Facts
The appellant participated in the 2012–2013 recruitment for PG Assistant and passed the written examination.
Source reference: p. 2At certificate verification, she produced a Scheduled Caste certificate issued by Andhra Pradesh, but not one issued by Tamil Nadu.
Source reference: p. 2Under the recruitment instructions, candidates holding community certificates from other States were to be considered under the general category.
Source reference: p. 2As she was not within the zone of consideration in that category, the Teachers Recruitment Board rejected her candidature on 23 June 2016.
Source reference: p. 3The Single Judge dismissed her writ petition challenging that rejection, and she appealed.
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the appellant’s Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Caste certificate entitled her to be considered under the Scheduled Caste category in Tamil Nadu.
Source reference: pp. 2–32. Whether the rejection of her candidature under the general category, in accordance with the recruitment instructions, disclosed any infirmity warranting appellate interference.
Source reference: p. 3Law Applied
The Court relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board, (2018) 10 SCC 312, which held that a person recognised as a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in their original State is entitled to reservation benefits in that State, but not in another State or Union Territory to which they have migrated.
Source reference: p. 3The Court also applied the recruitment instructions providing that candidates with community certificates issued by another State would be treated under the general category.
Source reference: pp. 2–3Reasoning
The appellant produced an Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Caste certificate and did not produce a Tamil Nadu certificate at verification.
Source reference: pp. 2–4Applying Bir Singh and the recruitment instructions, the Court held that she could not claim Scheduled Caste reservation in Tamil Nadu on the basis of the Andhra Pradesh certificate and was therefore correctly considered under the general category.
Source reference: pp. 2–4As she was not within that category’s zone of consideration, the Board’s rejection was consistent with the recruitment rules and instructions, as the Single Judge had found.
Source reference: pp. 2–4Holding
The Court answered the issues against the appellant, found no infirmity in the rejection of her candidature or in the Single Judge’s decision, and dismissed the writ appeal as devoid of merit.
No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
S.GEETHAvsTHE SECRETARY TO THE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
