The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagrathna while setting aside an order of the High Court, opined that the degree of M.A. (Tamil) cannot be equated with B.A./B.Sc./B.Ed, hence Rule 14 was not applicable to the facts of the case on hand stricto senso.
Facts
The appellant was promoted to the post of B.T. Assistant (English). Prior thereto the appellant was granted the permission to pursue his B.A. (English) under distance education. He completed the same in 2014. When the appellant was pursuing his education in B.A. (English), the appellant was granted permission to pursue M.A. (Tamil). He successfully completed the same. Thereafter the promotion of the appellant and others was challenged on the ground that by obtaining two degrees simultaneously the appellant has rendered himself ineligible as the appellant did not fulfil the eligibility criteria.
Rule 14 was pressed into service which provided that “the teachers who have obtained B.A./B.Sc and B.Ed., during the same academic year shall not be eligible for recommendations”.
Procedural History
The appellant preferred a writ appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed. It did not interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, setting aside the promotion of the appellant to the post of B.T. Assistant (English).
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“Considering Rule 14, it can be seen that the bar was against teachers who have obtained B.A./B.Sc./B.Ed degree simultaneously during the same academic year. In the present case it cannot be said that the appellant obtained the degree of B.A. (English) and M.A. (Tamil) during the same academic year. The appellant pursued his B.A. (English) during January 2012 to December 2014. He pursued his M.A. (Tamil) which was a two-year distance education course between the academic years 20132014 to 20142015. Therefore, as such Rule 14 is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand stricto senso. The degree of M.A. (Tamil) cannot be equated with B.A./B.Sc./B.Ed. Under the circumstances both, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have materially erred and ignored the aforesaid aspect in quashing the promotion of the appellant to the post of B.T. Assistant (English).”
Judgment
The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge were quashed. Consequently, the writ petition before the learned Single Judge stood dismissed and order of promotion promoting the appellant to the post of B.T. Assistant (English) was restored.
Case Name: A. Dharmaraj vs The Chief Educational Officer, Pudukkottai & Ors.
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1301 OF 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagrathna
Decided on: 18th February 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
