Madras High Court
The State Of Tamilnadu vs C.Marianesam [Died on 7 July, 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.(MD)No.1387 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2013
1.The State of Tamilnadu
represented by its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Joint Director of School Education,
(Vocational Education),
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
4.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli – 627 009.
5.The District Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. ... Appellants
Vs.
1.C.Marianesam [Died]
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The Correspondent,
Mary Sargent Girls Higher Secondary School,
Palaymkottai, Tirunelveli-627 002.
3.Ramaiya
4.Dinesh Sesuraj
5.Deepthi ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set
aside the order, dated 22.03.2013 passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.
11647 of 2008 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 on the file of this
Court.
For Appellants :Mr.V.Om Prakash
Government Advocate
For R3 to R5 :Mr.K.Ragatheeshkumar
for M/s.Isaac Chamber
For R2 :No appearance
****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
The sequence of dates and events in this matter would merit
some attention.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.Recognising the necessity for Vocational Educaiton,
G.O.Ms.No.1719 had come to be issued by the State introducing this
subject in Higher Secondary Schools. Part time Vocational Instructor
posts had been created and qualifications prescribed as B.Sc.,/B.Ed
(specialised in Home Science).
3.The Writ Petitioner/Respondent 1 in Writ Appeal,
C.Marianesam (hereinafter referred to as R1), was appointed as a Double
Part time Vocational Instructor in Child Welfare Nutrition on 14.09.1981.
She possessed a two year Diploma in Home Science and an
undergraduate Degree in History and held two years and six months of
experience as a Nutritionist at the time of appointment. The appointment
was approved by the Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, on
12.10.1981.
4.Nine years into her appointment, G.O.Ms.No.712 (Education
Department) was issued on 28.05.1990 intending to regularise the
services of Double Part time Vocational Instructors from 1991 onwards,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
such that, they would be absorbed to post of fully qualified Double Part
time Vocational Instructor on regular basis. As the Writ Petitioner did
not hold the necessary qualification, she gained no benefit under this
Government Order.
5.G.O.Ms.No.967, (Education Department) was, thereafter,
issued on 16.10.1992. Under this Government Order, primacy was given
to experience, doing away with the educational qualification prescribed
under G.O.Ms.No.1719. Thus, those candidates who had put in ten years
of service in handling a vocational subject, were to be trained and
regualarised, even if they did not satisfy the educational qualifications
prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.1719. The Writ Petitioner could very well
have sought this benefit, but did not.
6.A narrow window was available for the above benefit till the
issuance of G.O.No.834 dated 23.09.1994 cancelling G.O.Ms.No.967
and 712. Under this Government Order, all single and double Part-Time
Vocational Instructors were to be brought to time scale of pay and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
concerned authorities were directed to ensure that they were trained
within the stipulated time frame. To be noted, the Writ Petitioner could
well have sought the benefit of regularisation on the basis of her
experience between 16.10.1992 and 29.09.1994, which she omitted to do.
7.The Writ Petitioner was, in pursuance of mandate under
G.O.Ms.No.834, sent for training for a period of three months
commencing from July 1996, completing the training on 05.10.1996.
She was, thus, issued an order of appointment on 10.02.1998 to the post
of Vocational Instructor Grade-II with effect from the date of completion
of her training, being 05.10.1996. Her appointment was approved by the
Chief Educational Officer on 07.04.1998. The appointment was for
Vocational Instructor Grade-II on temporary basis, subject to
regularisation in due course by the State.
8.G.O.Ms.No.6 framing ad hoc rules prescribing qualifications
and service conditions for Vocational Instructors came to be issued on
04.01.2000 with effect from 23.09.1994. Under these rules, in addition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to a degree, a Diploma was also found acceptable for appointment and
thus, the qualifications of the Writ Petitioner found her suitable for
appointment. The second limb of the qualification condition related to
experience, which the Writ Petitioner possessed in abundance, having
been in service from 1981.
9.On 15.04.2002, the Writ Petitioner made a representation for
regularisation, that was forwarded through the necessary channels, but
did not find favour of consideration. Hence, W.P.No.35714 of 2005 came
to be filed seeking a Mandamus for consideration of her claim, that was
disposed on 09.11.2005 directing the respondents to consider the same in
twelve weeks.
10.On 23.02.2006, proceedings were issued directing the
School/R2 to upgrade the post occupied by the Writ Petitioner from
Grade-II to Grade-I with effect from 10.06.2002 invoking G.O.Ms.No.6,
dated 04.01.2000.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.On 09.03.2006, a fresh appointment order was issued and
on 21.07.2006, the Chief Educational Officer had approved the
appointment of the Writ Petitioner as Grade-I Vocational Instructor with
effect from 10.06.2002. The Writ Petitioner objected to the same,
claiming regularisation from the date of her appointment being
14.09.1981. No order has been passed on this objection to this day.
12.Vide proceedings dated 22.05.2007, the Joint Director had
upgraded the Writ Petitioner's post to Grade-I Vocational Instructor with
effect from 05.10.1996 with monetary benefits with effect from
20.03.2007. The above proceedings to the extent of the upgradation
came to be cancelled by proceedings dated 15.06.2007.
