Madras High Court
The Joint Director Of School ... vs R.Balasubramanian on 17 November, 2021
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 17.11.2021
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana
and
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No. 9429 of 2021
1. The Joint Director of School Education,
(Higher Secondary)
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Erode District.
...Appellants
vs
1. R.Balasubramanian,
2. The Chairman
Teachers Recruitment Board,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
...Respondents
Prayer:-
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16007 of 2012, dated
22.01.2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
For Appellants : Mr. C.Jayaprakash
Government Advocate
For Respondent-1 : M/s. Bala & Daisy
Judgment
(Delivered by Krishnan Ramasamy,J.,)
This is an intra Court Appeal filed against the order passed in
Writ Petition No.16007 of 2012, dated 22.01.2020.
2. The appellants 1 and 2 herein are the respondents 1 and 3
respectively in the aforesaid Writ Petition; the first respondent herein is the
writ petitioner and the second respondent in both the proceedings, (viz.,
Writ Appeal and Writ Petition) is the Teachers Recruitment Board (for
short, 'TRB'). For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties
shall be, hereinafter, referred to as per the rank in the Writ Appeal
throughout this judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
3. The facts of the case, which led to the filing of this Writ Appeal
are as follows:-
i) The first respondent completed B.A. Degree (Economics), M.A.
Degree (English) and B.Ed. qualification in the year 1996 and having
possessed the said qualifications, he enrolled his name in the Employment
Exchange register on 04.03.1997. The second respondent/TRB called for
an appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant via. direct recruitment in the
subjects for the academic year 2009-10. Based on the seniority, the first
respondent's name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange to the
second respondent/TRB and the second respondent/TRB vide memo,
bearing No.2554/Aa1/2009, dated 03.03.2010, directed the first respondent
to appear for certificate verification on 12.03.2010. After such verification,
a provisional selection order was issued to the first respondent by the
second respondent/TRB, vide proceedings dated 03.06.2010. Subsequently,
the first appellant, vide proceedings, dated 31.08.2010, appointed the first
respondent to the post of P.G.Assistant and regularized his service on
23.09.2011. Later, the first appellant themselves, vide proceedings, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
13.03.2012, terminated the service of the first respondent. Feeling
aggrieved, the first respondent filed a Writ Petition, being W.P.No.16007 of
2012, for quashment of the said proceedings, dated 13.03.2012, and
consequently, to reinstate him into service together with all monetary
benefits.
ii) The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, allowed the
Writ Petition and directed the appellants to reinstate the first respondent into
service within a specified time. Challenging the said order, the present
Appeal.
4. Mr. C.Jayaprakash, the learned Government Advocate appearing
for appellants herein (respondents 1 and 3) would submit that, as per the
order passed by the Government, vide G.O.(Ms).No.361, School Education
Department, dated 31.12.1999 (hereinafter, referred to as G.O.(Ms).No.361')
only candidates, who possess both Bachelor Degree and Master Degree in
the same subjects, or its equivalent, in respect of which, recruitment is
made, with B.T. or B.Ed. qualification are eligible to be considered for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant for the academic year 2009-10. As
on date, on which, the name of the first respondent was registered with the
Employment Exchange, the requisite qualification for the aforesaid post is
Master Degree in the relevant subject with B.Ed qualification.
Subsequently, the said qualification was reviewed by the Government, and
since the first respondent did not possess the requisite qualification, as per
the amended Government Order, the first respondent is not eligible to be
considered for appointment to the post of P.G.Assistant and this aspect was
not properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge.
4.1 The learned Government Advocate would further submit that
the first respondent pursued M.A. and B.Ed simultaneously and completed
the said courses in the same year 1996 and failed to complete B.A. degree
(English) before obtaining M.A. Degree and completed the same within one
year from the Alagappa University, which cannot be accepted, as three years
duration of degree course alone can be treated as valid for gaining
employment. Therefore, he contended that first respondent possessed B.A.
