S DENNIE Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in a qualified candidate for the post of Secretary Grade Teacher. He has been appearing every year for theselection of Secondary Grade Teachers asper the notification of the 3rd respondent. He had been unsuccessful in every selectionon some ground or other. This writ petitionis concerned with the selection made for theacademic year 1988?. For about 170vacancies of Secondary Grade Teachers in the Kanyakumari District, the 3rd respondentcalled for applications from the local Employment E xchanges. THE petitioner was oneamong the 2000 candidates who were sponsered by the Employment Exchange. THEpetitioner was called for an interview on31-8-1989. Unfortunately, in this selectionalso, the petitioner was not successful. Thiswrit petition has been filed seeking writ ofmandamus to direct the 3rd respondent toconsider the selection of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher and post him in anythe of the Government Schools under his control. THE complaint of the petitioner in thiswrit petition in that several candidates withlesser qualifications and experience have beenselected, overlooking the claim of the petitioner. THE petitioner attacks the manner inwhich the marks were awarded in the interview.

(2.) IN this connection, it is pertinent topoint out that there are guidelines issued by the Government in the matter of awarding marks at (he interview. They are contained in G O.Ms. No. 909 dated 27-5-1988. The relevant portion of the Government Order is extracted as follows :? ?The Government accordingly issue to the Chief Educational Officers for selecting Seconda'y Grade Teachers for Panchayat Union Elementary Schools & other middle schools for the following revised guidelines for allocation of marks during selection :

(3.) ? Social Service (N.C.C.) ? 2 marks. ? Total ? 16 marks 4. So far as the two cases that are sought to be compared by the petitioner, the marks were awarded as follows :?