Madras High Court
J.Joseph Irudayaraj vs Joint Director Of School Education on 6 November, 2013
Author: R.Banumathi
Bench: R.Banumathi, K.Kalyanasundaram
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.11.2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM W.A.No.1064 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 J.Joseph Irudayaraj .. Appellant Vs. 1.Joint Director of School Education (Secondary), Chennai 6. 2.District Educational Officer, Coimbatore 18. 3.The Correspondent, St. Michael's Higher Secondary School, Coimbatore 641 001. .. Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the order dated 16.04.2012 in W.P.No.9894 of 2012. For Appellant .. Mr.C.Selvaraj, Sr. Counsel for M/s.C.S. Associates For Respondents .. Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 and R2 R3 No appearance JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.BANUMATHI, J.) Challenge in this appeal is the Order dated 16.04.2012 made in W.P.No.9894 of 2012, declining to quash the proceedings of the first respondent in Ooa.Mu.No.54823/D1/E2/2009 dated 31.03.2011 and declining to issue direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the appellant as B.T. Assistant in the third respondent School from the date of appointment and to confer all consequential benefits.
2. The third respondent is an aided minority school run by R.C. Management and getting 100% aid from the Government of Tamil Nadu. There was a vacancy in B.T. Assistant (Maths) from 03.09.2007 due to promotion of Thiru.A.Francis Rajkumar as Post Graduate Assistant. On application by the third respondent School, the Director of School Education accorded permission to convert the vacant post of Mathematics Assistant into English Assistant. The appellant joined as B.T. Assistant (English) on 03.09.2007. The Management sent the proposal for approval of appointment of the appellant on 14.01.2009. The second respondent returned the proposal to the Management to produce the equivalent certificate for the Foundation Course offered by the Madras University as to whether it is equivalent to + 2 Higher Secondary Course. Thereafter, the appellant appeared for Higher Secondary Examination and completed in June, 2010. The Management again sent the proposal to the second respondent on 07.08.2010 stating that the appellant has completed his Higher Secondary Examination in June, 2010. The said proposal was returned by the second respondent on the ground that the appellant has not studied the pattern of 10+2+3 as per G.O.Ms.No.107 P&AR Department dated 18.08.2009. The School Management appealed to the first respondent - Joint Director of School Education and the first respondent upheld the orders of the second respondent in his proceedings O.Mu.No.54823/D1/E2/2009 dated 31.03.2011.
3. Challenging the said proceedings, the appellant filed Writ Petition. By the order dated 16.04.2012, the said Writ Petition was dismissed holding that the appellant had not acquired qualifications by following 10+2+3 system of education and as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Annamalai University Vs. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department, Fort St. George, Chennai ((2009) 4 SCC 590), the degree obtained through Open University system is not valid for claiming promotion. The learned single Judge also referred to the Government Order passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.107 P&AR Department dated 18.08.2009 to the effect that a person, who passed Degree not through regular stream, is not eligible to be appointed and that the validity of the said Government Order has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in T.L.Muthukumar vs. Registrar General, (2011(2) MLJ 785). Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the appellant had filed this appeal.
4. Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant completed his Higher Secondary Examination in June, 2010 and the Degree obtained by the appellant cannot be said to be invalid. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that once a Degree has been obtained by the appellant after undergoing Entrance Test, which is recognised by the University Grants Commission Regulations, by projecting administrative Government Order, the appellant's right cannot be diluted and the Writ Court was not right in referring to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.107 P&AR Department dated 18.08.2009.
5. Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that once it is proved that the appellant has not studied plus 2 or its equivalent, as per G.O.Ms.No.107 P&AR Department dated 18.08.2009, the prayer of the appellant to approve the appointment on the basis of the earlier G.O.Ms.No.180 P&AR Department dated 11.09.2000 is not applicable. It was further submitted that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Annamalai University v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department, Fort St. George, Chennai ((2009) 4 SCC 590), the appellant should have obtained a Degree by 10+2+3 pattern and since the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification, the authorities rightly returned the proposal for approval and the Writ Court rightly dismissed the writ petition and the Order warrants no interference.
