Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs A.C.Kumar on 21 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1168 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1168 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.4996 of 2021
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 6.
3.The Joint Director of School Education,
(Vocational Education),
O/o. Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 6.
4.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli – 9. : Appellants
Vs.
1.A.C.Kumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/7
W.A.(MD)No.1168 of 2021
2.The Secretary,
Sri Thirumalai Kumaraswamy Devasthanam,
Girls Higher Secondary School,
Rama Line, Courtallam,
Tenkasi Taluk,
Tirunelveli District. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
praying to set aside the order dated 22.12.2016, in W.P.(MD)No.835 of
2010 and allow this Writ Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.A.K.Manickam
Standing Counsel for Government
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.S.Veeranasamy
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.S.Manoharan
JUDGMENT
***************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
We have heard Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Standing Counsel for
Government appearing for the appellants, Mr.S.Veeranasamy, learned
Counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.S.Manoharan, learned
Counsel appearing for the second respondent.
2.This Writ Appeal by the Government is directed against the
order dated 22.12.2016, in W.P.(MD)No.835 of 2010, filed by the first
respondent / writ petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1168 of 2021
3.The prayer sought for in the writ petition was to quash the
order passed by the second appellant dated 02.12.2009 and to regularise
the services of the first respondent as full time Vocational Nursing
Instructor with effect from 01.06.1998 and pay entire monetary benefits.
4.We were pleasantly surprised to note that the first respondent
has completed M.B.B.S. Degree and he is a qualified member and his
name is also registered in the Tamil Nadu Medical Council Register.
However, he chose to join the post of Full Time Vocational Nursing
Instructor. Learned Counsel for the first respondent / writ petitioner
would submit that this was on account of a service motive which the first
respondent was pursuing and therefore, instead of rendering service as a
Doctor, he thought fit to become a Vocational Nursing Instructor.
Curiously, the appellants have denied all benefits including regularisation
on the ground the he does not possess requisite qualification and he has
passed M.B.B.S., degree from Andhra University. In this regard, it will be
relevant to note the following finding rendered by the learned Writ Court
in paragraph No.19 of the impugned order, which reads as follows:
“19. ..... The petitioner, in-fact, with the
qualification of MBBS degree, had applied to the Tamil
Nadu Public Service Commission (in short 'TNPSC') for
the recruitment to the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon
in 1980's and his roll number as assingned by the
TNPSC is 1115. Since the petitioner had completed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1168 of 2021
B.Sc.,(Chemistry) degree in 1979 and in the list of
MBBS degree holder as reflected in the Tamil Nadu
Medical register in the year 1975, the name of the
petitioner is found at S.No.35 with roll number 31831,
the said degree was taken into account by the TNPSC
in the said selection process in the year 1980, wherein,
the petitioner's candidature was accepted and in-fact,
he was selected. The learned counsel for the
petitioner, by way of additional typed set of papers,
brought to the notice of this Court a copy of the
selection list published in the year 1980 by the TNPSC,
wherein, the register number of the petitioner, ie.,
1115 is found. Therefore, it become abundantly clear
that the petitioner's qualification ie., MBBS had been
accepted by the TNPSC and based on which, he was
selected to the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon in the
year 1980 itself.”
5.The next aspect is with regard to the equivalence of the
qualification possessed by the first respondent and that which has been
prescribed by the appellants for the said post. This aspect has also been
dealt with by the learned Single Bench in paragraph No.20, of the
impugned order which reads as follows:
“20.Insofar as the equivalence of the
vocational qualification is concerned, the State
Government would request only the TNPSC to have the
equivalence committee to decide the qualification,
whether it is equivalent to the qualification already
approved or recognised by the State Government for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1168 of 2021
the purpose of employment. In this case, the Service
Commission has also accepted the qualification of
MBBS obtained from Andhra University therefore, the
same cannot be doubted, after long years by the
second respondent, as has been reflected in the
impugned order.”
6.Further, a contention is raised by the appellant that so far as
the other qualification which is stated to be required for the said post,
learned Single Bench has taken note of those facts and also found that
other part time Vocational Instructors like the first respondent were
brought into regular time scale of pay and there is no impediment for the
appellants to bring the first respondent under the regular time scale of
pay and all benefits be extended to him. We find the reasoning given by
the learned Single Bench to be proper and does not call for any
interference. As prefaced by us, it is one of the rarest of rare case where
a person who has completed his M.B.B.S., degree thought fit to serve in a
post which is much inferior to which he is eligible to apply and get
selected and we have no doubt in our mind that such unique cases will
never arise in future.
7.Thus, for the above reasons, we find no good grounds to
interfere with the order and direction issued by the learned Single Bench.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed and the order and direction
issued by the learned Single Bench shall be complied with by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1168 of 2021
appellants within a period of three [3] months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
21.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MR
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy
of the order that is presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1168 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
MR
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.1168 of 2021
21.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
