Madras High Court
P.Radha vs The District Collector on 9 October, 2023
W.P(MD).No.17988 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 09.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).No.17988 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD).Nos.15021 & 15023 of 2023
P.Radha
Panchayat Secretary (Under Dismissal)
S.S.Kottai Village Panchayat
Singampuneri Panchayat Union
S.S.Kottai
Sivagangai District ....Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Collector
Sivagangai District
Sivagangai
2.The Personnel Assistant to District Collector (Development)
Office of the Collectorate Campus
Sivagangai District
3.The Block Development Officer
Singampunari
Sivagangai District ...Respondents
Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to
the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings in
Na.Ka.Q1/30498/2022 dated 11.01.2023 and the consequential impugned
order passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P(MD).No.17988 of 2023
Na.Ka.Q1/30498/2022 dated 15.05.2023 and quash the same as illegal and
consequentially to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service
as Panchayat Secretary within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by
the third respondent on 11.01.2023 wherein the petitioner was directed to
show cause why she should not be terminated from service on the ground that
she was not having the basic educational qualification at the time of her
appointment.
2. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Assistant on
20.11.2001. She passed SSLC exam in September 2010. The learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner had passed
SSLC examination in September 2010 and she has been in service for the past
22 years and now she is aged 56 years. At this length of time, if an order of
termination is passed, the petitioner would be put to great hardship.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.17988 of 2023
3.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents had relied upon G.O.Ms.230 Rural Development (E5)
Department, dated 15.10.1996 and contended that a pass of SSLC is
mandatory for being appointed as Panchayat Assistant. However, the
petitioner was not having the basic educational qualification on the date of
her appointment in the year 2001. Hence, it was decided to terminate the writ
petitioner and the impugned show cause notice was issued. Hence, he prayed
for dismissal of the writ petition.
4.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused
the material records.
5.There is no dispute that the basic educational qualification for being
appointed as a Panchayat Assistant in the year 2001 was a pass in SSLC
examination. The petitioner was not having the said qualification and she
passed the SSLC only in September 2010. Therefore, as rightly contended by
the learned Additional Government Pleader, the petitioner was not having
basic qualification on the date of her appointment. He had relied upon a
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 7 SCC 153
(Pramod Kumar Vs. U.P.Secondary Education Services Commission and
others) to impress upon the Court that an appointment which is contrary to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.17988 of 2023
the statute/statutory rules would be void in law and hence, the same cannot be
regularized.
6.However, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had
replied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1990) 3
SCC 655 (District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare
Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and another Vs.M.Tripura
Sundari Devi) to impress upon the Court that where due to inadvertence, the
original certificates were not properly verified at the time of appointment, but
later, when the candidate secured the appropriate qualification, the said
candidate need not be terminated, but her services may be regularized from
the date of acquisition of the appropriate qualification.
7.Considering the fact that the petitioner is aged 56 years and she had
also passed the basic educational qualification namely a pass in SSLC in
September 2010 and she had put in 22 years of service, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the order of termination would cause great hardship
to the petitioner.
8.In view of the above said facts, the show cause notice impugned in
the writ petition is quashed. However, the services of the writ petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.17988 of 2023
between 20.11.2001 and September 2010, shall not be taken into account for
any other promotion or other benefits except calculating the said period for
pensionary benefits. Since the petitioner had worked as Panchayat Assistant
and earned salary, the salary for the period between November 2001 and
September 2010 shall not be recovered.
9.With the above said observations, the Writ Petition is party allowed to
the extent as stated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
09.10.2023.
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
To
1.The District Collector
Sivagangai District
Sivagangai
2.The Personnel Assistant to District Collector (Development)
Office of the Collectorate Campus
Sivagangai District
3.The Block Development Officer
Singampunari
Sivagangai District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.17988 of 2023
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
W.P.(MD).No.17988 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD).Nos.15021 & 15023 of 2023
09.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
