AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice P. Jyothimani
The Petitioner who has completed his M. Sc. Botany has also obtained M. Phil, B. Ed and Ph.D and he belonged to B.C. Community. The Teachers Recruitment Board has called for application for direct recruitment of Lecturers in Government Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges of Education through advertisement on 16.09.2006 in respect of 1000 vacancies, out of which 50 vacancies allotted to Botany graduates. In respect of 50 vacancies, 15 were allotted to general turn, (10 general + 5 women), 15 were allotted to Backward Classes, 10 were allotted to Most Backward Community, 9 were allotted to Scheduled Caste (6general + 3 women) and 1 was allotted to Scheduled Tribe. As per the advertisement, the posts are to be filled up based on the marks awarded under four categories namely:
I)Teaching experience
ii)Higher qualifications
iii)Books/articles published and
iv)Marks to be awarded in the oral interview.
The selection is subject to the communal reservation. The marks are awarded as per the advertisement for which the maximum is 50 as follows:
i)Teaching experience in Universities/ Government aided colleges/ self financing
colleges in the approved post
(1 mark for each completed year)
Maximum
- 15
ii)Ph.D. Qualification
(obtained before 13.10.2006)
- 12
iii)M.Phil/Ph.D., with SLET/NET
Qualification (obtained before 13.10.2006)
6
iv)Books/Articles published (referred)
in the relevant subject (2 marks per book
and 1 mark per article)
10
v)Interview marks (Test of subject
knowledge/Teaching ability)
7
Total
50
That was subsequently revised by a fresh advertisement as follows:
i)Educational Qualification
20
ii)Teaching Experience (2 marks per year)
15
iii)Books/Articles published (referred) in the relevant subject (2 marks per book and 1 mark per article)
5
v)Interview marks (Test of subject knowledge/Teaching ability)
10
Total
50
It is also stated that for the purpose of awarding marks regarding educational qualification, the following criteria was notified:
Marks Awarded
i)P.G. Degree with M.Phil (completed after 31.12.1993)
0
ii)P.G. Degree with SLET/NET
5
iii)P.G. Degree with M.Phil(completed before
31.12.1993)
6
iv)P.G. Degree with Ph.D
9
v)P.G. Degree with M.Phil
(completed after 31.12.1993 and
Ph.D)
9
vi)P.G. DegreeM.Phil and
SLET/NET
11
vii)P.G. Degree with M.Phil., (completed before 31.12.1993
and PhD.,)
15
viii)P.G. Degree with Ph.D., and SLET/NET
14
IX)P.G. Degree with M.Phil, Ph.D., and SLET/NET
20
The Petitioner has applied for the post of Lecturer in Botany and the certificate verification was stated to have been conducted and it is stated that while short listing after certificate verification, it was made in the ratio of 1:10 for calling for interview. As per the eligible list, on 27.09.2007, the Petitioner was declare deligible for interview after certificate verification. The Roll Number of the Petitioner is F-06010088 and the list of selected candidates was published 19.11.2007. Thepetitioner was stated to have been secured 26 marks and was not selected. According to the Petitioner, in tha tselection, persons who got only 24 and 20 were selected. The Petitioner obtained the following marks during the said selection in the year 2006-2007:
maximum marks
i)Teaching Experience
6
ii)Educational Qualification
9
iii)Books/Articles
5
v)Interview
7
Total
27
According to him, the teaching experience has not been properly assessed and he should have been awarded29 marks in which event, he had a chance of selection. According to him, the required marks for selection in the year 2006-2007 for Backward Class candidates was 30 and if the teaching experience was properly assessed, he would have been selected. Therefore, he has filed W.P.(MD) No. 10187 of 2007 for a direction against the Teachers Recruitment Board to select the Petitioner and appoint him as a Lecturer as per the notification, dated18.09.2006.
The Petitioner has filed W.P.(MD) No. 4578 of2009 for a direction against the Respondents to award him 6marks as per the U.G.C guidelines. That is in relation to the notification issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board for the year 2008-2009 in which the Petitioner has made application and he was given Roll. No. C06010043. The educational qualification prescribed by the second respondent in the advertisement in respect of 2008-2009other than SC and ST candidates is as follows:
I)P.G. Degree in the relevant subject with minimum 55% marks ii)Pass in the UGC/C.S.I.R/JRF/NET Lecturers in Test or State Level Eligible Test or
iii)P.G. Degree in the relevant subject with a minimum of 55% marks and M. Phil or Ph.D., Degree or both in two relevant subject are eligible to apply. Ph.D in the concerned subject are executed from acquiring NET or SLET test conducted by U.G.C
It is stated that the Petitioner was called for certificate verification on 06.03.2009 at Nagercoil and he was awarded 18 marks in the following manner:
Marks
Teaching experience
7
Educational qualification
9
Books/articles
2
Total
18
Even though in the selection process of the year 2006-2007, in respect of books/articles, he was awarded 5 marks for the same books and articles produced for the selection year 2008-2009, he was granted only 2marks. According to him, for teaching experience also for which 7 marks given, he should have been given 8 marks.
