R. MUTHUSELVI Vs. SECRETARY TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission issued Notification No.18/ 2014 with Advertisement No.401/2014 dated 14.10.2014 inviting applications only through on-line mode upto 12.11.2014 for appointment to the written examination for direct recruitment against the vacancies for several posts, namely, Junior Assistant, Bill Collector Grade-I, Typist, Steno-Typist Grade-III etc., making it clear that the last date for submission of applications was on 12.11.2014, the last date for payment of fee through bank or post office was on 14.11.2014 and the date and time of written examination was on 21.12.2014. Thereafter, while indicating the cut-off date for possessing the educational qualification for all the posts, the said notification mentioned 14.10.2014 as the cut-off date for B(i) educational qualification, which is the common qualification for all the posts. However, for possessing the B(ii) technical qualification for the post of Typist or Steno-typist Grade-III, no cut-off date was mentioned, giving rise to the present dispute in all these writ petitions.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, leading the arguments, submitted that in pursuance of the notification in Advertisement No.401/2014 dated 14.10.2014 calling for applications for recruitment to the post of Typist Group IV, all the petitioners applied for the same and all of them were issued with the hall tickets with individual register number. Thereafter, the written examination was conducted on 21.12.2014 and after taking part in the said examination, all the petitioners became successful in the written examination. Hence they were all issued with the individual call letters for certificate verification as per the rank position. On the dates of certificate verification notified on different dates from 13.7.2015 at the office of the respondent Commission in Chennai, the respondent raised a dispute over the acquisition of technical qualification by the petitioners in Senior Grade Typewriting both English and Tamil after the date of notification, namely, 14.10.2014. However, it was explained that the notification required the basic qualification of SSLC acquired prior to the date of notification and with regard to the technical qualification of Typewriting, it was indicated that the same should have been acquired prior to the date of certificate verification. Thereupon, after the verification of certificates, they were informed that they would be called for further counselling. Thereafter the respondent issued the impugned order containing the register numbers of the candidates called for counselling for recruitment to the post of Typist, in which the register numbers of the petitioners were missing, as a result one of the candidates, E.Ezhilarasi filed W.P.No.22934 of 2015 before the Principal Seat of this Court, in which an interim order was passed directing the respondent to permit the her to participate in the counselling.

(3.) While canvassing the claim of S.Priyanga, the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.139 of 2016, the learned senior counsel contended that after passing SSLC during 2009, Higher Secondary Course during 2011 and again completed B.C.A. Degree during 2014, she completed the Senior Grade Tamil and English Typewriting during August, 2014. Since the last examination in respect of Senior Grade English and Tamil Typewriting was held on 31.8.2014 and the results thereof were published on 24.10.2014 and the notification for the present recruitment to the post of Typist came to be issued on 14.10.2014 fixing the last date for submission of applications on 12.11.2014, it cannot be put against the petitioner for the reason that even much prior to the last date for submitting the applications, namely, on 12.11.2014, she should be deemed to have acquired the Senior Grade Typewriting in English and Tamil on the date following the last date of examination, because on 31.8.2014, she wrote the examination in respect of Senior Grade Typewriting in English and Tamil. Therefore the petitioner is deemed to have acquired the qualification on 31.8.2014, as such there is no impediment to treat the petitioner as qualified.