Teachers Recruitment Board’s incorrect info helps woman get job

MADURAI: An incorrect information provided by the Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) and the government reiterating the same has facilitated the Madras high court Madurai bench to order a teacher’s post (post graduate assistant) to a woman candidate in a government school.
Justice K Ravichandrabaabu passed this order setting aside the TRB’s order denying job to one J Murugeswari and further directing it to select and appoint her to the post of postgraduate assistant (PGA), on a petition filed by her.
Murugeswari is one of the candidates who wrote the examination conducted by TRB to fill up 2,881 vacancies for the posts of PGA/ physical education directors grade I.
Murugeswari, who had applied under the backward class (woman) Tamil medium quota for the post secured 91 marks out of 150 marks in the written examination.
But, she did not find her name in the TRB’s selection list because it was stated that she was ineligible for selection on the ground that she belongs to non-Tamil medium category. Aggrieved over it, she filed a writ petition.
During hearing, the TRB chairman filed a counter stating that the written examination was conducted on May 27, 2012 and certificate verification was done on August 4, 2012 and she had not produced the certificate having studied MA (Economics) in Tamil medium. She obtained the certificate from Madurai Kamaraj University only on October 17, 2013 and hence, she was not considered for selection, the counter said.
Denying it, the petitioner’s side produced all relevant documents which showed the court that she had completed her SSLC, Plus Two, BA and MA in Economics and B.Ed. (Economics) in Tamil medium.
It further said that certificate verification was held on October 23, 2013 and not on August 4, 2012, during which all relevant certificates were produced. However, in total non-application of mind, the result was published denying selection to her, the petitioner’s said.
Per contra, the government advocate reiterated the same contentions that were mentioned in the TRB’s counter. It resulted in the judge allowing her petition.
The judge said it was evident that the counter affidavit disclosed total non-application of mind. “The relevant dates referred to in the counter in respect of the written examination and certificate verification were totally different and not connected with the present case. Therefore, it is evident that some mistake has crept somewhere in the process of selecting the petitioner,” the judge said.
Hence, the court is satisfied with the relevant documents placed before it, the judge said.
Accordingly, TRB’ proceedings were set aside and consequently, it is directed to select and appoint the petitioner to the post of PGA, the judge said.