Degree (Economics); M.A. Degree (English) and B.Ed. Qualification, which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
were completed in the year 1996, however, failed to complete B.A. English
as on the date on which, he enrolled his name in the Employment Exchange
i.e. 04.03.1997, and the same was completed only in the year 2008. It is his
further submission that since the name of the first respondent was registered
with the Employment Exchange based on seniority, his name was sponsored
by the Employment Exchange to the second respondent/TRB, as the first
respondent was eligible to the post of P.G. Assistant, he was called for
interview/certificate verification and after such verification, he was
appointed to the post of P.G. Assistant. It was subsequently found that the
first respondent had not completed B.A. English before completion of M.A.
English and he had completed the same in the year 2008 only, that too,
within one year duration. Therefore, the first respondent was not eligible to
the said post and hence, the termination order was passed by the first
appellant on 13.03.2012.
4.2 Further, the learned Government Advocate, in support of his
contentions drawn our attention to a Division Bench judgment of this Court,
in the case of The Chairman, TRB and another Vs. A.Valarmathi and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
two others) in W.A.Nos.1496 to 1498 of 2015, wherein, at para No.13, a
reference was made to a decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of
this Court in W.P.No.30299 of 2012, in the case of S.Jagadeeswari Vs.
The Chairman, TRB) (which was also confirmed in Writ Appeal No.845
of 2013 dated 07.01.2014), and the relevant portion reads as follows:-
“Simultaneous acquisition of degrees or
acquisition of a lower qualification after acquiring a
higher qualification (reverse degree) cannot be
recognized as a proper qualification for the purpose of
appointment as B.T. Assistants.”
Thus, by placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions, the learned
Government Advocate prayed for interference of this Bench to set aside the
impugned order.
5. M/s. Bala & Daisy, the learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent (writ petitioner) would submit that, since the first respondent
possessed required qualification, he was called for certificate verification by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
the second respondent/TRB on 12.03.2010, and only after thorough
scrutinization of the certificates, the first respondent was issued with a
provisional selection order, dated 03.06.2010 , and that the first appellant,
after having found that the first respondent was fully eligible to be
appointed as P.G. Assistant, for the year 2009-10, issued the appointment
order, dated 31.08.2010. By virtue of the said appointment order, the first
respondent joined the service on 02.09.2010 and in fact, his service was also
regularized by the first appellant on 23.09.2011. Therefore, he submitted
that the impugned termination order passed by the first appellant, dated
13.03.2012, all of a sudden, without calling for first respondent's
explanation is unsustainable.
` 5.1 The learned counsel for the first respondent would further
submit that the qualification prescribed as on the date of registration of the
first respondent's name with the Employment Exchange on 04.03.1997, for
P.G. Assistant was PG degree in English with B.Ed/ B.T qualification, and
since the first respondent possessed the requisite degree, he was allowed to
register his name. Subsequently, the said qualifications were amended vide
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
G.O.(Ms.) No.361, whereby, it was stated that the candidates should possess
both P.G. and U.G. in the same subject with B.T./ B.Ed qualification.
Therefore, the contention of the Learned Government Advocate that by
virtue of amended Government Order, the qualification prescribed for the
said post was changed, and as per the amended Government Order, the first
respondent is not entitled to the post of P.G. Assistant is not tenable, as it is
not the fault of the first respondent, who mastered the degree. It is only the
Government, which has changed the qualification norms in the year 1999
and the said change will in no way deprive the first respondent's seniority
right based on registration of his name with the Employment Exchange on
04.03.1997 for the post of P.G. Assistant, as the M.A. English and B.Ed/B.T
degree were the qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of
P.G.Assistant till the date of issuance of G.O.(Ms)No.361, dated
31.12.1999. Even before the second respondent/TRB called for an
appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant via. direct recruitment in the
subjects for the academic year 2009-10, the first respondent has completed
B.A.English in the year 2008. Therefore, he contended that the first
respondent is fully eligible for appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
English and the impugned order is totally illegal, and considering all these
aspects, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition, which does not
warrant interference of this Bench. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the
Writ Appeal.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the
materials on records.
