R.THIYAGARAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is a Lecturer under the third respondent at District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Madurai from 05.01.2007, having been appointed through direct recruitment. The School Education Department framed adhoc rules of Tamil Nadu Teacher Education Service Rules, which was approved by the Government and published in the Gazette vide G.O.(Ms)No.133, dated 14.06.2007. The said rules prescribed qualifications for various posts. The Government also included some provisions, which have been inadvertently omitted earlier with respect to the qualifications of Senior Lecturer recruitment, and the said amendment was made vide G.O(Ms) No.261, dated 07.09.2010.

(2.) While so, the second respondent called for applications for direct appointment of Senior Lecturer, vide Advertisement No.03 dated 31.12.2011. The said notification prescribed the qualifications for the said post as per the amended rules. One of the requisite qualification is that the candidate should possess teaching experience of five years as Lecturer in Directorate of Teacher's Education, Research and Training (DTERT) or District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) in the State of Tamil Nadu or in the recognised Teacher Training Institute (TTI) mentioned in Clause 4(B)(3) of the said advertisement of the second respondent. As the petitioner is already a Lecturer in DIET, T.Kallupatti, Madurai District from 2007, with teaching experience of more than eight years, applied for the said post of Senior Lecturer. A competitive written examination was held on 04.03.2012. The second respondent, after proper certificate verification, published the results, in which, the name of the petitioner was in the second place, in the subject category of Botany. The first place went to the fourth respondent herein, though he did not have the requisite qualification, as mandated by the prescribed rules.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent was working in a school and he did not have the teaching experience as Lecturer either in DTERT or in DIET. Therefore, he could not be appointed to the post of Senior Lecturer in Botany. However, after the revised certificate verification, the second respondent published a provisional selection list on 10.04.2015, mentioned only the name of the fourth respondent and the name of the petitioner was omitted. Though the petitioner possessed all the required qualifications, for the post of Senior Lecturer, he was not selected and this would be the last opportunity for the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has moved this Court challenging the appointment of the fourth respondent contending that the fourth respondent did not have the requisite qualifications as per the rules. The relaxation granted to the fourth respondent for the above appointment is also assailed by the petitioner.