ஒரே ஆண்டில் எம்.ஏ., மற்றும் பி.எட்., படித்தவருக்கு பணி , மதுரை ஐகோர்ட் கிளை நீதிமன்ற ஆணை
செய்தது ஒரே ஆண்டில் எம்.ஏ., மற்றும் பி.எட்., படித்தவருக்கு பணி வழங்க மறுத்த ஆசிரியர்
தேர்வு வாரிய உத்தரவை, மதுரை ஐகோர்ட் கிளை ரத்து செய்தது.திண்டுக்கல் தீபா தாக்கல் செய்தமனு: பி.ஏ., (தமிழ்) 2004--07 ல் படித்தேன். பி.எட்.,ஜூலை 2008ல் தேர்ச்சி பெற்றேன். 2008ல்எம்.ஏ.,(தமிழ்) படிப்பில் சேர்ந்தேன். 2009 நவம்பரில் எம்.ஏ.,தேர்ச்சி பெற்றேன். முதுகலை பட்டதாரி (தமிழ்)ஆசிரியர்நியமனத்திற்கான தேர்வு 2012 அக்டோபரில் எழுதினேன். 108 மதிப்பெண்பெற்றேன்.'எம்.ஏ., மற்றும் பி.எட்., ஒரே ஆண்டில்படித்துள்ளதால் விதிகள்படி பணி நியமனம் வழங்க முடியாது' என ஆசிரியர் தேர்வு வாரிய உறுப்பினர் செயலாளர் 2013 ஜன.,20 ல் நிராகரித்தார்.அதை ரத்து செய்து பணி வழங்க உத்தரவிட வேண்டும்,
எனகுறிப்பிட்டார்.நீதிபதி கே.ரவிச்சந்திரபாபு விசாரித்தார். மனுதாரர் தரப்பில் வக்கீல்கள் வி.பன்னீர்செல்வம்,ராமநாதன்ஆஜராகினர். நீதிபதி உத்தரவு: மனுதாரர் பி.ஏ., முடித்தபின் பி.எட்., படித்துள்ளார். பின் எம்.ஏ., படித்துள்ளார். பி.எட்., மற்றும்எம்.ஏ.,ஒரே காலத்தில் படிக்கவில்லை. பணி மறுத்த உத்தரவு ரத்து செய்யப் படுகிறது. மனுதாரருக்கு முதுகலை ஆசிரியர்பணி வழங்க வேண்டும்
மதுரை ஐகோர்ட் கிளை நீதிமன்ற ஆணை
S.Deepa
... Petitioner
Vs.
The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Teacher Recruitment Board,
Chennai.
... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in connection
with the impugned order of the respondent vide proceedings dated Nil and
quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to appoint the
petitioner as P.G. Assistant in the recruitment year 2012 with all attendant
and service benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Panneerselvam for
Mr.K.Ramanathan
For Respondents : Mr.V.Muruganantham
Addl. Govt. Pleader
:ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the respondent
rejecting the petitioner's candidature for the post of P.G Assistant (Tamil)
on the ground that she studied M.A., B.Ed., in the same year.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-
She completed her B.A., (Tamil) regular degree during the academic year
2004-2007. Thereafter, she joined B.Ed., in the academic year 2007-2008, for
which, examination was conducted in April 2008. She passed the B.Ed., degree
in the month of July 2008. After the result, she joined the M.A., (two
years) Tamil in the academic year 2008 November to 2009 November. First year
examination of M.A., was conducted in November 2008 and the second year
examination was conducted in November 2009. She passed M.A., in November
2009. After obtaining the above degree, she participated in the examination
conducted by the respondent in the month of October 2012 for the post of P.G.
Assistant (Tamil). She was successful in the examination by obtaining 108
marks. However, the respondent declined to give appointment to the
petitioner on the ground that she studied M.A., as well as B.Ed., in the same
year.
3. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein it
is stated that at the time of certificate verification, it was found that the
petitioner passed B.Ed., degree course in July 2008 and she wrote M.A.,
(Tamil) in November 2009 and passed M.A., (Tamil). Because the petitioner
pursued both B.Ed., course and M.A., (Tamil) course during the same academic
year, the petitioner was not selected for appointment.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
reasons stated in the impugned order is factually not correct, since the
petitioner has passed the B.Ed., course in April 2008 and joined the M.A.,
course on 12.06.2008 and passed the same in the examination conducted in the
month of November 2009, for which the result was published on 15.04.2010.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent reiterated the contentions raised in the counter affidavit and
submitted that the petitioner was not selected as she studied M.A., B.Ed., in
the same year.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed before this Court.
7. The issue involved in this case is as to whether the petitioner has
studied both M.A., and B.Ed., in the same academic year as contended by the
respondent or not.
8. The B.Ed., degree certificate issued to the petitioner dated
12.11.2008 with Register No.A8400907 would show that the petitioner has
passed B.Ed., degree during the month of April 2008. Further, the statement
of marks issued by the Madurai Kamaraj University for M.A., (Tamil) course in
respect of the petitioner as found in the typed set of papers would show that
the examination for the said course was conducted in the month of November
2009 and the date of publication of result was on 15.04.2010. Further the
course completion certificate issued by the Madurai Kamarai University dated
11.02.2010 in favour of the petitioner would also show that she completed the
course of study in M.A., (Tamil) during January 2008 to December 2009.
9. Considering the above stated facts, I am of the view that the
respondent is not correct in stating that the petitioner studied M.A., and
B.Ed., in the same year. As already pointed out, the petitioner after
passing the B.Ed., degree in the month of April 2008, joined the M.A., course
in the academic year and however, completed the course and became successful
only in the month of April 2010, for which, examination was conducted in the
month November 2009. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has
studied both the B.Ed., and M.A., in the same year.
10. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent relied on Division Bench decision of this Court made in W.A.No.845
of 2013 dated 07.01.2014 to contend that the person, who obtained both
degrees in the same academic year is not entitled for consideration for
appointment.
11. A perusal of the said order would show that the writ petitioner
therein had obtained B.Ed., degree and B.A., degree simultaneously within the
same calender year and consequently, the learned Judge rejected the
contention of the petitioner therein and the Division Bench upheld the order
of the learned Single Judge. The facts of the present case are totally
different as discussed supra. As I have already pointed out that the
petitioner has not obtained both the B.Ed., and M.A., in the same year, I
find that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set
aside. Consequently, the respondent is directed to appoint the petitioner as
P.G. Assistant in Tamil, within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To,
The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Teacher Recruitment Board,
Chennai.
கருத்துகள் இல்லை:
கருத்துரையிடுக