7. It is not in dispute that the first respondent was qualified in B.A.
(Economics), M.A. (English) and B.Ed., when he enrolled his name in the
Employment Exchange Register on 04.03.1997. Thereafter, in the year
2008, he qualified in B.A.(English). Similarly, it is not in dispute that, at
the point of time, when the name of the first respondent was sponsored by
the Employment Exchange to the second respondent/TRB for direct
recruitment to the post of P.G. Assistant, he was found eligible for the said
post and that is the reason why, he was selected and appointed by the
appellants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
7.1 It is pertinent to mention here that, only in the year, 1999, the
Government, vide G.O.(Ms).No.361, dated 31.12.1999 amended the
qualification prescribed for recruitment to the post of P.G. Assistant in
academic subjects, which is reproduced as under:
“Direct recruitment:
i) Must have obtained a Master's degree and
Bachelor's degree in the same subject or its
equivalent in respect of which recruitment is
made;
and
ii) B.T. or B.Ed. degree of a University in the
State or a teaching degree of equivalent standard''
In the above said G.O., it has been clearly mentioned that the amendment
hereby made shall come into force on 31st day of December, 1999.
7.2 Thus, it is clear that prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.361
dated 21.12.1999, the eligibility criteria for the P.G.Assistant post was U.G.
degree in any subject and P.G.degree in the relevant subject with B.Ed./B.T.
degree, which were admittedly possessed by the first respondent when he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
enrolled his name with the Employment Exchange in the year 1997, and
thereby, he was found eligible for the post of P.G.Assistant. As such, his
name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange as per his seniority. In
fact, it was the appellants, who thoroughly verified the certificates
produced by the first respondent and selected him to the post of P.G.
Assistant by issuing the appointment order, dated 31.08.2010. Contrarily,
the appellants themselves have issued the order, vide proceedings, dated
13.03.2012, terminating the service of the first respondent on the ground
that first respondent had not completed B.A. (English) before completion of
M.A. English and he had completed the same (B.A.English) in the year
2008 only, that too, within one year duration and by virtue of
G.O.(Ms.)No.361, dated 31.12.1999, B.A. Degree (English) possessed by
the first respondent is not valid.
7.3 Further, it is the specific case of the appellants that, by virtue of
G.O.Ms.No.361 dated 31.12.1999, the first respondent was found to be
unqualified to the post of P.G.Assistant, as he was not in possession of UG
degree and P.G. degree in the same subject, at the time of selection.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
7.4 It has to be pointed out that, at the time, when the first
respondent enrolled his name in the Employment Exchange register on
04.03.1997, he possessed requisite qualification for appointment to the post
of P.G.Assistant. As noted above, the amendment in respect of the
qualification prescribed for P.G. Assistant post was given effect to by the
Government only from 31.12.1999. While so, the appointment of the first
respondent made in the year 2010 was only after thorough scrutinization of
the certificates produced by him. Merely because, the Government had
changed the qualification norms, that per se will not make the first
respondent to become ineligible to the said post, on the ground that
G.O.Ms.No.361, dated 31.12.1999 will take retrospective effect from
04.03.1997 by de-recognizing the B.A degree (English) on the ground that
the said degree was pursued after the completion of M.A. Degree, and that,
the B.A. degree already possessed by the first respondent was not in the
same subject but in respect of Economics.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
7.5 In service matters, de-recognition of the degree has to be
distinguished carefully. The Government, depending upon the changing
circumstances, would either add/alter/remove the qualifications prescribed
for recruitment to certain posts from the eligibility criteria, and when the
same is exercised, it will not take away validity of the degree, which the
candidate has pursued already, nor the candidate, who possess such degree
can be disqualified on that ground.
7.6 In the present case, the existing rule position is that, when the
first respondent completed his P.G. degree, any U.G. degree coupled with
P.G. Degree, irrespective of whether U.G. and P.G. are in respect of same or
different subject with B.Ed./B.T. was the requisite qualification for
appointment to the post of PG Assistant. However, by virtue of
G.O.Ms.No.361, dated 31.12.1999, qualification required for the post of
P.G. Assistant was amended/altered and as per the said amendment, the
candidates should possess both UG and PG degrees in the same subject.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
7.7 A candidate, who pursues PG course in 1997, pursues the same
with an assurance that his UG course in any subject would be sufficient and
he cannot be expected to anticipate that, in future, UG degree undergone by
him would be undervalued or understimated. Thus, one has to intelligibly
differentiate these two category of candidates i.e. the candidates, who have
completed UG and PG degree as per the 1997 requirement, and those who
have completed their UG and PG degree as per the 1999 requirement. These
two categories of candidates are two separate classes and they cannot be
demanded to possess the same educational qualification in UG and PG
degree, inasmuch as, the first category are duly qualified based on the
qualification required in 1997 and the second category are qualified based
on the requirement in 1999.
