LAWS(MAD)-2011-9-99

P RENUGA Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE

Decided On September 21, 2011
P Renuga Appellant
V/S
Assistant Director District Employment Exchange Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to the respondents to include her name in the list of Scheduled Tribe Candidate for the post of Physical Education Teacher and for a consequential direction to the second respondent Teacher Recruitment Board (TRB) to appoint her under the quota meant for the Scheduled Tribe Community.

(2.) WHEN the writ petition came up on 24.09.2009, the learned Special Government Pleader was directed to take notice. Subsequently, it was admitted on 19.10.2009. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner's prayer for interim direction to reserve one post and for a direction to include her name in the eligible list of Scheduled Tribe candidate were dismissed by this Court on 19.10.2009.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner was that she had acquired the qualification of Bachelor Degree in Physical Education and Sports Science (BPES) in May 2003. She got herself registered with the Employment Exchange on 31.07.2003 for the purpose of being considered for the post of Physical Education Teacher. She claimed that she belong to Konda Reddy Community, which is a notified Scheduled Tribe Community under the Presidential order. She also obtained a community certificate from the Tahsildar, Mettur on 25.04.1987 and in all her school records, her community was shown as Konda Reddy, which is a Scheduled Tribe Community. On 17.09.2009, the first respondent had issued a statement which was also published in the Dinakaran Daily Newspaper stating that the seniority list for the selection of Physical Education Teacher had been released by the Teacher Recruitment Board on the basis of the Employment Registration Seniority applicable to the communities. As per the said statement, the Scheduled Tribe Candidates who got registered their names upto 09.09.2009 are eligible to be included, whereas the name of the petitioner was not included and therefore, because of the negligence of the respondents, she lost her opportunity of getting employed under the State.