It is also his case that under the journal prescribed by the U.G.C., he has written articles which should have been taken into consideration since according to him, the Teachers Recruitment Board, has not taken in to consideration and given marks in respect of the journals published as per the U.G.C norms which was followed in respect of other districts. The Petitioner was called for personal interview on 10.06.2009 at Chennai. As per the marks, in the interview he was granted 9 marks and totally27 marks and declared not selected in that year also. According to him, the zone of consideration in that year was30 marks for the Backward class community candidates. If 5marks for books and articles as given in the year 2006-2007was awarded in the year 2008-2009 also, he got a chance of selection but 2 marks only was awarded in respect of the same books and articles, and therefore, he has filed W.P.(MD). No. 4578 of 2009 for a direction to award him 6marks. It was in that writ petition, this Court, by an order, dated 06.11.2009, taking note of the fact that for the same books and articles which were produced for the year 2006-2007, he was granted 5 marks but in the year2008-2009, he was given only two marks, has directed the respondents to keep one post of Lecturer in Botany if there is any vacancy as on the said date vacant. The following is the operative portion of the order as follows:
In view of the submission made by the leaned counsel for the Petitioner that for the year 2007. The very same second Respondent has awarded 5marks for the articles in books and thesis and in respect of the very same articles books and thesis, now the Petitioner has been awarded only 2marks, this Court is constrained to direct the respondents herein to keep one post of Lecturer in Botany, provided, if there is any vacancy as on date.
After the selection process for the year 2008-2009 was over, the Petitioner was stated to have not been selected. The Government has issued G.O. Ms. No. 230, Higher Education Department, dated 07.07.2009 impugned in W.P.(MD) No. 10292 of 2010 issuing the selection list of the provisionally selected candidates in which the Respondents4 to 9 were provisionally selected as Lecturers of Botany and challenging the said impugned Government Order and to set aside the selection of Respondents 4 to 9, thepetitioner has filed W.P.(MD) No. 10292 of 2010 on the basis that on the information received under the Right to Information Act on 23.02.2010 relating to the Respondents 4 to 9, the teaching experience of the fourth Respondent is not in conformity with the notification issued by the second Respondent. The fourth Respondent''s teaching experience was not in Botany but he taught the subjects namely, Tissue culture, Cell and molecular biology, Research Methodology, Mari in plants and Biochemistry. There fore, in respect of the fourth Respondent who has not obtained teaching experience in the relevant subject, has been awarded 5 marks for research articles. It is also stated that he has published only one article in the list of journals whereas the Petitioner who has published articles in the Botany has not been awarded marks.
Likewise, the information obtained in respect of the 5th Respondent shows that he was awarded 11 marks for teaching experience while the certificate produced by him was in respect of teaching in Bio-technology stated to have been obtained from the Hearth University and according to the Petitioner, Hearth University is not even having Bio-technology course and apart from the fact that the said subject is not considered as equivalent to Botany. He was also awarded 7 marks for his service rendered for 2 years,3 months and 10 days. Whereas for more experience than him, the Petitioner was given 7 marks for experience. The 6th respondent who has selected with 30 marks maximum and selected was working in the Department of Microbiology and not in Botany.
The information regarding 7th Respondent stated to have shown that he has obtained 31 marks and got selected and according to the Petitioner, he was awarded excess marks for experience of 4 years and two months and marks awarded for the books published by him namely, 5 was inflated against the norms of the second Respondent itself.
Likewise, in respect of the 8th Respondent stated to have obtained 31 marks, he has never worked as a Botany Lecturer and his books like "1. Yeshiva Moligaikalum Maruthuva Muraikalum in Tamil, 2. Bio-technology and3. Edible Mushroom" have no relevancy to the subject butstill marks were awarded to maximum extent. In respect of the 9th Respondent who was granted 31 marks and got selected, the documents produced by him have never revealed as to the experience which he has gathered as a Lecturer but he was awarded 5 marks for the books and articles published on a topic namely, Botany a Human concerned, Bryothyte and in Tamil and Man nutpavial and he was awarded13 marks for teaching experience and 5 marks for books and articles which according to the Petitioner is not in accordance with the guidelines issued.
In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent in respect of W.P.(MD) No. 10292 of 2010, it is stated that while the Petitioner was one among the applicants applied for the post of Lecturer in Botany and called for certificate verification on 06.03.2009, he was awarded 9 marks for educational qualification, 7 marks for teaching experience and 2 marks for publication of articles. Since he was short listed at the ratio of 1:5 and belonged to Backward Class community in its turn, he was called for interview in which he has secured 9 marks and totally, he has secured 27/39 marks. The cut off mark for the last selected candidate in Backward Class is stated to be 30 marks out of 39. The writ Petitioner having got only27 marks could not be selected. While so, meeting the allegation of the Petitioner that for the year 2006-2007for the same publication, he was granted 5 marks for which in the year 2008-2009, he was granted only 2 marks, it is stated that in 2009, when the Board has scrutinized the certificates, it was found that the journals produced by the Petitioner did not find place in the list of approved journals given by the Teachers Recruitment Board and therefore, no marks were awarded. This was stated to be, based on instructions of the Director of Collegiate Education and Director of Cinerama Public Library who issued certain instructions, based on which the Teachers Recruitment Board issued certain guidelines for the year2009, by way of revised norms for certificate verification and therefore, the Petitioner cannot compare himself with the marks awarded to him in the year 2007-2008. It is also denied that the marks awarded in respect of Respondents 4to 9 are improper. Therefore, it is reiterated that the journals published by the Petitioner were not find place in the list approved by the Teachers Recruitment Board and therefore, he was given two marks in the year 2009. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in the year2009-2010 when the Teachers Recruitment Board has called for further recruitment process, the norms have been changed while the teaching experience and educational qualification and interview were retained, the marks hit her to awarded for publications. When the Petitioner has participated in the said selection process, he was awarded marks as follows:
Marks
Teaching experience
10
Educational qualification
9
Books/articles
6
Total
25
and declared as not selected admitting that the selected candidates got 30 marks.