7.8 The aforesaid two categories of candidates are duly qualified
candidates, and the first category of candidates, who possess UG and PG
degree in different subjects based on the 1997 requirement, cannot be
placed on a different pedestal for the above stated reason. Normally, the
qualification criteria for employment would keep on changing every year
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
based on State's whims and fancies, and these changes cannot be allowed to
operate retrospectively, and make a candidate, who was found 'earlier to be
duly qualified' and become 'disqualified in future'. If the same is permitted,
it would amount to egregious violation of the rights guaranteed under
Article 14, and this Court would only deprecate and condemn such practice.
7.9 In the light of the above, we are not inclined to take a different
view that, G.O.Ms.No.361 dated 31.12.1999 would apply retrospectively. If
applied so, certainly, the candidates, who are eligible to the post of P.G.
Assistant based on any Master's degree with B.Ed qualification, would loose
their fundamental rights on par with the other candidates, who got qualified
in U.G and P.G. and enrolled their names with the Employment Exchange
on or after the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.361 dated 31.12.1999.
7.10 At the risk of repetition, we would like to say that, the
fundamental right of a candidate cannot be taken away by virtue of
G.O.Ms.No.361 dated 31.12.1999, and if the same is allowed to take
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
retrospective effect, certainly, it would take away the fundamental right of
equality, guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
7.11 A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "E.P.
Royappa versus State of Tamil Nadu" reported in AIR 1974 SC 555, has
classically remarked about the pivotal importance of Article 14 of the
Constitution in the following words:
"Equality is a dynamic concept with many
aspects and dimensions and it cannot be "cribbed
cabined and confined" within traditional and
doctrinaire limits."
7.12 Therefore, equality before law and equal protection of law
stemming from Article 14, has to be construed as a basic expectation of a
citizen, to which, he is entitled to legitimately.
7.13 Thus, having analyzed this case from all genres, we are inclined
to hold that, when a candidate is qualified as a Post Graduate in English
with B.Ed/B.T. degree, he/she is eligible to be considered for appointment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
to the post of P.G. Assistant based on the U.G. degree in other subjects and
the Government Order, dated 31.12.1999 passed subsequently, changing the
qualification norms will not deprive the right of the candidate (first
respondent, in this case) who was already found eligible for appointment to
the post as P.G. Assistant based on UG and PG degree irrespective of the
fact whether the candidate possessed UG and PG in the same or any other
subject.
7.14 Thus, we are of the view that the changes brought out in the
qualification norms by way of the subsequent Government Order, viz.,
G.O.(Ms.)No.361, dated 31.12.1999 has to be applied only prospectively
and cannot be allowed to take retrospective effect. Hence, the first
respondent is qualified to be appointed to the post of P.G. Assistant as on
the date of his enrollment in the Employment Exchange Register on
04.03.1997 and his seniority starts from 04.03.1997.
7.15 Insofar as the UG degree requirement, as demanded by the
appellants is concerned, cannot be considered as an essential or additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
qualification, because, the candidates, who possess PG degree prior to 1997
were given an option to pursue UG degree in any other subject. Subsequent
changes made vide Government Order, dated 31.12.1999 that the candidates
should possess UG+ PG degree in the same subject, would not affect the
candidates, who have completed their UG degree (in any other subject) prior
to such change.
7.16 The qualification norms set out in G.O.(Ms.)No.361, dated
31.12.1999 that the candidates should possess UG in the same subject as
done in P.G. Degree would only apply to those candidates, who are
registering their names in the employment exchange after 1999.
