Madras High Court
K.Pandiyan vs The Director Of Elementary ... on 5 September, 2022
W.A.No.1010 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.09.2022
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.1010 of 2022
K.Pandiyan .. Appellant
Vs
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Senthurai 621 714, Ariyalur District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Senthurai 621 714, Ariyalur District.
4.The Block Educational Officer,
Senthurai 621 714, Ariyalur District.
5.N.Radha
6.N.Raja Krishnan .. Respondents
(Respondents 5 and 6 impleaded vide
order dated 13.04.2022 made in
C.M.P. No.6654 of 2022 in W.A.No.1010 of 2022)
Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 16.03.2022 made in W.P.No.1643 of 2022.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1010 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran
For Respondents : Mr.S.Yashwanth,
Addl. Govt. Pleader
for R1 to R4
No appearance for R5 and R6
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.)
This writ appeal is filed, aggrieved by the order of learned
single Judge dated 16.03.2022 in W.P. No.1643 of 2022, in and by
which even while directing the respondents to consider the
representation of the writ petitioner and pass orders, the learned
single Judge, in para 10, had found that since the writ petitioner's
degree qualification was entered in the service register only on
23.11.2021 and the panel was prepared as on 01.01.2021, the
respondents could not have included his name.
2. Heard Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr.S.Yashwanth, learned Additional Government
Pleader for respondents 1 to 4.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would
submit that in this case, the writ petitioner wrote his final
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1010 of 2022
examination on 23.10.2020 and the results were declared on
05.10.2021 only because of the covid-19 pandemic situation. It is
settled law by the earlier pronouncements of this Court that once
results are declared, the date of obtaining of the qualification would
date back to the last date of writing of the examination. He would
submit that even though the crucial date is 01.01.2021, the panel
was prepared only on 15.11.2021. Before the date of preparation of
the panel, as on 05.10.2021, the results were declared and the
petitioner has submitted the results. It is only the administrative
delay on the part of the respondents to enter the same in his service
register only on 23.11.2021. Therefore, he would submit that the
learned single Judge erred in taking into account the said date as the
relevant date and not granting the positive direction as prayed for in
the writ petition.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
for respondents 1 to 4, relying upon para 13 of the counter affidavit
filed, would submit that even though the appellant wrote the
examination on 23.10.2020, the results were declared on 05.10.2021,
the qualification was entered in the service register only on
23.11.2021 and in the meanwhile, the crucial date i.e., 01.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1010 of 2022
and also the date of constitution of the panel i.e., 15.11.2021 passed
by and therefore only because of the said fact, the writ petitioner's
case was not considered. There was no fault on the part of the
respondents in not considering the case of the writ petitioner and
since promotions have already been granted, the same could not be
disturbed. He would submit that only taking into consideration all the
relevant facts and attendant circumstances, the learned single Judge
had disposed of the writ petition by giving a direction to the
respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner and therefore
he would submit that there is nothing in this writ appeal and prays
for dismissal of the same.
5. We have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of
both sides and perused the material records in this case.
6. At the outset, by the earlier order of this Court in
W.P. No.18339 of 2010, as confirmed by the Division Bench in
W.A. No.1636 of 2012, the law regarding the matter is settled in
which this Court has categorically declared that once the person
obtains the qualification, the date of obtaining the qualification will
not be the date of declaration of results or the date of entering the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1010 of 2022
same in the service register but the date of writing the last
examination. Admittedly, the writ petitioner wrote the last
examination on 23.10.2020. Therefore, once the results are declared
on 05.10.2021, the same would date back to 23.10.2020. The crucial
date for the promotion in the respective year is 01.01.2021 and
therefore as on the crucial date, the writ petitioner has obtained the
qualification. The only contention made by the respondents is that
before panel was prepared in the month of November, the petitioner's
qualification was not entered in the service register. It is seen that
even the panel was prepared only on 15.11.2021. By the said time,
on 05.10.2021 itself, the results were declared and the writ petitioner
had informed about the same to the respondents.
7. In that view of the matter, it is only the administrative delay
on the part of the respondents to enter the qualification in the service
register which happened only on 23.11.2021 and that cannot be put
against the writ petitioner for no fault of him. Therefore, we find that
even though the learned single Judge has directed the respondents to
consider the case of the writ petitioner, the observations made in
para 10 of the impugned order cannot stand scrutiny in view of the
earlier pronouncements of this Court that the qualification will date
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1010 of 2022
back to the last date of examination.
8. In view of our finding, this writ appeal is disposed of in the
following terms:
8.1 The order of learned single Judge dated 16.03.2022 in
W.P. No.1643 of 2022 is set aside;
8.2 W.P. No.1643 of 2022 is allowed with a direction to the
respondents to include the name of the writ petitioner in the panel for
promotion for B.T. Assistant (Science) as on 01.01.2021 and
accordingly promote him from the date of promotion of his juniors
with all service and monetary benefits;
8.3 It would be open for the respondents either to create a
supernumerary post or to fit him in any available vacancy notionally
from the date of his retrospective promotion or to revert the junior
most person and to grant promotion to the writ petitioner;
8.4 The above exercise shall be carried out within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;
8.5 There shall be no order as to costs.
(P.U., J) (D.B.C., J)
05.09.2022
Index:No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1010 of 2022
mmi/22
To
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Senthurai 621 714, Ariyalur District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Senthurai 621 714, Ariyalur District.
4.The Block Educational Officer,
Senthurai 621 714, Ariyalur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1010 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
mmi
W.A.No.1010 of 2022
05.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
