Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to appropriately modify and amend the clause 5(b) of the Prospectus issued for Direct Recruitment of Senior Lecturers in District Institutes of Education and Training under the Director of Teacher Education Research and Training 2011 so as to incorporate the clause for relaxation of 5% marks in M.Ed, Degree in respect of candidates belong to SC/ST category and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of Senior Lecturer in History based on his application dated 20.1.2012
ORDER
The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the first respondent viz., Teacher Recruitment Board to appropriately modify or amend Para 5(b) of the prospectus issued, calling for applications for direct recruitment to the post of Senior Lecturers in District Institutes of Education and Training coming under the Directorate of Teacher Education and also to grant necessary relaxation of 5 marks from the requirement of having 55% in M.Ed Degree in respect of candidates belonging to Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes and also to consider the petitioner's case for selection to the post of Senior Lecturer in History based upon his application dated 20.01.2012
2. When the matter came up on 15.02.2012, this Court was not inclined to admit the writ petition and directed the learned Special Government Pleader to take notice. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed M.P No. 2 of 2012 seeking to amend the prayer in the writ petition so as to set aside the condition found in para 5(b) of the prospectus. Para 5(a&b) of the prospectus prescribes the minimum educational qualifications for the post which reads as follows:-
“5a) General Qualifications: The candidate should possess a minimum general qualification as defined in schedule to the General Rule for the Tamilnadu State and Subordinate Service and M.A/M.Sc Degree (in 11+1+3+2/10+2+3+2 pattern) with Tamil, English, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Botany, Zoology, History and Geography as Major subjects obtained from a recognised University with 50% Marks. (Both UG and PG Degrees should be in the same subject).
b. Professional Qualifications: The candidate should possess the following professional qualifications as follows: M.Ed Degree with 55% Marks obtained from a Recognised University. Direct M.Ed (without B.Ed) Degree holders are not eligible.”
3. The case of the petitioner was that he was appointed as Lecturer in History in June 2000 in Union Teacher Training Institute and his appointment was approved by the Department. Subsequently, he was appointed as Lecturer in History from 01.12.2004 to 28.02.2007 in Priyadarshini Teacher Training Institute, Velliyur and his appointment was approved by the Department. Thereafter, he was appointed as Lecturer in History in Sri. Krishna Teacher Training Institute from 01.03.2007 to 30.10.2008 and his appointment was approved. Subsequently, he was appointed as Principal of E.S Subramaniam Memorial Teacher Training Institute on 15.02.2008 and worked up to 06.08.2010 and once again appointed as Principal in Sri. Sathiyasai Teacher Training Institute and working as as Principal as on date. All these appointments were approved and therefore, it can be presumed that he has necessary qualification for holding the post of Lecturer in History in the Teacher Training Institute. But in the prospectus it was stated that candidate who is holding M.Ed Degree must have 55% marks, but there is no provision made for 5% relaxation. Hence, the order must be declared to be bad in law.
4. Ms. Kavitha, learned counsel representing Mr. G. Sankaran, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Bhagat Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (1997) 11 SCC 417 for contending that compensatory discrimination should be made in respect of people belonging to SC/ST candidates and lower standard of eligibility must be prescribed. In paragraph 5, the Supreme Court held as follows:-
“5. ….It was further submitted by Shri. Nayar that in respect of candidates other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, normally those obtaining far higher than 55 per cent marks become eligible for consideration. That may or may not be so but what is required is that we must ensure efficiency in administration. We must, therefore, objectively, rationally and by a conscious process — conscious in the sense by application of mind to the relevant factors arrive at a percentage which should be considered to be a minimum one in order to ensure the efficiency of the administration. We are conscious that high efficiency is required because the recruitment is in the judicial branch, that is to say, for prospective judicial officers who will be in charge of administration of justice in the country. But at the same time, if possible, in order to ensure that there is equality of opportunity, a percentage should be fixed without, in any way, compromising with the efficiency required for the job which will be attainable by backward communities, that is to say, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Unless such a percentage is fixed on the aforesaid basis and a percentage is fixed for qualification which would normally be unattainable by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes determined on an objective basis, it would not be possible to ensure equality of opportunity. Both Shri. Mahabir Singh and Shri. Nayar have urged that the minimum must be presumed to have been so fixed in the Haryana Service. However, that fact is not apparent and there is nothing on record to indicate that this percentage was fixed deliberately on an analysis and careful examination and determination on the lines and the principles indicated above.”
5. However, it is not clear as to how such procedure can be laid in altering the minimum qualification prescribed by the authorities, on the contrary, it is always open to the appointing authority. In the present case, the State Government has prescribed minimum general educational qualification for being considered for the said post. If once the authorities have prescribed qualification, the said standard cannot be diluted in any form especially by the Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution. On the other hand, the petitioner's contention that as a matter of right, there must be relaxation is not borne out by the judgment referred to by her.
6. In the absence of any legal or enforceable right, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Comments