Madras High Court
P.Ruby Hena Devi vs The Director Of Elementary ... on 5 April, 2022
W.P.(MD).No.22088 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD).No.22088 of 2016
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.15807 and 15808 of 2016
P.Ruby Hena Devi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
Directorate of Elementary Education,
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600 006.
2.The Joint Director of Elementary Education,
(Private Aided Schools),
Directorate of Elementary Education,
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600 006.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Additional/Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Kadayam Range,
Tirunelveli District.
5.The Secretary,
Roselyn Primary School,
A.P.Nadarur,
Kadayam Range,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22088 of 2016
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarifi, to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned order of termination, dated, 21.04.2016 on the file
of the Respondent No.4 and the consequential order in Moo.Mu.No.
3345/A1/2016, dated, 09.09.2016 on the file of the Respondent No.2 and quash
the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For Respondents : Mr.V.Om Prakash
Government Advocate(Civil Side)
for R1 to R4
Mr.M.Subbaiah
for Mr.H.Arumugam
for R5
ORDER
This present writ petition has been filed to quash the termination order,
dated, 21.04.2016 with the consequential prayer to quash the consequential
order, dated, 09.09.2016.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 26.07.1985 at
Roselyn Primary School, which is the Government Aided Private School. The
petitioner obtained teacher training certificate, namely, Teachers Certificate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22088 of 2016
Higher(TCH) from the Karnataka Board in the year 1981. That certificate was
evaluated as equivalent to the Secondary Grade Teachers Certificate Tamil
Nadu, vide proceedings, dated, 17.10.1986. The contention of the petitioner is
that in the communication, dated, 17.10.1986, the first respondent has further
stated that the same certificate was retained by the first respondent for further
verification if necessary. For about 7 years, there was no doubt whatsoever
regarding the certificate issued by the Karnataka Board. However, in the year
2011, along with few others, the petitioner filed W.P.No.26441 of 2004 before
the Principal Bench for a Mandamus, directing the respondents to return the
petitioner's original certificate and this Court directed the respondents to return
the original certificate to the petitioner, vide order, dated, 25.08.2011 and it was
made clear that injunction granted in W.P.M.P.No.32197 of 2004, dated,
02.11.2004 will continue till the petitioners get their original certificates.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that without returning of the
original certificates and without taking any adverse action against holders, the
fifth respondent, the Secretary of the school, who is the petitioner's elder
brother had vengeance against the petitioner and dismissed the petitioner. The
contention of the petitioner is that after 30 years of service, the fifth respondent
placed the petitioner under suspension, vide order, dated, 21.08.2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22088 of 2016
Thereafter, issued a Charge Memo, dated, 13.10.2015 leveling charges for
submitting false certificates and the petitioner challenged the same in W.P.
(MD)No.19200 of 2015 and the meanwhile the school proceeded with the
enquiry and passed the termination order, dated, 21.04.2016 without getting any
prior approval from third respondent. The Secretary of the school, which is a
non-minority private aided primary school has passed the termination order
without any prior permission from the competent authority as required in
Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act,
1973 and hence the termination is illegal. As per Section 23, the petitioner
preferred an appeal on 25.04.2016 and the same was pending without any
response. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.10738 of 2016, seeking for a
direction to the third respondent to pass orders in the appeal and the same was
disposed of on 25.04.2016. The second respondent has passed the impugned
order, dated, 09.09.2016, rejecting the appeal and stating that the certificate is a
false certificate. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition is filed.
4. The respondents filed a counter stating that the petitioner's claim was
considered. The issue of bogus certificate by Karnataka Board was considered
by several other litigations also. The Registrar of the said Board has sent a
communication stating that the petitioner's Registration No. 13228 and she has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22088 of 2016
passed first year in April 1980. For the second year, the petitioner's number is
12601 and the examination was conducted in April 1981. But the petitioner did
not appear in all papers. Therefore, the petitioner was considered as fail in the
second year. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to a prayer.
5. Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Mr.V.Om Prakash, learned Government Advocate(Civil Side) appearing for
respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.M.Subbaiah, learned counsel appearing for
respondent 5.
6. The issue of bogus certificate submitted by the teachers as if it is
issued by Karnataka Board was considered by Division Bench of this Court in
W.A(MD)Nos.901 and 902 of 2013, vide order, dated, 15.11.2018 as held as
follows:
“7. We are also of the view that the first respondent has really
been given a long rope. The first respondent claimed that the
Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board issued her
a Teachers' Certificate, after she successfully underwent a
course conducted by the Board. The appointment secured by
the first respondent herein/Writ petitioner was set aside on the
ground that the certificate was not genuine. Therefore, the onus
lay only on the first respondent to prove the genuineness of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22088 of 2016
certificate. The learned Judge had proceeded on the premise
that the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board
must give a finding with regard to genuineness of the first
respondent's certificate and for that the original records have
to be submitted by the first respondent herein. In fact all that
the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board was
required to do was to verify the records available with itself.
The Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board had
been engaging itself in a futile correspondence with the first
respondent herein. Only when the Karnataka Secondary
Education Examination Board verified its records, the truth
came to light. Since it has been categorically found that the
first respondent did not even pass the second year as well as
the practical examination, the order impugned in these Writ
appeals will have to be set aside and accordingly, it is set
aside.”
7. In fact, the petitioner has also filed another W.P.(MD)No.12930 of
2017 batch. This Court in a batch of writ petitions, vide order, dated,
08.08.2019 as held as follows:
22. In view of the above judgment passed by the
Honourable Division Bench of this Court, no further
consideration is required in respect of the grounds raised
in the present writ petitions, as the certificates submitted
by the writ petitioners at the time of securing appointment
to the post of Teacher were established as bogus
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22088 of 2016
certificatess and the Karnataka Secondary Education
Examination Board had also submitted a report as
discussed in the aforementioned paragraphs stating that
the certificates of these fifteen candidates were bogus.
23. This being the factum, the writ petitioners are
not entitled for any relief as sought for in the present writ
petitions and the earlier continuance of the writ petitioners
in service itself was based on lis pendens and hence, no
further relief can be granted in favour of the writ
petitioners. Thus, the order impugned in W.P(MD)No.
12930 of 2017, passed by the fourth respondent in
O.Mu.No.400/A.1/2017, dated, 27.06.2017, stands
confirmed.
In the aforesaid orders also the petitioner is one of the party and this
Court has held that the teachers are not entitled any relief.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that another Division
Bench has directed if any certificate is produced by the petitioner, the same has
to be considered by the respondents. This Court is of the considered opinion,
the same cannot be entertained. Since the Karnataka Board, who is the
competent authority has stated that the petitioner has not appeared for the
second year and hence the petitioner is considered as fail. Moreover, if the
bogus certificate is handed over to the petitioner, again the same will be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22088 of 2016
misused. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the bogus
certificate is liable to be destroyed. So the prayer of the petitioner cannot be
entertained and hence the same is rejected.
9. Following the said judgments stated supra, this Court of the
considered opinion, the petitioner is not eligible for any relief. Accordingly, this
Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
05.04.2022
gbg
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
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.P.(MD).No.22088 of 2016
To
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
Directorate of Elementary Education,
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600 006.
2.The Joint Director of Elementary Education,
(Private Aided Schools),
Directorate of Elementary Education,
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600 006.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Additional/Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Kadayam Range,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22088 of 2016
S.SRIMATHY, J.
gbg
W.P.(MD).No.22088 of 2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22088 of 2016
05.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