7.17 We have no hesitation to hold that when a candidate possesses
an educational qualification in a particular year, and if he is found eligible
for a particular post based on the said qualification, any changes made
subsequently in the qualification norms, cannot be allowed to take
retrospective effect, unless and otherwise, if any other additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
qualification is prescribed, if allowed so, it would cause great prejudice to
the candidates, who were already selected and appointed.
7.18 Though the learned Government Advocate relied on a decision
rendered in S.Jagadeeswari's case (cited supra) in support of his
contention that simultaneous acquisition of degrees or acquisition of a lower
qualification after acquiring a higher qualification (reverse degree) cannot
be recognized as a proper qualification for the purpose of appointment as
P.G. Assistants, the said decision is of no assistance to him, for the reasons
assigned by this Court, in the above paragraphs.
7.19 Hence, we are of the firm view that the first respondent is
qualified to the post of P.G. Assistant and by virtue of the subsequent
G.O.(Ms) No.361, dated 31.12.1999, earlier entitlement of the first
respondent to the said post cannot be usurped away.
7.20 Thus, all these aforesaid aspects were duly taken note of by the
learned Single Judge in a proper perspective and in fact, considering the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
first respondent's qualification in a right way by the Certifying Authority,
appointment order has been issued and the service of the first respondent
has also been regularized, and at this juncture, terminating the service of the
first respondent is totally unsustainable and it amounts to violation of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In fact, the learned Judge observed
that the termination will cause severe consequences, for, the name of the
first respondent would be permanently removed from the register of
Employment Exchange and he would not get any future employment from
being sponsored by Employment Exchange and further, he had given up his
selection to the post of BRTE by the first appellant vide his proceedings,
dated 15.10.2010.
7.21 Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by
the learned Single Judge in allowing the Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
8. In the result, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
P.S.N.J., K.R.J.
17.11.2021
Index : yes/no
sd
To
1. The Joint Director of School Education,
(Higher Secondary)
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Erode District.
3. The Chairman
Teachers Recruitment Board,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.,
&
Krishnan Ramasamy, J.,
sd
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
17.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
& C.M.P.No.9429 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
My learned Brother Judge had undertaken the task of writing the
judgment dealing with all the relevant aspects. While agreeing and
concurring with the conclusion arrived at by my learned Brother Judge,
I would like to record the following few lines.
2. The first respondent, who had been appointed as P.G.
Teacher on 31.08.2010, was terminated on 13.03.2012 on the basis
that he had obtained B.A. Degree in English, after obtaining the Post
Graduation in English. Further, he was holding a B.A. Degree in
Economics and he has also obtained B.Ed. Degree. The termination is
based on G.O.Ms.No.361, School Education Department, dated
31.12.1999, which mandates the candidate to obtain a Master's degree
and Bachelor's degree in the same subject or its equivalent in respect
of which, the recruitment is made.
3. The question as to whether reverse degree is acceptable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
has been decided by Coordinate Benches and learned Single Judges of
this Court in various judgments.
4. We had an occasion to touch upon the said issue vide the
judgment dated 02.09.2021 made in W.A.No.1863 of 2021. Even in
the said appeal, reliance was placed on the judgment of a learned
Single Judge in S.Jagadeeswari Vs. The Chairman, Teachers
Recruitment Board, Chennai, in W.P.No.30299 of 2012, wherein, it
was held that simultaneous acquisition of degrees or acquisition of a
lower qualification after acquiring a higher qualification cannot be
recognised as a proper qualification for the purpose of appointment as
B.T. Assistants. The said order of the learned Single Judge was
affirmed in W.A.No.845 of 2013.
5. Yet another judgment in R.Thirunavukkarasu V. The
State of Tamil Nadu, 2012 (5) CTC 129, this Court condemned the
shortcut methods adopted by the candidates, who got recruited as
teachers.
6. While the legal position remains as above, in the instant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
case, the learned Single Judge has approved the appointment of the
writ petitioner, by quashing the order impugned therein, as the writ
petitioner/the first respondent herein had no fraudulent intention to
get an appointment through a crooked method. The first respondent
had cleared the examination conducted by the second respondent/TRB
successfully and after the document verification was done by the TRB,
the appointment order was issued to him on 31.08.2020 and his
services was regularized on 23.09.2011. In the counter-affidavit filed
in the writ petition also, it has been admitted that the regularization
was done only after verification of the educational qualification of the
first respondent by the appellants herein. It was specifically stated in
the affidavit that during the document verification, the above facts
were not noticed, which cannot be said to be the fault of the first
respondent.
