Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs R.Vinoth Kumar ... 1St on 9 March, 2021
W.A(MD)Nos.1194, 1195 and 1196 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09 .03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A(MD)Nos.1194, 1195 and 1196 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD)No.8322 and 8324 of 2017
W.A(MD)No.1194 of 2017:
01.The State of Tamil nadu,
Represented by the Secretary to Government,
Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
02.The Director of Teacher Education,
Research and Training, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
03.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 6.
04.The District Educational Officer,
Aruppukottai Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
... Appellants / Respondents 1 to 4
Vs.
01.R.Vinoth Kumar ... 1st Respondent/writ petitioner
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.1194, 1195 and 1196 of 2017
02.The Secretary,
Hindu High School,
Gopalapuram, Palayampatty Post,
Virudhunagar District.
03.The Principal,
Sri Ramakrishna Mission,
Vidyalaya Maruthi College of Physical Education,
Sri Ramakrishna Vidyalaya Post
Periyanaickenpalayam,
Coimbatore – 641 020.
...2nd and 3rd respondents/respondents 5 and 6
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
against the order dated 18.01.2017 passed in
W.P(MD)No.8115 of 2011.
For Appellants : Mrs.S.Srimathy,
Special Government Pleader
For R-1 : Mr.V.R.Venkatesan
For R-3 : Mr.R.Devaraj
W.A(MD)Nos.1195 and 1196 of 2017:
01.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Secretary to Government,
Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
02.The District Educational Officer,
Aruppukottai Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
... Appellants in both W.As/
Respondents 1 and 2
.vs.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.1194, 1195 and 1196 of 2017
01.R.Vinoth Kumar
....1st respondent in both W.As/
writ petitioner
02.The Secretary,
Hindu High School,
Gopalapuram, Palayampatty Post,
Virudhunagar District
... 2nd respondent in both W.As/
3rd respondent
Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, against the order dated 18.01.2017 passed in
W.P(MD)Nos.4165 and 8790 of 2012 respectively.
For Appellants : Mrs.S.Srimathy,
Special Government Pleader
For R-1 : Mr.V.R.Venkatesan
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)
The above Writ Appeals are filed against the order dated
18.01.2017 passed in W.P(MD)Nos.8115 of 2011, 4165 and 8790 of
2012 respectively.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.1194, 1195 and 1196 of 2017
2. The Writ Petitioner, who is the first respondent in the above
appeals had passed 12th standard in the year 2007. Thereafter, he
had joined Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda University,
Periyanayakkanpalayam, Coimbatore, which offered D.P.Ed.,
certificate i.e., Diploma in Physical Education, which is a two years
course. The qualification to join the said course is, a pass in Plus
Two. The Writ Petitioner had completed the two years course of
Diploma in Physical Education on 26.04.2009 and the provisional
certificate was also issued on the same date. Based on the same,
the writ petitioner had applied for the post of Physical Education
Teacher with the second respondent School. An interview was
conducted on 17.05.2010 and he was selected and was directed to
produce all the necessary certificates. Based on the certificate
verification, the second respondent herein, issued an order of
appointment on 24.05.2010. Since the approval for the appointment
to the post of Physical Education teacher is not given by the fourth
appellant the District Educational Officer, Aruppukottai Taluk,
Virudhunagar District, no payment is made from the date of the
appointment as salary. The fourth appellant informed that the
second appellant has not approved the appointment and the
approval proceedings are pending. Due to which, salary could not
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.1194, 1195 and 1196 of 2017
be paid to the writ petitioner. While so, the second respondent
school herein had sent a letter to Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda
University to furnish documents regarding the recognition of the
University from the Tamil Nadu Government.
3. In response, the said University vide letter dated
28.12.2010 had replied that the courses D.P.Ed, B.P.Ed, M.P.Ed,
were recognized and they have obtained permission from National
Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), which in turn has a sent a
proposal to Tamil Nadu Government for it's recommendation and
approval. Subsequently, the University has obtained recognition
from the State Government and produced the proceedings with
regard to the same.
4. Further, the University had mentioned in the letter dated
28.12.2010 that the Course of D.P.Ed., was conducted by the Maruti
Physical Education College for several years and the same was
approved in Directorate of Teacher Education Research and Training
by the State of Tamilnadu. The said Maruti Physical Education
College is affiliated with Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda
University. Since the said University is approved by the State of
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.1194, 1195 and 1196 of 2017
Tamil Nadu, the second appellant was requested to approve the
appointment of the first respondent/writ petitioner. The Writ
Petitioner also obtained information through the Public Information
Officer stating that the said University is a deemed University, which
does not come under the control of State Government.
The Writ Petitioner also obtained a communication under the Right
To Information Act from the Directorate of Teacher Education
Research and Training dated 11.04.2011 that there is no G.O issued
stating that the Diploma in Physical Education issued by
Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda University and the Diploma in
Physical Education issued by the State Government, are equal.
In the meanwhile, the District Educational Officer, Aruppukottai
Taluk, had sent a communication to the School on 03.06.2011, in
which he had returned all the papers including the request for
approving the appointment of the Writ Petitioner on the ground that
the qualification possessed by the Writ Petitioner is not suitable to
hold the post of P.E.T.(Physical Education Teacher).
