Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

K. Chellathai. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.

K. Chellathai vs The State of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 20, 2012
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/928160

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
W.P.(MD) No.14395 of 2011 and W.P.(MD) No.14396 of 2011
Subject
Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.] Constitution of India - Articles 226 -- The petitioner in W.P.(MD) NO.14395 of 2011 had passed B.A., Functional English in the year 2004 from Manonmaniam Sundaranar University/fourth respondent. Since the petitioners had obtained B.A.Functional English from Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, ...

Key legal issue
Constitution
Acts & sections
Constitution of India - Articles 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

K. Chellathai

Advocate Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, Adv

Respondent

The State of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Advocate Mr.S. Kumar, Adv

Legal References

Acts
Constitution of India - Articles 226

Excerpt

[d.hariparanthaman, j.] constitution of india - articles 226 -- the petitioner in w.p.(md) no.14395 of 2011 had passed b.a., functional english in the year 2004 from manonmaniam sundaranar university/fourth respondent. since the petitioners had obtained b.a.functional english from manonmaniam sundaranar university, b.a. functional english course completed by the petitioners could not be treated as equivalent to b.a.english, as the said university is not mentioned in the g.o.prayer petitions filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for the issuance of writs of mandamus to direct the second respondent to publish the result and consequently direct the third respondent to appoint the petitioner as graduate assistant teacher for the year 2009 - 2010 within the time stipulated.common order1. the petitioner in w.p.(md) no.14395 of 2011 had passed b.a., functional english in the year 2004 from manonmaniam sundaranar university/fourth respondent. she passed b.ed in the year 2010 from mahatma gandhi university. she registered with the district employment exchange, tirunelveli.2. the petitioner in w.p.(md) no.14396 of 2011 had passed b.a., functional english in the year 2005 and thereafter completed b.ed in the year 2008 from manonmaniam sundaranar university/fourth respondent. she registered with the district employment exchange, tirunelveli.3. the third respondent, proposed to fill number of vacancies in the post of graduate assistant teachers through employment exchange for the year 2009 - 2010.4. in the said circumstances, the second respondent called for the list of eligible persons, who were waiting in the employment seniority. the name of the petitioners were sponsored by the district employment exchange. the petitioner in w.p.(md) no.14395 of 2011 was issued with a call letter dated 30/4/2010 for certificate verification by the second respondent. but the petitioner in w.p.(md) no.14396 of 2011 was not issued with a call letter. both the petitioners had attended for certificate verification on 12/5/2010 and produced all the necessary certificates.5. while so, the second respondent posted in their website that the result of the petitioners were withheld, since the petitioners had studied b.a. functional english.6. it is also stated that the second respondent appointed one kavitha and mangayarkarasi, who have also passed b.a.functional english from manonmaniam sundaranar university.7. therefore, the petitioners filed the.....

Full Judgment

Prayer Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writs of mandamus to direct the second respondent to publish the result and consequently direct the third respondent to appoint the petitioner as Graduate Assistant Teacher for the year 2009 - 2010 within the time stipulated.

COMMON ORDER

1. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) NO.14395 of 2011 had passed B.A., Functional English in the year 2004 from Manonmaniam Sundaranar University/fourth respondent. She passed B.Ed in the year 2010 from Mahatma Gandhi University. She registered with the District Employment Exchange, Tirunelveli.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) NO.14396 of 2011 had passed B.A., Functional English in the year 2005 and thereafter completed B.Ed in the year 2008 from Manonmaniam Sundaranar University/fourth respondent. She registered with the District Employment Exchange, Tirunelveli.

3. The third respondent, proposed to fill number of vacancies in the post of Graduate Assistant Teachers through Employment Exchange for the year 2009 - 2010.

4. In the said circumstances, the second respondent called for the list of eligible persons, who were waiting in the employment seniority. The name of the petitioners were sponsored by the District Employment Exchange. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.14395 of 2011 was issued with a call letter dated 30/4/2010 for certificate verification by the second respondent. But the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.14396 of 2011 was not issued with a call letter. Both the petitioners had attended for certificate verification on 12/5/2010 and produced all the necessary certificates.

5. While so, the second respondent posted in their website that the result of the petitioners were withheld, since the petitioners had studied B.A. Functional English.

6. It is also stated that the second respondent appointed one Kavitha and Mangayarkarasi, who have also passed B.A.Functional English from Manonmaniam Sundaranar University.

7. Therefore, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions praying for a direction to the second respondent to publish the result and consequently to direct the third respondent to appoint the petitioners as Graduate Assistant Teacher for the year 2009 - 2010.

8. When the matters came up before this Court on 20/12/2011, this Court had directed the third respondent to keep one post vacant.

9. Heard both sides.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners produced the equivalent certificate issued by Manonmaniam Sundaranar University stating that B.A.Functional English is equivalent to B.A.English. He submits that in the same selection, one Kavitha and Mangayarkarasi who had studied B.A.Functional English were appointed as Graduate Assistant Teachers in English. Hence the petitioners are also entitled for their appointment.

11. Mr.Kumar, Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that as per G.O.Ms.No.133, School Education (M2) Department, dated 4/6/2012, Functional English is equivalent to B.A.English for the appointment of B.T.Assistants if the candidate passed B.A.Functional English in the University mentioned in the G.O. Since the petitioners had obtained B.A.Functional English from Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, B.A. Functional English course completed by the petitioners could not be treated as equivalent to B.A.English, as the said University is not mentioned in the G.O.

12. Mr.Mahabob Athiff, who is appearing for the fourth respondent/University submits that, if B.A.Functional English obtained in Avinasilingam University is equivalent to B.A.English, there is no reason to deny the same benefit to the Functional English awarded by the fourth respondent University that has been in existence for quite a long time and it is also submitted that the University is a recognised one by the University Grants Commission.

13. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

14. The certificate issued by the fourth respondent/University dated 23/9/2008 states that B.A.Functional English course is equivalent to B.A.English course, as per the remarks of the Chairperson, Board of Studies in English (UG).

15. When B.A.Functional English obtained from a deemed University is taken to be equivalent to B.A.English for the appointment of Graduate Assistant, the respondents 1 to 3 could not deny the same benefit to the persons, who obtained Functional English from Manonmaniam Sundaranar University/fourth respondent. Further more, the persons who obtained Functional English from the fourth respondent University were selected as B.T.Assistants by the second respondent and they were also appointed.

16. For all the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The second respondent is directed to publish the result of the petitioners in the light of the observations made above. The third respondent is directed to appoint the petitioners as Assistant Graduate Teachers for the year 2009 - 2010. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial