Madras High Court
State Of Tamil Nadu vs R.Parthasarathi on 18 August, 2022
W.A.No.1695 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.A.No.1695 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.11817 of 2022
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary,
Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Deputy Secretary to the Government,
Handlooms, Handicraft, Textiles and Khadi Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
..Appellants
Vs
R.Parthasarathi ..Respondent
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 26.08.2021 made in W.P. No.34077 of 2018.
For Appellants : Mr.Abhishek Moorthy,
Government Advocate
For Respondent : Ms.Dakshyani Reddy
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1695 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Paresh Upadhyay.,J)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 26.08.2021
recorded on W.P.No.30477 of 2018. This appeal is by the respondent
/ State Authorities.
2. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant has
submitted that, non-eligibility on the part of the writ petitioner on the
ground of educational qualification, in the facts of this case, ought not
to have been interfered with by learned Single Judge. It is submitted
that interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is an error apparent on the face of record, which
may be corrected by invoking Clause 15 of Letters Patent. Learned
Government Advocate for the appellants has taken this Court through
the recruitment rules for the post of Assistant Section Officer so also
the Section Officer. Attention of the Court is also invited to G.O.338
dated 20.04.2017. It is submitted that this appeal be entertained.
3. Learned advocate for the respondent / successful writ
petitioner has submitted that the writ petitioner was selected as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1695 of 2022
direct recruit Assistant Section Officer where the requisite educational
qualification is the degree which the petitioner had answered and at
the time of that appointment also, that question was raised, whether
the petitioner can be said to be possessing requisite educational
qualification. It is submitted that having satisfied about it, the State
had given appointment and the subsequent decision that the writ
petitioner can not be promoted on the post of Section Officer, since
he does not possess educational qualification of Graduation is illegal,
arbitrary and therefore the relief granted by learned Single Judge is
just and proper and no interference be made by this Court.
4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and having considered the material on record, this Court finds
as under:-
4.1 The cause of action for the writ petition was that he was
denied promotion on the post of Section Officer on the ground that he
can not be said to have properly acquired requisite educational
qualification of Graduation.
4.2 The recruitment rules for the post of Assistant Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1695 of 2022
Officer so also the Section Officer are made available to this Court.
So far as the educational qualification is concerned, the requirement
is the same for Assistant Section Officer so also the Section Officer.
At the time of direct recruitment of the writ petitioner as Assistant
Section Officer, he was already accepted to be possessing requisite
educational qualification of Graduation.
4.3 It is not disputed and it is not even the case of the State
Authorities that the petitioner has not completed three years
graduation course. It is also not in dispute that prior thereto the
petitioner had also completed higher secondary i.e plus two
standards. The only point pressed into service is that, the writ
petitioner at the relevant time had not passed S.S.L.C examination
but had completed pre-foundation course from Madurai Kamaraj
University, which at the relevant time was sufficient qualification to
get admission in plus two i.e. XI and XII. The problem has started
because, that recognition, at this stage is not the policy of the State
in view of G.O. No.34 dated 08.11.2018. According to us, the
educational qualification of the writ petitioner can not be said to have
evaporated because of this. This would lead to absurd situation, that
a person, who was possessing requisite educational qualification of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1695 of 2022
graduation in the year 2011, will be held to be not possessing
required educational qualification of the same degree, in the year
2018. The policy of the State can neither stipulate this nor can be
read like this. We find that, the finding recorded by learned Single
Judge in the order under challenge, more particularly para : 15 of the
order is just and proper and the same can not be said to be an error
apparent on the face of record. We find that, rejection of writ petition
would have acknowledged the perverse reading of the policy of the
State and this was rightly not done by learned Single Judge. We were
in full agreement with the grant of relief in favour of the writ
petitioner. This appeal therefore needs to be dismissed.
6. For the reasons recorded above, this writ appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition would not
survive.
(P.U., J.) (V.B.S., J.)
18.08.2022
Index:No
ssm/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1695 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.,J
ssm
W.A.No.1695 of 2022
18.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
