K. BALASUNDARI Vs. THE CHAIRMAN TEACHERS RECRUITMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 07.11.2012 dismissing W.P. No.22486 of 2012, wherein the appellant herein/writ petitioner had prayed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus for quashing the selection list for appointment to the post of Graduate Assistants published on 01.08.2012 by the Chairman of the Teachers Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai -600 006, namely the first respondent herein and to direct the first respondent herein to issue appointment order to the appellant/writ petitioner as per the selection list published on 20.07.2012.

(2.) THE appellant herein completed her graduation in Tamil and obtained a B.Litt degree in April 1991. She had also completed Tamil Pandit training in July 1992 and got her name registered in the Employment Exchange on 27.10.1992 with Registration No. 1991F07171. She also completed her Post - Graduate course and obtained M.A. degree in April 1994 and the same was also registered with the Employment Exchange subsequently. A number of vacancies for the Graduate Assistant posts in the Government High Schools, Corporation Schools and the schools run by Adi Dravidar Welfare Department were notified to be filled up in accordance with State level employment seniority, from out of the candidates to be sponsored by the second respondent in the ratio of 1:5. After certificate verification, the first respondent published a provisional selection list on 20.07.2012 (according to the respondents the correct date of the provisional list was 17.07.2012) in which the writ petitioner's name was found a place and she was shown to have been selected against the General Turn (Women) as per the roster. However, subsequently, the said provisional selection list was cancelled by the first respondent and a revised selection list, in which the appellant's name was not included, came to be published on 01.08.2012. Hence the appellant approached this court with the writ petition seeking the above said relief.

(3.) THE learned single Judge accepted the reason assigned by the respondents and dismissed the writ petition holding the appellant not entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition. Hence the appellant is before us with the present Writ Appeal.