Out of the 792 candidates failed candidates who had appeared in the second recruitment test only 125 secured 50 marks and above and 667 candidates once again failed.
Three of the civil appeals arising out of SLP C Nos.
vacancies in the post of Computer Instructors were to be filled up on the basis of the seniority in the employment exchange.
In the appeal filed Writ Appeal No.
5500 175 9000/ .
1307 of 2013 and W.A.Nos.1088 and 1089 of 2013 respectively.
degree was a one time exception and that all future recruitments would be made from eligible candidates having the Ed.
During the pendency of the said proceeding the services of the 652 candidates twice failed were terminated.
In the Writ Appeal before the Division Bench Writ Appeal No.
Against the aforesaid terminations, several writ petitions were filed wherein a companymon interim order dated 30.04.2013 was passed by holding that The petitioners have numberright either to question their termination or to seek regularization.
The companyduct of the recruitment test in a limited manner also did number companye under challenge before any forum.
On the question as to what method of recruitment the Government should follow, I would leave it to the Government to decide in the light of the various judgments of the Supreme Court and the Full Bench of this Court.
degree.
As the services of the aforesaid failed candidates were being allowed to companytinue instead of being terminated and as the selection for the resultant vacancies companysequential to such termination was number being undertaken, the B.Ed.
The aforesaid order of the Division Bench dated 22.08.2008 was challenged by the B.Ed.
degree holders which were allowed by order dated 13.03.2007.
290 dated 06.12.2007 and G.O. MS No.
The minimum marks in order to be selected was fixed at 50.
5044/2014 is by a terminated teacher who seeks to make a companymon ground with the B.Ed.
Inbuilt in the said decision was to relax the educational qualifications for such Computer Instructors, namely, the B.Ed.
A writ petition i.e. WP No.
66 dated 02.03.2009 issued by the School Education Department.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid directions, both the B.Ed.
After the companytract with ELCOT had ended in February, 2005, the State Government by a G.O. MS No.
degree holders as the said appellant had in the meantime obtained a B.Ed.
As directed by the Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 20.12.2012, the Government shall expedite the process of regular recruitment.
All the writ petitions that were filed by the terminated Computer Instructors were heard alongwith the writ appeals.
The Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 22.08.2008 allowed the Writ Appeal in the above terms.
837 of 2010 , by order dated 20.12.2012, the appellate Bench of the High Court while rejecting the prayer for a fresh examination had directed the Teachers Recruitment Board to reassess the merit of the candidates by eliminating 20 defective questions.
The challenge to the directions companytained in para 53 vi and vii of the impugned order being based on the appellants perception of true purport and effect of the clarification made by this Court by order dated 19.11.2009 under paragraph 11 a ii already extracted the same will require companysideration, particularly, in the light of the stand taken by the State in its companynter affidavit dated 31.1.2014 filed before this Court.
1215/2007 , the State Government took the stand that the recruitment test proposed for serving Computer Instructors by waiving the eligibility requirement of B.Ed.
All such cases were disposed of by the impugned companymon order dated 18.09.2003.
qualified candidates filed a companytempt petition before the High Court Contempt Petition No.
degree holders whereas the fourth civil appeal arising out of SLP C No.
1270 of 2013 alleging disobedience and companytending that the vacancies 652 are required to be filled up on the basis of the employment exchange seniority.
The said writ petition was dismissed.
degree which they did number possess.
The aforesaid order was challenged before the Madras High Court in a batch of writ petitions by the B.Ed.
qualification, based on employment exchange seniority, without any preference to the existing Computer Instructors.
It is the validity of the aforesaid companymon order, particularly directions vi and vii companytained in para 53 thereof extracted above , that has been assailed in the present appeals.
Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 9.7.2009 read with the clarificatory order dated 19.11.2009, a second recruitment test was held on 24.01.2010.
The said test, for reasons number known, was however companyfined only to those Computer Instructors who had secured between 35 50 marks in the first recruitment test i.e. the failed candidates though in terms of the order of this Court dated 9.7.2009 there were three categories of candidates who were entitled to participate in the said recruitment test i.e. failed candidates, open market candidates and employment exchange candidates.
degree holders and the terminated teachers had filed Writ Appeals which were numbered as A. No.
Under the aforesaid G.Os.
187 dated 4.10.2006 numberified its decision to create one post of Computer Instructor in every government higher secondary school of the State 1880 schools in the payscale of Rs.
7567 of 2010 was filed before the Madras High Court to declare the second recruitment test as null and void due to certain anomalies in the answer key.
A decision was also taken to regularize the services of the Computer Instructors appointed by ELCOT against the said posts subject to their clearing a special test to be held by the Teachers Recruitment Board.
Pursuant to the above exercise undertaken, only 15 out of the 667 failed candidates had passed, thereby, reducing the number of failed candidates to 652.
36170/2013, 33677/2013 and 35624/2013 have been filed by the B.Ed.
