Madras High Court

M. Veerappan vs Union Of India on 10 February, 2023

W.P.No.23669 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.02.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

W.P.No.23669 of 2019

1. M. Veerappan
2. S. Perumal
3. D. Razasekaran ...Petitioners
Vs.

1. Union of India, represented by
The Government of Puducherry
through the Secretary to
Government for Agriculture,
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.

2. The Director,
Directorate of Agriculture,
Puducherry.

3. The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai.

4. N. Kesavan ... Respondents

Page 1 of 17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23669 of 2019

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or
direction to call for the records of the 3rd respondent with regard to the
order in O.A. No.1650 of 2016 dated 26.03.2019 and to quash the same
and consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to promote the
petitioners by absorption to the post of Demonstration Assistant with all
other consequential benefits.

For Petitioners : Mr. V. Ajayakumar

For R1 & R2 : Mr. R. Syed Mustafa
Special Government Pleader (Pondy)
R3 : Tribunal

ORDER

( R.HEMALATHA, J.)

The three petitioners are Mazdoors in the Agricultural

Department, Puducherry. They have challenged the order of the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, in O.A. No.310/01650/2016 &

MA No.498/2018, dated 26.03.2019.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23669 of 2019

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

i. The three petitioners along with another three (who were also

applicants in O.A. No.1650/2016) are all mazdoors in the

Agricultural Department of Puducherry Government. Their only

promotional avenue was becoming Demonstration Assistant for

which the stipulated educational qualification was a pass in SSLC

or it equivalent. This was as per Recruitment Rules published on

22.03.2013.

ii. On 12.08.2014, there was a proposal to fill up the post of

Demonstration Assistant by absorption from the cadre of Mazdoor.

iii. These candidates/petitioners had completed the pre-foundation

course offered by Annamalai University in May 2016, which was

considered as equivalent to a pass in SSLC.

iv. However, on 03.03.2017, in a clarification sought from Personnel

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23669 of 2019

and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, Government of

Tamil Nadu, it was mentioned that pre-foundation course of

Annamalai University is not recognised as equivalent to SSLC of

Tamil Nadu Government as it is not contemplated in the UGC

regulations for formal education.

v. Consequently, the Departmental Promotion Committee which met

on 28.06.2018 referring to the G.O.Ms.No.144 dated 20.11.2017

of Government of Tamil Nadu decided not to consider the

promotion of 7 candidates who had passed pre-foundation course

of Annamalai University.

vi. Six of them approached Central Administrative Tribunal in

O.A.No.1650/2016 in which by order dated 26.03.2019, their

prayer was negated and it was held that the Central Administrative

Tribunal was bound by the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High

Court of Madras in A. Ponnuswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu dated

15.12.2016 and therefore the pre-foundation course is not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23669 of 2019

equivalent to the SSLC exam. This order is challenged in this

petition.

3. Heard Mr. V. Ajayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and Mr. R. Syed Mustafa, learned Special Government

Pleader (Puducherry), appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

contend that the only avenue for promotion open to them is by way of

educational qualification attained and that while they joined the pre-

foundation course, they were not made to know about the non-

recognition of the course and suddenly declaring that it is not equivalent

to SSLC is totally arbitrary and unfair. His another contention was that

the said judgment in W.P. (MD) 22071 of 2015 relied upon by the

Central Administrative Tribunal has no relevance to the instant case

because it was held in that case as "since the petitioner's qualification is

not treated as equivalent, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer

by the petitioner". Another observation was that "completion of 10 th

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23669 of 2019

standard through regular schooling system is a must for promotion"

which according to the counsel was not similar to the facts of the present

case. Therefore, according to him this dispute has not been settled yet

and the petitioners have to be rendered justice.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2

contended that the old system of education has undergone many

significant changes and UGC on its part has come out with many new

stipulations and in order to standardize the educational qualification the

pre-foundation course was not recognized as equivalent to SSLC.

According to him there can be no compromise on the educational

qualification even it if it is for promotion because the requirement of

higher assignments expect a higher standard and to perform them

efficiently the educational qualification matters.

6. The whole issue boils down to only one aspect and that is

whether the respondents were right in not considering the case of the

petitioners for promotion to Demonstration Assistant because they

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23669 of 2019

passed pre-foundation course in Annamalai University which is not

equivalent to SSLC as per Court orders in WP(MD) No. 22071 of 2015.