7. The first respondent has been in continuous service from
the date of appointment, though his termination was under challenge.
If G.O.Ms.No.361, dated 31.12.1999, specifically prescribed the
qualification for direct recruitment, it is for the appellants authorities to
have taken due care to verify the same, even before issuing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
appointment order. The TRB had conducted the examination and given
the list of successful candidates to the appellants, who should have
verified it at least before regularising the services. Having failed to do
so, the appellants are estopped from issuing the order of termination
by taking advantage of their own mistake.
8. Though this Court is not approving the conduct of the writ
petitioner/the first respondent herein, when it was permissible and the
Universities were offering such cross major degrees or even the
reverse degrees, the entire blame cannot be attributed on the first
respondent.
9. The learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment of a
Division Bench of this Court dated 23.09.2019 made in W.A.Nos.3066
and 3235 of 2019 (The Director of School Education, Chennai V.
S.Aruna) in the impugned order to allow the writ petition. The Division
Bench dealt with a similar issued in the said judgment and placing
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukh
Bilash Thakur V. Bihar State Electricity Board and Others, 2019
(4) SCC 258 held that when there is no deliberate intention of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
malpractice or gaining entry through the back door, the blame cannot
be attributed on the employee. It is apposite to extract paragraph 26
and 27 of the said judgment, which are as follow:
"26. Even in the decision, Sukh Bilash Thakur's case [quoted
supra] relied on by Ms.Dakshayani Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondent in WA No.3066 of 2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
finding that there was no case of suppression or fraud, interfered with
the order of reversion of the appellant therein and since the appellant
therein viz., Sukh Bilash Thakur, had retired from service, while setting
aside the order of reversion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed
pensionary and other retiral benefits be paid to the appellant therein
with interest.
27. It is not the case of the appellants that the respondents have
misrepresented, at the time of securing appointment. Allegation of
malpractice has not been substantiated. There is an inordinate delay of
12 years in verifying the details of the educational qualifications.
Performance of the respondents were found to be good, to be precise, it
is more than 100% in subject mathematics, for the last five years. By
considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and on the facts
and circumstances of the case, writ Court has rightly rejected the
contention of the appellants herein and issued directions to reinstate the
respondents in service and grant them all consequential monetary and
attendant benefits to which the respondents are entitled."
The said Division Bench judgment was also upheld by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SLP (C)No.27188 of 2019 on 22.11.2019. Applying
the said judgment, the learned Single Judge rightly allowed the writ
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
10. Hence, I am of the view that the mistake of the appellants,
which is admitted by them, cannot be allowed to jeopardise the
interest of the first respondent. Therefore, while expressing my view,
as above, I agree with the conclusion of the appeal arrived at by my
learned Brother Judge in confirming the order of the learned Single
Judge.
11. It is made clear that this judgment should not be cited as a
precedent seeking to quash the order of termination, if the same is
passed following the due process of law.
12. Before parting with this matter, it may be necessary to
state that it is high time for the education department as well as the
TRB to draw guidelines for its officials to take all earnest efforts to
verify the certificates of the candidates properly fixing responsibility, in
case of any lapse and thereafter only they should recommend the
candidates to the concerned authorities, who, in turn, before making
appointment, should verify the correctness and also the genuineness
of the certificates of those candidates, if their rules mandate such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
verification. If that task consume sometime, which would go adverse
to the interest of the students, at least, the authorities should get the
certificates verified in a shorter span of time, which in no circumstance
should cross the probation period of the teachers. If there are lapses,
the authorities should take suitable action in accordance with law
within a reasonable period and definitely, it cannot be allowed to be
undertaken after the completion of probation period or declaration of
probation or after regularization of the teachers.
17.11.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
gg
Copy to :
1. The Principal Secretary,
Higher Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Principal Secretary,
School Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
gg
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
& C.M.P.No.9429 of 2021
17.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1481 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
