P SREE KUMAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition in W.P.No.29404 of 2007 has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Graduate Assistant in Physics in any of the Government High Schools as he had been selected in the competitive examination conducted by the 2nd respondent Board and thereafter to take recourse to the recruitment of Graduate Teachers through employment exchange based on the seniority.

(2.) The petitioner being B.Sc. Graduate in Physics and B.Ed in the same subject of physics, is working as a Teacher in a Private School. The 2nd respondent, Teacher Recruitment Board, issued a notification on 02.09.2006 for recruitment of Graduate Assistants for Government Middle/High/Higher Secondary Schools for the year 2006-2007. The Government resolved to fill up the post of Graduate Assistants through competitive examination instead of appointing on the basis of their seniority in the employment exchange, since the appointment through competitive examination would be more meritorious. The petitioner, in response to the notification issued by the 2nd respondent, submitted his duly filled in application form. The 2nd respondent conducted the examination on 05.09.2006 for selection of Graduate Assistants, in which the petitioner, Sree Kumar, also appeared with Roll No.G04290076 and subsequently, on 01.12.2006, the results of the examination were also published in the website of 2nd respondent's board. On 12.01.2007, the 1st selection list was published and thereafter, the 2nd respondent has filled up 3,312 vacancies for all subjects. Out of 3,312 vacancies, 476 vacancies pertained to the physics teacher and the petitioner appointment was also for the post of physics teacher. Thereafter, on 10.04.2007, the 2nd respondent called for certificate verification and in the supplementary list, the petitioner's name was 75 in the seniority. On 23.04.2007, the petitioner certificate was also verified by the 2nd respondent. Again, on 09.05.2007, the provisional selection list, after certificate verification, was published and out of 144 vacancies of physics teachers, 126 candidates were appointed. In view of appointment of 20 candidates from the list of General Turn(GT), the petitioner appointment as Graduate Assistants got delayed. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation dated 20.08.2007 requesting the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Graduate Assistants in Physics based on his selection in the list for the year 2006-2007. But the respondents did not come forward to reply to the representation. Whileso, on 02.09.2007, the 2nd respondent issued a notification in their official website stating that 5098 Graduate Teachers were going to be provisionally selected as Graduate Assistants for Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan for school education based on employment exchange seniority. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner based on the selection list drawn up in the competitive examination for the post of Graduate Assistants held during 2006-2007 as per the Seniority in the employment exchange is illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of 2nd respondent policy.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the action of the 1st respondent announcing that the recruitment of Graduate Assistants would be based on the seniority from the employment exchange on the ground that appointment through competitive examination had not produced the desired results in getting young and meritorious candidates, is untenable and hence, it is not open to the respondents to go back again to the employment exchange without exhausting the list of selected candidates based on competitive examination held by the 2nd respondent. Because, the 2nd respondent after inviting eligible candidates like the petitioner by conducting competitive examination in the year 2006-2007 for selection of Graduate Assistants and after filling up 3000 posts from out of the list already prepared in which the petitioner was also found selected and without appointing the petitioner as Graduate Assistants in Physics, all of a sudden abandoning the list and again going for recruitment based on the seniority maintained in the employment exchange is not just and reasonable. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents should have exhausted the list of selected candidates and after exhausting the list of selected candidates, they could go in for making appointments based on employment exchange seniority maintained therein, but without completing one process, all of a sudden in the midway, that too, after selecting the petitioner to the post of Graduate Assistants in Physics through competitive examination, leaving the petitioner in ditch, the 2nd respondent again abandoned one selection process and gone to another selection process and the said exercise was termed as violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, he also relied upon the Supreme Court Judgment reported in 1991(3) SCC 47 (SHANKARSAN DASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once a list has been operated, the respondent cannot arbitrarily abandon the list. Finally, it was also brought to the notice of the Court that at the time of issuance of the notice on the present writ petition, this Court having seen the plight of the petitioner, was pleased to reserve one post vacant .