6. Drawing our attention to the averments in the counter affidavit, Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that since the appellant has not completed his qualification in sequence order and that he has completed the same only in reverse order, it cannot be construed that the appellant has requisite qualification of 10+2+3 and therefore, the second respondent rightly passed the order returning the proposal, which was rightly upheld by the first respondent Joint Director of School Education, Chennai. Referring to the decision in Annamalai University's case (cited supra) and also G.O.Ms.No.107 P&AR Department dated 18.08.2009, it was further submitted that the Writ Court rightly dismissed the writ petition and the writ appeal has no merits.
7. We have considered the submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the submissions of the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
8.Originally, even though the appellant has obtained degree only through open university, the appellant had subsequently appeared for the higher secondary examination and completed the same in June, 2010. The management sent the proposal on 07.08.2010 to the second respondent for approval as the appellant has completed his higher secondary examination in June, 2010. By the order dated 16.12.2010, the second respondent has again returned the proposal on the ground that the appellant has not studied in the pattern of 10 +2+3 as per G.O.Ms.No.107 P&AR Department dated 18.08.2009.
9.The learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that since the appellant has completed his higher secondary examination in June, 2010, proposal for approving the appointment of the appellant may be approved at least from June, 2010.
10.In para 4 of G.O.Ms.No.107 P&AR Department dated 18.08.2009, it is stated as under:
@4/,g;ghpe;Jiuapid muR ftdkhfg; ghprPypj;J. ,izf;fy;tp eph;za ghprPypg;g[f; FGtpd; ghpe;Jiuapid Vw;Wf;bfhs;s KobtLj;J. mjw;fpz';f. gs;sp ,Wjpj; njh;t[ (gj;jhk; tFg;g[) kw;Wk; gs;sp nky;epiyf; fy;tpj; njh;t[ (+2) Mfpaitfspy; njh;r;rp bgw;wgpd;. jpwe;jbtspg; gy;fiyf;fHf';fspd; tHpahfg; bgwg;gLk; gl;lak;-gl;lk;-KJfiyg; gl;l';fis kl;Lk; bghJg;gzpfspy; epakdk;-gjtp cah;t[ bgw m';fPfhpj;J MizapLfpwJ/@
11.We are of the view that the second respondent is to reconsider the matter in the light of para 4 of G.O.Ms.No.107 P&AR Department dated 18.08.2009. While so reconsidering the matter, the second respondent shall take into account that the appellant has been working from 2006, much prior to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Annamalai University v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department, Chennai ((2009) 4 SCC 590) and he has completed his higher secondary examination in June, 2010.
12.In the result, the order of the Writ Court in W.P.No.9894 of 2012 dated 16.04.2012 is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. The order of the first respondent in Ooa.Mu.No.54823/D1/E2/2009 dated 31.03.2011, confirmed by the order of the second respondent in Muu.Mu.No.7093/A2/2010 dated 10.01.2011 is quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.The second respondent is directed to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made in the preceding paragraph. The third respondent shall send a fresh proposal seeking approval of the appointment of the appellant. The second respondent shall consider the proposal sent, by taking into account that the appellant has completed his higher secondary examination in June, 2010 and also taking into account that the appellant has been working since 2006, much prior to the judgment in Annamalai University's case (cited supra). The second respondent shall consider the proposal and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of proposal. The second respondent shall afford further opportunity to the appellant as well as to the third respondent management for submitting any further materials.
(R.B.I.J.) (M.K.K.S.J.)
06.11.2013
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
usk/mmi
To
1.The Joint Director of School Education
(Secondary), Chennai 6.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Coimbatore 18.
R.BANUMATHI, J.
and
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
mmi
W.A.No.1064 of 2012
06.11.2013