M JAYANTHI Vs. TEACHERS RECRUITMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) IT is stated by the petitioners that after completing the plus two course and the Diploma in Teacher's Training, they had registered their names in the employment exchange. They were fully qualified for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Assistant. Till the year 1990, appointments to the post of Secondary Grade Assistant were made based on the interview. In the year 1993, the selection for the said post was to be done through the Teacher's Recruitment Board, based on a written examination and an interview. Since the new system was adverse to those who had undertaken the plus two Course and the Teacher Training Course under the old syllabus, it was challenged before this Court. Even though a direction had been issued for conducting an examination to enable the candidates who had studied the plus two course under the old syllabus, the first respondent had conducted the examination without following the orders passed by this Court. Though the petitioners had written the examination very well, they were not selected. The selection list announced by the proceedings, dated 4.1.95, is illegal and liable to be quashed. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.6403 of 1995, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.16116 of 2006.

(3.) IN view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondents, it is seen that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause or reason to substantiate their claims. It cannot be said that the procedure adopted by the first respondent to select the candidates for the post of Secondary Grade Assistant, by conducting a written examination and an interview is arbitrary or illegal. The petitioners have not shown as to how the procedure is contrary to law. Further, it is a policy decision of the Government to adopt certain procedures to be followed while recruiting persons for the various posts in the Government Departments. Unless such procedures are shown to be contrary to law or the specific rules framed for the purpose, it cannot be said to be illegal or void. Further, the petitioners have not shown the order of this Court which the first respondent is alleged to have violated. Even otherwise, if such an order had been violated by the first respondent, it was open to the petitioners to initiate necessary action against the first respondent at the appropriate stage. IN such circumstances, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.