Now on the factual aspect which has been discussed above, one thing is certain that the recruitment process in the year 2006-2007 and 2008-2009 were similar. Marks were obtained on 4 categories namely, teaching experience, books and articles, educational qualification and interview marks. Books and articles have been deleted in the selection process of the year 2009-2010. It is admitted that the Petitioner produced the same books and articles which were produced in the selection process of the year 2006-2007 and also in the process of selection for the year 2008-2009. It is also admitted that while for the same books and articles in the 2006-2007 year selection, the mark awarded to the Petitioner was 5 while it was two in the 2008-2009 year selection. The reason given is that in the year 2008-2009, the assessment regarding the books and articles, has been changed as per the direction of the Director of Collegiate Education. But that is not seen in the notification issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board. While it is true that in the year of 2009-2010 selection process, the marks relating to the books and articles was taken away and the marks relating to the teaching experience has remained. In respect of the teaching experience of the Petitioner for the year 2006-2007, he was given 6 marks while 2008-2009 he was given 7 marks and curiously for the year 2009-2010, he was given 10 marks. This shows definitely a discrepancy in the process of selection by the Teachers Recruitment Board.
It is true that in respect of the allegation made by the Petitioner against the Respondents 4 to 9 for having granted marks for the books and articles, it is not for this Court to substitute its views as to whether the articles are relevant or not, it is for the Teachers Recruitment Board being the authority constituted for the specified purpose is the better person to assess but the concern of the Court is that in respect of the Petitioner himself at least regarding the experience there has been discrepancy, the same Board which has found and awarded 6marks in the year 2006-2007 for teaching experience to thepetitioner has chosen to award 7 marks in the year 2008-2009 but 10 marks in the year 2009-2010. The discrepancy is also in respect of the books and articles for the year2006-2007 and 2008-2009. As stated above, for the same articles in 2006-2007, he was granted 5 marks but in 2008-2009, it was made two marks. If the same 5 marks was given in 2008-2009, the Petitioner had a chance to come with in the zone of consideration for the selection since admittedly, Backward class Community candidates with 30marks were selected in that year.
In the absence of any counter affidavit filed by the Teachers Recruitment Board in the writ petitions(MD) Nos. 4578 and 10187 of 2007 repudiating the reservation of one post, it has to be presumed that as per the inter indirection given by this Court one post of Lecturer in Botany is kept vacant. Since on the general principle that in educational matters especially in awarding marks, the authority competent alone is entitled to assess and grant marks and the Court cannot substitute its view regarding the selection, this Court is of the view that the selection of the Respondents 4 to 9 cannot be interfered with especially when there is no patent irregularity or illegality in the selection. But at the same time, while considering the discrepancies patent on record in respect of awarding of the marks on three occasions namely 2006-2007 and 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 in respect of thepetitioner himself, and also taking note of the fact that the Petitioner has been missing narrowly by three marks only and there are justifications to hold that either in the teaching experience where there has been 10 marks granted in the year 2009-2010 which was 7 marks in the year2008-2009 and there was three marks difference and if that mark was granted, the Petitioner certainly would have been selected.
Likewise, if the books and articles are taken, the marks in 2006-2007 and 2008-2009 there has been three marks difference and if that was given, the Petitioner would have been selected for the post. Therefore, on the finding of discrepancy patently on record, in these three selection process, I am of the view that instead of setting aside the selection of the selected candidates, who seselection cannot be held to be invalid and taking note of the fact that there has been an order of interim direction to keep one post of Lecturer in Botany vacant which is not repudiated, the Petitioner must be given the benefit of the same. This Court is conscious of the fact that the Courts are not entitled to award marks. But on the facts elicited above, it is clear that all is not well in the selection process made by the second Respondent at least in respect of the Petitioner since there are no materials available for this Court to test in respect of others.
Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of with a direction against the Teachers Recruitment Board to consider the case of the Petitioner for want of three marks so as to accommodate him in the selection process of the year 2008-2009 to bring the Petitioner within the zone of consideration for selection and pass appropriate orders with in a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such awarding, if thepetitioner comes within the zone of consideration of selection, suitable orders shall be passed within a period of four weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneo us petitions are closed.