 in the government higher secondary schools of the State. To give effect to the said policy the State Government awarded a five year contract to the Electronic Corporation of Tamil Nadu (ELCOT) to provide not only computer hardware and software but also the man power for conducting the classes. ELCOT therefore engaged Computer Instructors numbering 1332 in the first phase (1999) and 1062 in the second phase (2000). Such placements were made through different employment agencies.

5. After the contract with ELCOT had ended in February, 2005, the State Government by a G.O. MS No. 187 dated 4.10.2006 notified its decision to create one post of Computer Instructor in every government higher secondary school of the State (1880 schools) in the payscale of Rs. 5500-175-9000/-. A decision was also taken to regularize the services of the Computer Instructors appointed by ELCOT against the said posts subject to their clearing a special test to be held by the Teachers Recruitment Board. The minimum marks in order to be selected was fixed at 50%. Inbuilt in the said decision was to relax the educational qualifications for such Computer Instructors, namely, the B.Ed. degree which they did not possess. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Madras High Court in a batch of writ petitions by the B.Ed. degree holders which were allowed by order dated 13.03.2007. In the Writ Appeal before the Division Bench (Writ Appeal No. 1215/2007), the State Government took the stand that the recruitment test proposed for serving Computer Instructors by waiving the eligibility requirement of B.Ed. degree was a one time exception and that all future recruitments would be made from eligible candidates having the B.Ed. qualification, based on employment exchange seniority, without any preference to the existing Computer Instructors. The Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 22.08.2008 allowed the Writ Appeal in the above terms.

6. The aforesaid order of the Division Bench dated 22.08.2008 was challenged by the B.Ed. qualified teachers before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4187 of 2009 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 25097 of 2008). While issuing notice on 13.10.2008, this Court had passed an interim order to the effect that the appointment of Computer Instructors pursuant to the order dated 22.08.2008 of the Division Bench of the High Court will be subject to the result of the appeals. The recruitment test was held on 12.10.2008. However, contrary to the government decision that only those candidates who had secured 50% marks would be selected, in the result published, 1686 number of candidates were shown as selected out of which only 894 had secured 50% or more marks whereas the remaining 792 candidates had secured between 35% and 50% marks. It also appears that based on the aforesaid selection the government proceeded to appoint a total of 1683 candidates. Out of the remaining 197 posts that remained vacant (1880-1683 = 197) 22 posts were covered by various interim orders of the High Court leaving the actual number of vacancies at 175. The figures mentioned above would be relevant in the light of the developments that took place subsequently which are being noted separately.

8. Several applications for clarification etc. of the order dated 09.07.2009 came to be filed before this Court. Of the said applications, I.A. No. 4 of 2009 filed by the State Government would be of particular significance insofar as the present adjudication is concerned. The prayer made in the said I.A. are, therefore, extracted below.

“(a) Clarify and permit the State Government to conduct examination to the candidates who have secured 35% to 49% marks in the examination and declare the results of the candidates who secured more than 50% marks as eligible candidates for appointment.

11. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 9.7.2009 read with the clarificatory order dated 19.11.2009, a second recruitment test was held on 24.01.2010. The said test, for reasons not known, was however confined only to those Computer Instructors who had secured between 35-50% marks in the first recruitment test i.e. the “failed candidates” though in terms of the order of this Court dated 9.7.2009 there were three categories of candidates who were entitled to participate in the said recruitment test i.e. ‘failed candidates’, ‘open market candidates’ and ‘employment exchange candidates’. The conduct of the recruitment test in a limited manner also did not come under challenge before any forum. Out of the 792 candidates (failed candidates) who had appeared in the second recruitment test only 125 secured 50% marks and above and 667 candidates once again failed. A writ petition i.e. WP No. 7567 of 2010 was filed before the Madras High Court to declare the second recruitment test as null and void due to certain anomalies in the answer key. The said writ petition was dismissed. In the appeal filed (Writ Appeal No. 837 of 2010), by order dated 20.12.2012, the appellate Bench of the High Court while rejecting the prayer for a fresh examination had directed the Teachers Recruitment Board to reassess the merit of the candidates by eliminating 20 defective questions. Pursuant to the above exercise undertaken, only 15 out of the 667 failed candidates had passed, thereby, reducing the number of failed candidates to 652. As the services of the aforesaid failed candidates were being allowed to continue instead of being terminated and as the selection for the resultant vacancies consequential to such termination was not being undertaken, the B.Ed. qualified candidates filed a contempt petition before the High Court (Contempt Petition No. 1270 of 2013) alleging disobedience and contending that the vacancies (652) are required to be filled up on the basis of the employment exchange seniority. During the pendency of the said proceeding the services of the 652 candidates (twice failed) were terminated. Against the aforesaid terminations, several writ petitions were filed wherein a common interim order dated 30.04.2013 was passed by holding that :-

12. Aggrieved by the aforesaid directions, both the B.Ed. degree holders and the terminated teachers had filed Writ Appeals which were numbered as W.A. No. 1307 of 2013 and W.A.Nos.1088 and 1089 of 2013 respectively. All the writ petitions that were filed by the terminated Computer Instructors were heard alongwith the writ appeals. All such cases were disposed of by the impugned common order dated 18.09.2003. It is the validity of the aforesaid common order, particularly directions (vi) and (vii) contained in para 53 thereof (extracted above), that has been assailed in the present appeals. Three of the civil appeals (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 36170/2013, 33677/2013 and 35624/2013) have been filed by the B.Ed. degree holders whereas the fourth civil appeal (arising out of SLP(C) No. 5044/2014) is by a terminated teacher who seeks to make a common ground with the B.Ed. degree holders as the said appellant had in the meantime obtained a B.Ed. degree.

27. We accordingly allow these appeals and set aside directions (vi) and

(vii) of Para 53 of the impugned order dated 18.09.2013 of the High Court and direct that recruitment to the 652 vacant posts shall be made on the basis of employment exchange seniority. We also make it clear that the above direction shall also govern the 175 existing vacancies covered by the order of this Court dated 19.11.2009 if the same continue to remain vacant as on date. To all other vacancies, existing or future, as may be, the State will be at liberty to follow such policy as may be in force or considered appropriate.

...…………………………CJI.