5. While the matter stood thus, as the writ petitioner did not
possess the requisite educational qualification for the post of
Physical Education Teacher, his request for approval of his
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.1194, 1195 and 1196 of 2017
appointment was returned. Therefore, the Writ Petitioner filed
W.P(MD)No.8115 of 2011, seeking a direction to the fourth
Appellant to approve his appointment as Physical Education Teacher
with effect from the date of initial appointment i.e., from
24.05.2010 and consequently, pay all arrears of salary and other
monetary benefits etc., and interim injunction was granted in the
said Writ Petition restraining the appellants from terminating the
Writ Petitioner. However, in letter No.11387/K1/2011-4 dated
03.01.2012, which was from the Joint Secretary, Education
Department, addressed to the school, it is stated that letter
No.834/K1/2011 dated 19.04.2011 and Government letter
No.1153/K1/2011-1 dated 02.05.2011, are bogus ones produced by
the writ petitioner in order to cheat the school for getting job. The
Writ Petitioner had specifically contended that the said letters were
not submitted by him. However, the approval of appointment of the
writ petitioner was rejected on the ground that the writ petitioner
had produced the bogus letters to gain employment. Thereafter,
the writ petitioner was not allowed to continue. Hence, the writ
petitioner filed W.P(MD)No.4165 of 2012, seeking for issuance of a
Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent School to permit
him to continue the work as Physical Education Teacher and
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.1194, 1195 and 1196 of 2017
consequently, allow him to put his signature in the Attendance
Register maintained by them.
6. In fact, the Writ Petitioner had mentioned about the two
letters in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in
W.P(MD)No.8115 of 2011. Without heeding the request of the Writ
Petitioner, an FIR (First Information Report) was filed against the
Writ Petitioner. Unfortunately, the school had sent a charge-memo
on 09.05.2012 framing two charges against the Writ Petitioner.
After an enquiry, the impugned order dated 08.06.2012 was passed
dismissing the Writ Petitioner from service.
7. Despite the request of the Writ Petitioner to furnish the
documents relied on by the management in support of the charges
framed against the Writ Petitioner, the second respondent school
had not furnished any of the documents. Therefore, the writ
petitioner filed W.P(MD)No.8790 of 2012, seeking for issuance of a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order dated
08.06.2012.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.1194, 1195 and 1196 of 2017
8. All the Writ Petitions were resisted by the appellants
contending that the Education Department had carefully scrutinized
all the records given by the Writ Petitioner and found them to be
bogus. Therefore, the writ petitioner is not entitled for approval of
his appointment.
9. The learned Single Judge had discussed all the factual
aspects in detail and allowed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved by the
same, the above Writ Appeals are filed by the Government and
District Educational Officers. The questions that arise for
consideration in all the above appeals are:
“(i).Whether the appointment of Writ
Petitioner can be approved from 24.05.2010?
(ii).Whether the impugned termination order
dated 08.06.2012 is to be quashed?”
10. Heard Mrs.S.Srimathy, learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the appellants, Mr.V.R.Venkatesan, learned
counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner and
Mr.R.Devaraj, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent
University and perused the materials available on record.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.1194, 1195 and 1196 of 2017
11. The admitted facts are that the writ petitioner had studied
in Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda University and obtained the
certificate in D.P.Ed. The learned counsel, who appeared for the
University submitted that the Institution is recognized and it is
functioning even today. It is also not in dispute that the first
appellant had permitted the said Institution to continue and impart
various courses. It cannot be stated that the qualification obtained
by the writ petitioner is not from a recognized Institution.
12. It is also admitted by the learned Special Government
Pleader that the Diploma obtained by the writ petitioner is
recognized and it is equal to the Diploma in Physical Education
issued by the State Government. The main allegation for
terminating the Writ Petitioner is with regard to furnishing of letter
No.834/K1/2011-1 dated 19.04.2011 and letter No.1153/K1/2011-1
dated 02.05.2011, which are alleged to be bogus letters. In this
regard, it would be relevant to advert to the judgement given by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai in C.C.No.11 of 2014,
wherein the writ petitioner was arrayed as first accused. After an
elaborate trial and consideration of the material facts, it was found
that the letters dated 19.04.2011 and 02.05.2011, were not issued
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.1194, 1195 and 1196 of 2017
by the Educational Department of Tamil Nadu and they are bogus
ones. However, it was also found that those letters had got nothing
to do with the Writ Petitioner or that he had produced the same for
the purpose of securing a job. The Judicial Magistrate had further
held that in the absence of any evidence to show that the alleged
letters were fabricated only by Writ Petitioner, he was acquitted.
The only ground shown in the impugned order dated 08.06.2012, is
that the writ petitioner had produced fabricated letters. As the Writ
Petitioner was acquitted after an elaborate trial in the judgment
passed in C.C.No.11 of 2014 dated 24.03.2016, the impugned order
is liable to be quashed. The said judgement in the said calendar
case is said to have attained finality as there was no appeal filed by
the Government.
13. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, the
judgment in C.C.No.11 of 2014, is a direct answer to the impugned
order and the same has to be quashed. As the writ petitioner has
qualified himself from an Institution approved by Government, he
cannot be rejected. If the said Institution from where the writ
petitioner had obtained his certificate is not recognized or no
approval is granted, it is for the Government to take appropriate
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.1194, 1195 and 1196 of 2017
action and not to involve the stakeholders to take any risk. The
appellants have also not produced any material to show that
University/College was not a recognized one and that they are
restrained from offering any courses. Therefore, the certificate
obtained by the writ petitioner is deemed to be valid and the original
appointment given to the writ petitioner cannot be terminated.
14. In view of the above discussion, the common order dated
18.01.2017 passed by the Learned Single Judge is confirmed and
the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[P.S.N.,J] [S.K.,J.]
09 .03.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
pm
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.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.1194, 1195 and 1196 of 2017
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL,J.
pm
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)Nos.1194 to 1196 of 2017
09.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
