Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Town ... vs R. Muthulakshmi on 19 August, 2021
W.A.No.618 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A. NAKKIRAN
W.A.No.618 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.2731 of 2021
1. The Commissioner of Town Panchayats,
Kurulagam, Chennai 600 108.
2. The Assistant Director of Town Panchayats,
Salem Region,
Salem.
3. The Executive Officer,
Town Panchayat Office,
Sendarapatti,
Salem District. .. Appellants
Vs.
R. Muthulakshmi, .. Respondent
***
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying to
allow the above Writ Appeal and set aside the order of the learned Judge made
in W.P.No.12823 of 2009 dated 16.04.2019.
***
1/9
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.618 of 2021
For Appellants : Mr.R.Neelakandan,
State Government Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.B.Krishnan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of Court was delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)
This intra-court appeal is preferred by the Government, challenging the
order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12823 of 2009 dated
16.04.2019, allowing the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the
second appellant herein and giving promotion to the writ petitioner as Record
Clerk on par with her juniors.
2. The writ petitioner was originally appointed as Office Assistant in the
Town Panchayat Office, Sendarapatti on 12.06.1989 and her probation was
declared on 10.12.1991. The District Town Panchayat Officer, in his
proceedings in Na.Ka.No.72264/89/P3, dated 01.04.1991 had prepared the
seniority list of the Office Assistants in Salem District Town Panchayat Union,
wherein, the name of the writ petitioner was placed in Sl.No.45. The next
promotion level for the writ petitioner was Record Clerk. As per the Tamil
Nadu Town Panchayat Establishment Rules, 1988 issued vide
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.618 of 2021
G.O.Ms.No.205, Rural Development Department, dated 23.03.1989 under
Annexure to Sub-rule (9a) of Rule 4, an Office Assistant should have
completed S.S.L.C examination and he/she must be an approved probationer
for the promotion to the post of Record Clerk.
3. According to the writ petitioner, her probation was declared on
10.12.1991 and she had completed her S.S.L.C and therefore, she is qualified
to be promoted as Record Clerk from the post of Office Assistant. But, the first
appellant had passed the impugned order without considering the said fact and
rejected the petitioner as not qualified. Aggrieved by the same, the above Writ
Petition was filed, which was allowed by the Writ Court.
4. The learned State Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants contended that, as early as in the year 1989, G.O.Ms.No.205, Rural
Development Department, dated 23.03.1989, has prescribed a pass in S.S.L.C
Examination for the purpose of promotion from the feeder post of Office
Assistant to Record Clerk. The qualification prescribed for the promotion to
the post of Record Clerk from Office Assistant is as follows:
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.618 of 2021
(i). Must have completed S.S.L.C
(ii) Must be an approved probationer in the category of Office
Assistant.
5. The learned Single Judge has interpreted the word “Completed”
as only writing the final exam and held that not necessarily the person should
have passed the same. In the instant case also, the writ petitioner had attended
the S.S.L.C examination privately in April 1993, and furnished her mark sheet,
to show that she had scored 67 out of 500. No doubt, the writ petitioner had
made an attempt in completing the S.S.L.C examination. However, she failed
in the same by not clearing the examination.
6. The learned State Government Counsel for the appellants
strenuously further contended that when the petitioner had admittedly not
passed the S.S.L.C examination, she is not entitled for promotion and the
impugned order has rightly been passed by the second appellant herein and it
does not require any interference.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.618 of 2021
7. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner
placed his reliance on the proceedings of the District Town Panchayat Officer
dated 01.04.1991 wherein, the name of the petitioner was shown in Sl.No.45
in the seniority list, as per which, she has completed 9th standard. Yet another
G.O. Ms. No.670, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
dated 27.11.2000 was relied on by the respondent/writ petitioner. The said
G.O relates to one P.R.Nagarajan, who was appointed as part time Clerk on
01.06.1970 and when the Panchayat Union was upgraded as Town Panchayat,
he was posted as Tax Collector. The said P.R.Nagarajan was also not
considered for the post of Record Clerk, as he had not cleared the S.S.L.C
Examination. However, considering the fact that he had served for 14 years
and was 52 years of age at the relevant point of time and that he cannot go for
any other employment, he was recommended to be appointed as Record Clerk.
The said P.R.Nagarajan also had attended the S.S.L.C examination privately
and he failed. Though he had completed the course, but, he had not cleared the
S.S.L.C examination. Thus, he was considered to be appointed as Record
Clerk only in the year 2000.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.618 of 2021
8. Citing the above example, the learned Counsel for the respondent
submitted that the writ petitioner also had attempted to pass S.S.L.C privately,
but was unsuccessful and therefore, she should also be considered for
promotion as Record Clerk. It would be relevant to advert to the order of the
District Town Panchayat Officer, dated 01.04.1991, wherein, priority panel list
of the Office Assistants was prepared, in which, the writ petitioner was shown
in S.No.45.
9. A perusal of the said order dated 01.04.1991 would go to show that
on the date of drawal of the said list, she was said to have completed only 9th
Standard. An attempt of clearing the S.S.L.C as per the mark sheet furnished
was only in the year 1993. Therefore, admittedly, on the date of drawal of the
panel, she had not even joined S.S.L.C. From the act of the writ petitioner, it is
clear that for the purpose of getting the promotion as Record Clerk, she has
made an attempt to clear the S.S.L.C, but, failed. Therefore, mere attempt and
failure in the 10th Standard, cannot be deemed as having completed S.S.L.C, as
has been prescribed in the Table to Annexure-I of the Tamil Nadu Town
Panchayats (Establishment) Rules, 1988. If an attempt in an examination, is
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.618 of 2021
considered to be a completion of that exam, it would really set a bad precedent
and would lead to litigations from all quarters by the unqualified persons, who
failed in the examination. It is also held by various Courts that, if a person
attempts and fails in S.S.L.C, he /she can only be considered as 9th standard
pass and mere completion of S.S.L.C course, will not entitle them to claim that
they have passed S.S.L.C.
10. It is also not the case of the writ petitioner that she had appeared
for the 10th standard exam in the regular stream. She had only attempted to
clear S.S.L.C exam privately, to become eligible for promotion to the post of
Record Clerk. Having failed in her attempt, she cannot be allowed to interpret
the word 'completed', as to denote only the completion of course and not
successfully passing the examination. Therefore, we are of the view that the
learned Single Judge has not interpreted the qualification prescribed and held
that the writ petitioner is eligible for the promotion and allowed the writ
petition. We are not in agreement with the order of the learned Single Judge, in
view of the foregoing discussions.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.618 of 2021
11. Even though the writ petitioner had made an attempt to pass the
S.S.L.C examination, having failed in the same, she was not qualified to be
promoted, as she had only passed 9th standard on the date of drawal of the
priority list. Therefore, the second appellant had rightly rejected the claim of
the writ petitioner holding that she is ineligible for promotion to the post of
Record Clerk and it shall stand confirmed.
12. In view of the above, the order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the writ
Court in W.P. No.12823 of 2009, is set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[P.S.N. J.] [A.A.N., J.]
19.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
srn
To
1. The Commissioner of Town Panchayats,
Kurulagam, Chennai 600 108.
2. The Assistant Director of Town Panchayats,
Salem Region,
Salem.
3. The Executive Officer,
Town Panchayat Office,
Sendarapatti, Salem District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.618 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
srn
W.A.No.618 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.2731 of 2021
19.08.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