7. Before we delve into the merits of the case, let us

understand the chronology of events as enumerated in this case.

i. The notes of the Government of Puducherry were obtained by the

petitioners through RTI.

ii. The first one was a note dated 17.12.2014 prepared in the Chief

Secretariat DP&AR/CCD in which a clarification was furnished to

Chief Secretariat (Agriculture & Forests) on the equivalence of

pre-foundation course in Annamalai University to SSLC. In this a

reference was made to G.O. Ms. No.528 dated 18.05.1985 and

G.O. Ms. No.219 dated 30.03.1988 issued by Government of

Tamilnadu. In both these G.Os, the pre-foundation and the

foundation courses of Annamalai University were considered as

equivalent to SSLC and HSC respectively.

iii. On 30.12.2014, the Law Department, Puducherry Government

took a decision that "a pass in the pre-foundation course by the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23669 of 2019

University is equivalent to the pass in SSLC". This decision was

based on the judgment in W.P.24636 of 2014 and in W.A.No.1372

of 2013. In both these judgments it was clearly ruled that pre-

foundation course was equivalent to SSLC.

iv. On 27.03.2017 again the Law Department ruled that the Court

order is supreme and even though the G.O. Ms.No.107, Personnel

and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Tamil Nadu dated

18.08.2009 declared that pre-foundation course is not equivalent to

SSLC, the earlier decision of treating pre-foundation course as

equal to SSLC was reiterated in the light of judicial

pronouncements by Hon'ble Court in W.P. No.24636 of 2014 and

W.A. No.1372 of 2013.

v. It was also decided that the communication dated 03.03.2017

through the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department of

Government of Tamil Nadu was only advisory in nature and not

binding.

vi. On 11.07.2017, there was another note by Chief Secretariat

DP&AR/CCD in which keeping in mind the judgment in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23669 of 2019

W.P.(MD) 22071 of 2015, clarification was again sought from the

Law Department, Government of Puducherry.

vii.On 14.07.2017, the Law Department, Puducherry reiterated its

stance by contending that the decision in W.P. (MD) 22071 of

2015 was a Single Bench ruling while W.A. No.1372/2013 was

delivered by a Division Bench and therefore, the latter holds good.

viii.On 03.10.2017 the Law Department categorically replied to the

clarification sought by the Department of Agriculture, Puducherry

that their earlier view on the equivalence of pre-foundation to

SSLC holds good and that repeated references may be avoided.

ix. Simultaneously, applying this decision there were many

promotions effected for other cadres like store keeper Grade 3.

x. Even on 02.01.2018, a letter to one K. Selvam who sought

clarification regarding the equivalence of foundation course to

HSC was given by the Joint Director, Directorate of School

Education, Puducherry that it is equal to HSC.

xi. On 08.01.2018, the Law Department in the prenotes mentioned

that since W.A. No.1372 of 2013 was confirmed by the Supreme

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23669 of 2019

Court in SLP(C) 14718 of 2014, the decision to hold pre-

foundation course as equivalent to SSLC remains.

xii.However on 28.06.2018, the Departmental Promotion Committee

while filling up 21 post of Demonstration Assistant observed in its

minutes of the meeting thus:

"on scrutiny of the service particulars, the Committee noted that the following seven mazdoors have recently passed the Pre-foundation course held during the year 2017 from Annamalai University. The Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O. Ms. No.144 dated 20.11.2017 of Personnel and Administrator Reforms (M) Department has declared that the pre-foundation courses and Foundation courses conducted by various universities are not equivalent to SSLC and HSC respectively. The Committee further noted that the equivalence of the Pre-foundation Course conducted by Annamalai University is not declared as equivalent to SSLC by Government of Tamil Nadu. As such, the following cases need not be considered for promotion.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23669 of 2019

S.No. Seniority Name of the Educational Date of Date of Whether No. officials Qualification regular declaration belongs to Thiru/Tmt appointment of probation SC/ST/OBC/ in the in the General present present grade grade

1. 349 C. Danasegarane Pre- 10.06.2002 09.06.2004 UR Foundation Course

2. 383 D. Mourougavelou Pre- 10.06.2002 09.06.2004 SC Dolard Foundation Course

3. 394 N. Kesavane Pre- 10.06.2002 09.06.2004 UR Foundation Course

4. 400 Perthus Sallustre Pre- 10.06.2002 09.06.2004 UR Foundation Course

5. 404 M. Veerappan Pre- 10.06.2002 09.06.2004 UR Foundation Course

6. 462 S. Peroumal Pre- 21.09.2005 20.09.2007 UR Foundation Course

7. 480 D. Razasekaran Pre- 05.02.2010 04.02.2012 SC Foundation Course

xiii.Out of these 7 candidates, 6 were the applicants in

O.A.No.1650/2016 filed before the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23669 of 2019

8. According to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai,

the facts of the case in W.A. No.1372/2013 are different from that of

W.P.(MD) No.22071/2015. While the former was regarding the

equivalence of Foundation Course with HSC, the latter is regarding the

equivalence of Pre-foundation course with SSLC.

