K. GUNAVATHI versus V. SANGEETH KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 4 S.C.R. 395 · Decided: 07-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 4 S.C.R. 395 
K. GUNAVATHI 
v. 
V. SANGEETH KUMAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3342 of 2014) 
MARCH 7, 2014 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND 
N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
A 
8 
Service law: Selection - Appointment of Computer 
Instructor - Filling up of post on the basis of the employment 
C 
exchange seniority - One time measure - Held: High Court's 
directiofJ in clarificatory order to fill up 175 existing vacancies 
of Computer Instructors on the basis of the employment 
exchange seniority was a conscious decision taken in 
departure from the settled position in law that recruitment to 
D 
public service, normally, ought to be by open advertisement 
and requisitions through the employment exchange can at 
best be supplemental - Such departure was felt necessary 
due to the compulsive needs in the peculiar facts of the case 
- To all other vacancies, existing or future, as may be, the 
E 
State may follow such policy as may be in force or considered 
appropriate. 
In the year 1999, the Government of Tamil Nadu took 
a policy decision to offer computer science as an elective 
subject in the State Government higher secondary 
schools. To give effect to the said policy, the State 
Government awarded a five year contract to the 
Electronic Corporation of Tamil Nadu (ELCOT) to provide 
F 
not only computer hardware and software but also the 
man power for conducting the classes. ELCOT, therefore, 
G 
engaged Computer Instructors numbering 1332 in the 
first phase (1999) and 1062 in the second phase (2000). 
Such placements were made through different 
395 
H 
396 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 
A employment agencies. After the contract with ELCOT 
ended in February, 2005, the State Government by a G.O. 
MS No. 187 dated 4.10.2006 notified its decision to create 
one post of Computer Instructor in every government 
higher secondary school of the State. A decision was 
B 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. The minimum marks in 
order to be selected was fixed at 50%. Inbuilt in the said 
c decision was to relax the educational qualifications for 
such Computer Instructors, namely, the B.Ed. degree 
which they did not possess. The said order was 
successfully challenged before the High Court in a batch 
of writ petitions by the B.Ed. degree holders. The 
0 
Division Bench allowed the State's appeal on 22.08.2008 
accepting the stand that the recruitment test proposed for 
serving Computer Instructors by waiving the eligibility 
requirement of B.Ed. degree was a one time exception 
and that all future recruitments would be made from 
eligible candidates having the B.Ed. qualification, based 
E on employment exchange seniority, without any 
preference to the existing Computer Instructors. 
T h e 
said order of the Division Bench was challenged by the 
B.Ed. qualified teachers before the Supreme Court. While 
issuing notice on 13.10.2008, the Court passed an interim 
F order to the effect that the appointment of Computer 
Instructors pursuant to the order dated 22.08.2008 of the 
Division Bench of the High Court would be subject to the 
result of the appeals. The recruitment test was held on 
12.10.2008. However, contrary to the government 
G decision that only those candidates who had secured 
50% marks would be selected, in the result published, 
1686 number of candidates were shown as selected out 
of which only 894 had secured 50% or more marks 
whereas the remaining 792 candidates had secured 
H 
K. GUNAVATHI v. V. SANGEETH KUMAR 
397 
between 35% and 50% marks. Based on the said 
A 
selection the government proceeded to appoint a total of 
1683 candidates. Out of the remaining 197 posts that 
remained vacant (1880-1683 = 197) 22 posts were covered 
by various interim orders of the High Court leaving the 
actual number of vacancies at 175. By order dated 
09.07.2009, the Civil Appeal was disposed of holding that 
the special recruitment test held on 12.10.2008 pursuant 
B 
to the High Court's order dated 22.08.2008, being a one 
time exception and dictated by sympathetic grounds 
insofar as the adhoc Computer Instructors working for c 
long years were concerned, was justified. But, the 
decision/action of the government to reduce the minimum 
marks and the selection of candidates securing less than 
50% marks was held to be arbitrary and was 
consequentl

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.