S. VISALAKSHI Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful petitioner in the writ petition in W.P. (MD)No.12849 of 2013 is the appellant in the above writ appeal.

(2.) The case of the writ petitioner/appellant is that she is a grand-daughter of Late Subramania Pillai, who was a freedom fighter. Though the Government of Tamil Nadu has enumerated various schemes to give benefit to the freedom fighters and their legal heirs, by providing reservations for the descendants of the freedom fighters for certain Government posts, such a reservation was not provided when the second respondent issued a notification for the recruitment of Assistant Professors in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service for appointment in Government Arts and Science Colleges. The notification is for filling up of 1093 vacancies in various subjects. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the notification issued by the second respondent as published in Thina thanthi dated 28.05.2013 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to implement and follow the policy of the Government by giving priority and fixing quota for the legal heirs of freedom fighters in recruitment for the posts of Assistant Professors for the colleges and permitting the petitioner to apply under the said quota and to consider and select the petitioner and pass such further or other orders.

(3.) Though the contentions of the writ petitioner/appellant are manifold, the prime case of the writ petitioner/appellant is that it is the policy decision of the State Government to give priority to the legal heirs of the freedom fighters and Tamil Scholars in the matter of appointment of posts in various civil services under the State Government. Despite announcing the policy and providing reservations in the appointments of several posts in Government departments and undertakings, the Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai, the second respondent herein, has adopted a different yardstick in the matter of recruitment of Assistant Professors in Government colleges and the notification issued by the second respondent is in violation of the policy decision and amounts to discrimination. It was further contended that the policy decision of the Government have to be scrupulously followed and the second respondent, a nodal agency for the Government, cannot ignore the said policy. The learned counsel also urged before the learned Single Judge that a direction should be issued to the respondents to fix quota for the legal heirs of the freedom fighters. All the contentions of the writ petitioner/appellant were dealt with elaborately by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant was dismissed.