9. It may be observed that the subject of equivalence of the pre-

foundation and Foundation courses with SSLC and HSC respectively

have always gone together in all the G.Os of the Government of

Tamilnadu. Moreover, the ruling in W.P. (MD) 22071/2015

categorically stated that only the regular schooling ending up in SSLC

would qualify as recognised and not any pre-foundation course. This

order in W.P. (MD) No.22071/2015 was not challenged then. Though the

present petition is filed challenging the order of the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Chennai in O.A. No.1650/2016, technically

speaking this is also in a way against the orders in W.P. (MD) 22071/15

which is the only ruling relied upon by the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23669 of 2019

10. Notwithstanding the aforesaid facts, three important

aspects which are to be discussed in order to arrive at a fair conclusion

are,

(a) The pre-foundation course was considered equivalent to SSLC till

08.01.2018, as is evidenced from the notes prepared by the Law

Department of Government of Puducherry.

(b) There is no evidence that there was any intimation to the State

Government employees by way of any circular that the equivalence

of pre-foundation course to SSLC cease to exist from a particular

date.

2016 and not in 2017 as mentioned in the minutes of the

proceedings of the Department dated 28.06.2018.

11. The concrete decision by the Government of Puducherry

was never taken regarding this equivalence. They were dilly dallying on

the issue with the matter referred to Law Department by the Agricultural

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23669 of 2019

Department more than three times. When no decision was taken even till

08.01.2018, there is no fairness in the 28.06.2018 proceedings of the

Departmental Promotion Committee excluding the petitioners based on

their educational qualification (equivalence aspect). Even assuming that

the Department of Agriculture of the Government of Puducherry atlast

took a final call on the matter, there is no evidence of it being circulated.

The petitioners would have joined the pre-foundation course only with

the hope of getting promoted. The requisite qualification for promotion

to the post of Demonstration Assistant was SSLC or its equivalent. They

were witness to many promotions taking place in different cadres and the

pre-foundation course being considered as equivalent to SSLC. They

were made to believe that completing pre-foundation course would

qualify them for the promotion to Demonstration Assistant post. To

complete the one year course in 2016 they have joined in 2015. In such

circumstances not considering pre-foundation as equivalent to SSLC is

though an administrative decision, smacks of indecisiveness.

Government of Puducherry ought to have notified it properly. They

ought to have implemented it prospectively. Instead the "hide and seek"

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23669 of 2019

game within the departments and not taking the advice of the Law

department seriously have all cost the respondents. As the counsel for

the respondents contended, the quality of personnel selected for the

higher post of Demonstration Assistant from among the mazdoors is

paramount. But the veil of secrecy maintained and the indecisiveness on

the part of the respondents are all visible in the entire case.

12. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view

that the delay in decision making by the respondents deprived the

petitioners of an opportunity of getting promoted. Therefore, the petition

is allowed. But this pertains to only the three petitioners and in addition

the other three applicants in O.A. No.1650/2016 as a special one time

measure. Their promotion has to be considered afresh subject to their

fulfilling the other criteria. This decision shall not be construed as a

precedent for any other case.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23669 of 2019

13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. The

order dated 26.03.2019 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai

in O.A. No.1650/2016 is set aside. The respondents are directed to

complete the entire process within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order.

                                                                   (V.M.V.,J.)        (R.H.,J.)
                                                                             10.02.2023
                     Index: Yes/No
                     Internet: Yes/No
                     Speaking/Non-Speaking order
                     bga


                     To

                     1. Union of India, represented by
                        The Government of Puducherry
                        through the Secretary to
                        Government for Agriculture,
                        Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.

                     2. The Director,
                        Directorate of Agriculture,
                        Puducherry.

                     3. The Registrar,
                        Central Administrative Tribunal,
                        Chennai.




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                           W.P.No.23669 of 2019




                                      V.M.VELUMANI, J.
                                                 and
                                      R. HEMALATHA, J.
                                                  bga




                                     W.P.No.23669 of 2019




                                                 10.02.2023






https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis