Madras High Court
Government Of Tamil Nadu vs P.Saravanan on 8 March, 2022
1 W.A.Nos. 565 to 567 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.Nos.565 to 567 of 2015
and MP.No.1 of 2014
W.A.No.565 of 2015
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms
Department, Chennai. ...Appellant
Vs
1. P.Saravanan
2. C.Mageswaran
3. K.M.Sakthivel
4. M.Marimuthu
5. T.Venkatesan
6. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Greams Road, Commercial Tax Office
Building, Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ appeal is filed under clause 15 of the Letter Patent praying to
set aside the order dated 21.04.2014 made in W.P.No.13742 of 2010.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 W.A.Nos. 565 to 567 of 2015
For Appellant : Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveen Kumar
for R1 to R5
R6 – Dispense with
W.A.No.566 of 2015
1. Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms
Department, Secretariat,
Chennai.
2. The Secretary,
Higher Education Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 002. ...Appellants
-vs-
1. V.Kannan
2. A.Ranjith Kumar
3. S. Elango
4. A.Sethuraman
5. K. Selvam
6. D. Durai Mohan
7. V. Shanmugam
8. K. Sarvanan
9. S. Senthil Kumar
10. R.Jeyalakshmi
11. R. Sumathi
12. C.Vijayaraghavan
13. S. Bavaji
14. M. Murugan
15. N.Loganathan
16. S. Subramani
17. V. Balamurugan
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 W.A.Nos. 565 to 567 of 2015
18. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Greams Road, Commercial Tax Office
Building,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ appeal is filed under clause 15 of the Letter Patent praying to
set aside the order dated 21.04.2014 made in W.P.No.14150 of 2010 on the
file of this Court.
For Appellants : Ms.V.Yamunadevi
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.P.K.Rajesh PraveenKumar
for R1 to R17
R18 – Dispense with
W.A.No.567 of 2015
1. Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms
Department, Secretariat,
Chennai.
2. The Secretary,
Higher Education of Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 002. ...Appellants
-vs-
1. E. Venkatesan
2. R. Thamaraichelvi
3. M. Ramesh
4. K. Jaya
5. M. Kavitha
6. C. Stella Mary
7. S.Kirubanandam
3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 W.A.Nos. 565 to 567 of 2015
8. S. Santhanam
9. T. Muniyan
10. I.F.Nazirun
11. J. John Marshal
12. A. Ramesh
13. M. Senthil Kumar
14. D. Parameswari
15. M. Muniasamy
16. R. Murugan
17. R.C.Kalai Selvi
18. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Greams Road, Commercial Tax Office
Building, Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ appeal is filed under clause 15 of the Letter Patent praying to
set aside the order dated 21.04.2014 made in W.P.No.14151 of 2010 on the
file of this Court.
For Appellants : Ms.V.Yamunadevi
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.P.K.Rajesh PraveenKumar
for R1 to R17
R18 – Dispense with
*****
COMMON JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
&
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
The present appeals have been preferred against the Common Order
dated 21.04.2014, passed in W.P.Nos.13742, 14150 & 14151 of 2010, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and by which, learned Single held that the Writ Petitioners are entitled to
appointment in their respective posts from the date they have been selected,
together with seniority, wages and other emoluments, as they have done the
course through open University.
2. It is the case of the Writ Petitioners that they had obtained basic
degrees through Open University System without passing +2 examination
and though they had been selected for the post, their results were withheld
on the ground that they have not completed the required educational
qualification in 10+2+3 pattern. Learned Single Judge, after considering
various factors, rightly observed that the Writ Petitioners were admitted in
the degree course in distance education mode, after passing the entrance
examination and therefore, they were held to be entitled to the relief.
3. Per contra, the Government / Appellant herein contended that the
Writ petitioners have not completed their studies in the prescribed pattern,
namely, 10+2+3 so as to be considered for appointment to the respective
posts The Appellant also drew the attention of this Court to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.O.(Ms).No.107 dated 18.08.2009 to state that those who have undergone
degree courses after having passed 10+2, alone are entitled for public
services.
4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material
documents available on record.
5. It is not in dispute that the sequence pattern, viz., 10+2+3 is
mandatory for the purpose of entering into a job that cannot be
compromised at any cost. A Division Bench of this Court, in which one of
us (SVNJ) was a party, in the case of The Joint Director of School
Education (Secondary), Chennai-6 and another vs. J.Joseph Irudayaraj
and another [W.A.No.2168 of 2018] decided on 10.12.2021 held that the
Writ Petitioners therein cannot be compared to a superman in the comic
book to accept the completion of his educational qualification in the reverse
order. G.O.(Ms).No.107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M)
Department, dated 18.08.2009 clearly mandated the formal system of
education, wherein it has been clearly mentioned as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“3/murhiz vz; 107 gzpahsh; kw;Wk; eph;thfr;
rPh;jpUj;jj; (vk;) Jiw ehs; 18/08/09 vd;gJ murhiz
vz; 180 ehs; 11/09/2000f;F mspf;fg;gl;l tpsf;fkhFk;
vd;Wk; 10tFg;g[ njh;r;rp nky;epiyf;fy;tp +2 njh;r;rp bgw;w
gpd; bgwg;gLk; gl;l';fns bghJg; gzpfspy; epakdk;. gjtp
cah;t[ bgwjFjpahdJ vd;gJk; murhiz vz; 180 ehs;
11/09/2000y; bjhptpf;fg;gl;ljpd; cl;fUj;jhFk;/”
6. However, the only issue involved in this case is as to whether a
person, who has completed the educational qualification in the pattern o
10+ITI+3 can be treated as the one, who has duly completed graduation in a
proper regular stream. The Government, taking note of the confusion and
chaos revolving around in considering the educational pattern for
appointment, has issued G.O.Ms.No.242, Higher Education (B1)
Department dated 18.12.2012, stating that a candidate, who has completed
ITI, after finishing 10th Standard and thereafter, completing graduation
through open university can be considered for the purpose of employment
and promotion and that the said ITI qualification is equivalent to +2
qualification. Though G.O.Ms.No.107, Personnel and Administrative
Reforms Department, dated 18.08.2009 has been upheld by this Court, the
Government has referred to various orders from 2010 and issued the present
G.O.Ms.No.242 dated 18.12.2012 so as to extend benefits to persons, who
have completed their education through open university.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. A glance at the Tabular Column annexed in the typed set of papers
at Page Nos.225, 226, 231 & 232 visualizes a different qualification
obtained by the respective candidates and neither the appellant and the Writ
Petitioners have given a clear chart as to the actual regular stream of
qualification obtained from 10th standard. Be that as it may, in the
subsequent Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.242 dated 18.02.2012
(supra), it has been vividly contemplated that the candidates, who have
completed 10+2+3 or 10+ITI (2 years)+3 years are entitled to be considered
for appointment in the post. Therefore, the point for consideration in this
case is whether the ITI qualification obtained by the candidates after
completion of 10th standard can be treated as equivalent to +2 qualification,
in the light of G.O.Ms.No.242 dated 18.12.2012 as mentioned supra or not.
The answer is in the affirmative tone. The Government, in the form of
clarification to the earlier Government Orders have issued the order dated
18.12.2012, which has not been questioned before any Court of Law and is
still in force, as confirmed by the Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi, learned Special
Government Pleader. Thus, it is amply clear that there is no impediment for
the candidates, who have done their graduation in the pattern of 10+ITI (2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
years)+3 through Open University are entitled to get appointment like that
of the candidates, who have obtained degrees by 10+2+3 pattern and the
benefits will have to be extended to them from the date of issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.242, Higher Education (B1) Department dated 18.12.2012.
8. In the result, these Writ Appeals are disposed of, with a direction
to the Appellant to extend the benefits of appointment to the candidates,
who have acquired their degree qualification after undergoing the IT course
of two years on and from 18.12.2020. No costs.
(S.V.N.J.,) (M.S.Q.J.,)
08.03.2022
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
dpq
W.A.Nos.565 to 567 of 2015
08.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