13.Orders dated 23.02.2006, 09.03.2006, 21.07.2006 and
15.06.2007 came to be challenged by way of Writ Petition in
W.P(MD)No.11647 of 2008. As a sequitur to the comprehensive prayer
seeking quashing of aforesaid four orders, the petitioner sought
Mandamus directing the respondents therein to compute the Writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Petitioner's service from the date of appointment, ie., 14.09.1981 and
grant regularisation with effect from the same date.
14.There are many contradictions in the prayer itself. The Writ
Petitioner has, by challenging order dated 15.06.2007, made it clear that
she in agreement that her date of regularisation should be 22.05.2007.
That apart, she has not challenged the order of regularisation dated
07.04.1998 with effect from 05.10.1996.
15.The dichotomy is that she seeks appointment from
14.09.1981, which is the primary date of appointment. Thus, there has
been some lack of clarity on the part of R1 in regard to what she would
prefer as the date from which her services must be reckoned or
regularised. This is on the one hand.
16.We now advert to the submissions of learned Government
Advocate, who would, in addition to pointing out the discrepancies as
noticed by us above, draw our attention specifically to G.O.Ms.No.69
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
issued on 20.03.2007. This Government Order does find place in the
pleadings before the Writ Court.
17.According to the appellants, this Government Order read
with G.O.Ms.No.834 dated 23.09.1994, makes the position unambiguous
that it is only upon completion of training that the services of the Writ
Petitioner must be regularised. R1 has completed her training on
05.10.1996 and thus, they would urge that her appointment be confirmed
only on and with effect from 05.10.1996. To this effect, orders have also
been issued on 07.04.1998, that have never been the subject matter of
challenge. This, in effect, is their case.
18.The area of dispute, thus, lies between 23.09.1994, which is
the date that found favour with the learned Single Judge and 05.10.1996,
as putforth by the State. Having heard the rival contentions, one thing
emerges clearly. There has been substantial lack of clarity, not just on the
part of the Writ Petitioner/R1, but on the part of the State as well, in
fixing the dates of regularisation of Teachers and Vocational Instructors,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
as can be, seen from multiple and varying stands taken by the
respondents over the years.
19.Various Government orders and clarifications have been
issued from time to time, a reading of which reveals that the process and
procedure followed for creation of Vocational Instructor posts has been
fraught. Undoubtedly, it has evolved over the years culminating in the
issuance of the statutory Rules. One can thus attribute no blame to the
Writ Petitioner/R1 being ambivalent in her stand over the years.
20.What clinches the petitioner’s case are the clear and
categoric Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.6, that set out qualifications
and service conditions. Therein, a Diploma has been found to be
sufficient to entitle a candidate for selection. We, thus, find no necessity
to refer to any of the Government Orders that either precede or succeed
G.O.Ms.No.6 and prefer to align our view in line with the view of the
Writ Court in this regard.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21.We are cognizant of the position that if each Government
Order were to be applied independently, there would be flaws found,
both in the procedure followed by the Writ Petitioner as well as by the
appellants and we are convinced that such an approach would not lead to
substantial justice. In the present case, what weighs with us is the
undisputed position that the Writ Petitioner was fully qualified to hold
the post of Vocational Instructor under G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 04.01.2000
with effect from 23.09.1994. Thus, we see no reason to deny her the
benefit, as has been granted by order dated 22.03.2013 by the Writ Court.
22.We also bear in mind the fact that we are hearing the Writ
Appeal now, in July 2023 and we have the benefit of the entire trajectory
of events that have taken place from 1981 onwards with all intervening
Government Orders and Rules. One thing that is consistent through all
these years, is the service of the Writ Petitioner from 1981 onwards.
23.Learned Judge however has, however, restricted the benefit
sought by the petitioner with effect from 1994 and that has been accepted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by the Writ Petitioner, as no appeal has been filed by her challenging
order dated 22.03.2013. We are in agreement with the conclusion of the
learned Judge and have no hesitation in confirming order dated
22.03.2013.
24.Despite there not being any interim stay of order dated
22.03.2013, there has been no compliance by the State of the direction at
para No. 13 of the Writ Order. The Writ Petitioner had moved a
Contempt Petition in Cont.P.(MD)No.1076 of 2013, that came to be
closed on 17.07.2014 citing pendency of the Writ Appeal.
25.The Writ Petitioner has been made to wait, despite being
successful in the first round of litigation, for a period of more than a
decade as on date. The Writ Petitioner had attained superannuation on
31.05.2009, on the heals of the filing of the Writ Petition and has passed
away on 02.12.2019 pending Writ Appeal. Thus, the direction in para
No. 13 of the Writ order is reiterated, to be complied with, within a
period of four weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
26.This Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]
07.07.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
cmr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
cmr
W.A.(MD)No.1387 of 2013
07.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
