S SUBRAMANIAN vs Ut Of Pondicherry

1 OA 1447/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH

OA/310/01447/2017

th
Dated, the 16 day of October, Two Thousand Twenty Six

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR.M.SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)
&
HON’BLE MR.M.L.SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (A)

S.Subramanian, S/o. Sinnaiyan,
Trained Graduate Teacher,
Maraimalai Adigal Govt. Higher Secondary School,
Embalam, Puducherry. … Applicant


By Advocate .. M/s. V.Ajayakumar

Vs.

1. Union of India
represented by the Govt. of Puducherry
through the Secretary to Govt. for Education,
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.

2. The Director,
Directorate of School Education,
Puducherry.

3. Savithiri.
A., Headmaster, Government Primary School,
Puducherry.

4. Sarangapani.M.,
Trained Graduate Teacher, Govt. Middle School,
Keezhagaraharam, Puducherry.

5. Ramesh. S,
Trained Graduate Teacher,
Govt. Higher Secondary School,
Thavalakuppam, Puducherry. … Respondents



By Advocate .. Mr.R.Syed Mustafa (R1 &2)

2 OA 1447/2017
ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr.M.L.SRIVASTAVA, Member(A))

The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
“1) To call for the records of the second respondent with
No.31747/DSE/Estt.IV/D/2009 dated 17.12.2015 in respect of the
final seniority list of the Trained Graduate Teacher and to quash the
same in respect of the seniority of respondents 3 and 4 and to direct
the respondents to place the applicant at Seniority No.2685 in the
Seniority list of Trained Graduate Teacher and to pass such other or
further orders in the interest of justice and thus render justice.”


2. The brief facts of this case as stated by the applicant are as follows:
The 2nd respondent issued a notification on 26.05.2000 for selection to 440
posts of Secondary Grade Teacher(presently re-designated as Primary School
Teacher). As per the Notification the candidates should possess a pass in
Higher Secondary Course with not less than 50% of marks in aggregate
together with Secondary Grade Teacher training certificate or D.T.Ed. training
certificate or a Degree with Degree in Teaching of a recognized University. The
applicant possesses Degree and B.Ed. Degree and so the applicant got
selected for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and placed in the select list
dated 28.09.2000 and was appointed on 17.10.2000. However, the names of
the respondents 3 to 5 had not figured in the select list for the reason that
they had not obtained the prescribed minimum marks of 50% in the Higher
Secondary Education. After a period of 5 months, the first respondent issued
a G.O.Ms. No. 19 dated 20.02.2001 relaxing the provisions of Recruitment
Rules in respect of educational qualification and by the above G.O. the
respondents 3 to 5 entered into the Department and were given appointment
and placed below the applicant in the tentative seniority list dated.

3 OA 1447/2017
09.08.2006. The applicant was placed at seniority No. 4388, the 3rd
respondent at No. 4826 and 4th respondent at No. 4849 respectively. But the
applicant was placed below the respondents 3 and 4 in the subsequent
seniority list for which the applicant objected for the same, but the respondent
stated that it would be rectified. On contrary, the applicant was placed below
the respondent 3 and 4 in the seniority list dated 17.12.2015 without
considering the objection raised by the applicant. Even though several
representations were made, no action was taken by the respondents. Being
aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA seeking the aforesaid relief.
3. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their
counsel and filed their reply statement refuting all the averments made in the
OA except those which are admitted on facts and also reiterating the
statements made by them in the impugned order.
3.1 The respondents submitted that the Department of School Education
issued Tentative seniority list and Revised Tentative seniority list of Primary
School Teachers who had been recruited during the years 1998 to 2004, vide
Memorandum No. 5187/DSE/Estt.IV/2006, dated 09.08.2006 and 15.06.2007
respectively of the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry calling for
objection from the teachers concerned. The objections received in response
from the Primary School Teachers were examined and Final Seniority List of
Primary School Teachers from the year 2000-2001 had been issued vide
Memorandum No. 5187/DSE/Estt.IV/2006, dated 07.11.2008.
3.2 The respondents submitted that the seniority was fixed as per selection
merit irrespective of their date of joining. According to the Minutes of Direct
Recruitment Committee for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher (now re-

4 OA 1447/2017
designated as Primary School Teacher) held on 26.5.2000, the third
respondent viz. Tmt Savithiri, A, Headmaster (Primary) had secured 63.83%
marks and fourth respondent viz. Thiru. Sarangapani.M, TGT, GMS,
Keezhagraharam, Puducherry had secured 56.76% marks, whereas the
applicant had secured only 51.76% marks in the selection. According to their
merit order, the seniority had been fixed and the Final Seniority List of Primary
School Teachers was issued after calling for objection.
Their seniority position in the post of Primary School Teacher is as under:-
Name Seniority No. Remarks
(1) Savitry. A 4855 Respondent – 3
(2) Sarangapani.M 4924 Respondent – 4
(3) Subramanian. S 4960 Applicant

3.3 The respondent respectfully submits that thereafter, the applicant and
4th respondent had opted for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher on
promotion and they were appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher on
13.02.2007 & 14.02.2007 respectively. The third respondent had opted for the
post of Headmaster (Primary) and accordingly she was promoted and
appointed as Headmaster (Primary) on 08.08.2016.
3.4 The respondents further submitted that subsequently, the Department
issued tentative seniority list for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers on
06.03.2015, in which the seniority of promotees was fixed in accordance with
their feeder cadre seniority, i.e., Primary School Teacher seniority (erstwhile
SGT). As per the final seniority list for the post of Primary School Teacher
issued in 2008, the applicant is junior to the 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents,

5 OA 1447/2017
and hence the same order maintained in the Tentative Seniority List for Trained
Graduate Teacher issued on 06.03.2015. Later final seniority list was issued
on 17.12.2015 without any change in the seniority position of the applicant
and the respondents, which is as follows:
Name Seniority No. Remarks
(1) Sarangapani.M 2685 Respondent – 4
(2) Subramanian. S 2693 Applicant

The applicant has challenged the final seniority list of Trained Graduate Teacher
issued on 17.12.2015 which is not maintainable. When the final seniority list
of Primary School Teacher was issued on 07.11.2008, showing him junior to
the 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents, he should have challenged the seniority list.
By not doing so, he accepted the final seniority in the cadre of Primary School
Teacher. But now, he has challenged the Trained Graduate Teacher seniority
list based on alleged infirmities in the final seniority list of Primary School
Teacher issued in 2008, i.e., after eight years, the seniority list of Primary
School Teacher attained finality which is not permissible in Law. The instant
Original Application is hopelessly barred by limitation. The cause of action for
this Original Application arose on 07.11.2008 and the Original Application has
been filed in 2017, (i.e.) more than eight years after the issue of final seniority
list in the post of Primary School Teachers. Therefore, the OA is hit by laches
and delay. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. Heard the rival arguments of both parties and perused the material
placed on record and scrutinized the whole conspectus of the case.
5. The adjudicatory process in the instant OA is constrained by non-

6 OA 1447/2017
production of the original advertisement by the respondent authority. The
respondent authority, vide their recruitment committee meeting has
mentioned that the Education Department, Government of Puducherry notified
440 vacancies for the recruitment of Secondary Grade Teacher, in the
newspaper of 26.05.2000 and to the Employment Exchange also through a
notification in the public domain. The department had received 3632
applications and call letters were sent to the candidates sponsored by the
Employment Exchange. The Recruitment Rules for this cadre prescribes a Pass
in Higher Secondary course or equivalent with not less than 50% marks in
aggregate together with SGT’s Training certificate of D.T.Ed. Training
Certificate offered by a recognized institution. The minimum academic
qualification for admission to the above Training certificate course should be
th
Higher Secondary (12 ) and the course should be of two years duration,
should possess working knowledge of the regional language, a degree with
degree in teaching of recognised University. Further in compliance of CAT
order in OA 1163/99, B.Ed qualified candidates were also taken as eligible
candidates for this recruitment. During the deliberations of the Committee it
was informed that certain applications were rejected based on eligibility
conditions of the recruitment rules and notified criteria, and the committee
was provided with a list of all eligible candidates and the committee came out
with the select list. T he applicant got selected and was placed in the select list
dated 28.09.2000 under the SC category, whereas the respondents 3 to 5 did
not find place in the select list dated 28.09.2000. In the tentative seniority list
dated 09.08.2006, the applicant was placed at seniority No. 4388, the 3rd
respondent at No. 4826 and 4th respondent at No. 4849. However, in the

7 OA 1447/2017
subsequent seniority list dated 15.06.2007, the applicant was brought down
to Seniority No.4951 whereas the 3rd respondent was placed at 4915 and the
4th respondent at Seniority No.4923. Though the applicant made
representations against the seniority list dated 15.06.2007, again in the
tentative seniority list dated 06.03.2015 the above said seniority position of
the applicant and the private respondents was not changed. Finally in the
seniority list dated 17.12.2015, the applicant was placed at Seniority No.2693,
whereas the 3rd respondent at Seniority No.2685 and 4th respondent at
Seniority No.2686.
6. As averred by the learned counsel for the applicant, when the applicant
was placed in the select list dated 28.09.2000, the respondents 3 to 5 were
not in the said select list. Subsequently, the respondent authorities issued GO
No.19 dated 20.02.2001 relaxing the provisions of the recruitment rules in
respect of the educational qualification on humanitarian grounds. Taking
recourse of the said GO, the respondents 3 to 5 entered into the department
and given appointment and placed below the applicant in the tentative
seniority list dated 09.08.2006. As per the recruitment rules, the requirement
of 50% of marks for Higher Secondary Course examination is mandatory
qualification and the same was notified in the original notification for 440
positions of Secondary Grade Teacher and the candidates not having the
required qualifications as per the recruitment rules and the notification are not
entitled to get appointment.
7. The primary issue as evident from the foregoing discussion is whether
the unqualified persons not eligible to be appointed as per the recruitment
rules and original notification can be given relaxation from the mandatory

8 OA 1447/2017
requirement of 50% of marks in the H.Sc. examination and subsequently were
given appointment and also made senior to the applicant. The applicant was
fully qualified as per the recruitment rules and the essential qualification in the
notification. Further, the respondents 3 to 5 were given relaxation on
humanitarian grounds by relaxing the norms of 50% marks and that was done
after a lapse of substantial time of the appointments already made. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan (2024
INSC 847), has held as under:
“42. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms:
(1) Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling
for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies;
(2) Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the
commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the
recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which
is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible
under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the
requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-
arbitrariness“.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed as under:
“In various judicial pronouncements, the law governing recruitment to public
services has been colloquially termed as ‘the rules of the game’. The ‘game’ is the
process of selection and appointment. Courts have consistently frowned upon
tinkering with the rules of the game once the recruitment process commences. This
has crystallised into an oft-quoted legal phrase that “the rules of the game must not
be changed mid-way, or after the game has been played”. Broadly speaking these
rules fall in two categories. One which prescribes the eligibility criteria (i.e., essential
qualifications) of the candidates seeking employment; and the other which
stipulates the method and manner of making the selection from amongst the eligible
candidates“.

8. Further, there are reasonable restrictions imposed on the process of
relaxation wherein the constitutional authorities have relaxed the essential
qualifications/requirements. In the case of B. K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra
Pradesh (2008) 3 SCC 512, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court invalidated the
introduction of minimum interview marks after the selection process had been

9 OA 1447/2017
completed. The underlying principle is that candidates should not have the
rules of selection changed retrospectively after their performance is known.
Further in the case of C. Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi (2008) 7 SCC
11, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reinforces the principle against introducing a
new qualifying requirement after the selection process has begun. The relevant
para of the said judgment is extracted as under:
“From the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the above mentioned case it
is evident that previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for vive-
voce. Therefore, prescribing minimum marks for vive-voce was not permissible at all
after written test was conducted. There is no manner of doubt that the authority
making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks
both for written examination and vive-voce, but if minimum marks are not
prescribed for vive-voce before the commencement of selection process, the
authority concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the
selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate
should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the
opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at vive-voce, test
was illegal“.

9. Thus, in the result, going by the above mentioned judicial
pronouncements supra, it is abundantly clear that the applicant came out
successful in the selection process and got selected whereas the respondents
3 to 5 were not possessing the essential qualification as per the recruitment
rules and as per the requirements published in the original notification. This
was subsequently relaxed by the Government of Puducherry (as per the
approval accorded by the Hon’ble Lt. Governor)thus enabling the respondents
3 to 5 to be selected and also were made senior to the applicant. (As per the
learned counsel for the respondents, the final seniority list has been made as
per the merit and respondents 3 to 5 are above the applicant on merit).
Further, in the Minutes of the recruitment committee, it is clearly mentioned
that, “the Department has notified the procedure for recruitment as aggregate

10 OA 1447/2017
of percentage of mark obtained in the basic minimum educational qualification,
i.e., Higher Secondary or equivalent. For every additional attempt to pass the
exam a deduction of 5% will be made. Percentage of marks obtained in the
Diploma in Education or equivalent in the case of Diploma holders and
percentage of marks obtained in B.Ed. or equivalent in the case of B.Ed.
holders. A deduction of 5% will be made for every additional attempt to pass
the exam.” Thus, as per the relaxation made with the approval of the Hon. Lt.
Governor, the respondents 3 to 5 who were short of minimum 50% marks in
the Higher Secondary Course exam were allowed to be considered for selection
as Secondary Grade Teacher. As per the averment made by the concerned
respondent authorities, the overall merit invariably considers the marks
obtained in the HSc. Thus, the respondents 3 to 5 getting extra marks (the
deficit for minimum 50%) will be getting higher overall percentage than what
they originally should be getting or deserved to be getting. This definitely will
have a bearing on the inter-se seniority of the selected candidates.
10. This Tribunal is of the considered view that the normal process of
selection has been vitiated and inclusion of respondents 3 to 5 and placing
them above the applicant is bad in law. It has also not been established in
pleadings or by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding the
relaxation so granted, the rules relaxing authority is expressly empowered to
grant such relaxation, in the RRs or in the advertisement for the posts.
11. Thus, in the result the applicant has made out a case for judicial
intervention. The final seniority list No.31747/DSE/Estt.IV/D/2009 dated
17.12.2015 is hereby quashed and set aside in respect of the applicant and
the respondents 3 to 5 are concerned. The concerned respondent authority is

11 OA 1447/2017
directed to place the applicant in the original seniority position as per his merit
in the selection process before incorporating the changes so brought in by
relaxing the educational requirements. The said exercise shall be completed
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. The OA is allowed as above. No order as to costs.



(M.L.SRIVASTAVA) (M.SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER (J)

MT 16.10.2026
THANGA
M M
Digitally signed by
THANGAM M
Date: 2026.11.02
12:50:30 +05'30'