Madras High Court
A.Evanjalin Mary vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 31 January, 2014
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M. Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31.01.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
W.P.No.33995 of 2012 &
M.P.No.2 of 2012
A.Evanjalin Mary ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
(Education Department),
Fort St. George,
Chennai.
2. The Teachers Recruitment Board,
Rep. by its Chairman,
4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maaligai,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai-600 006. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records from the Second Respondent relating to not selecting the Petitioner Evanjalin Mary, A, bearing Roll No.12 TE 32275002 and to quash the same and to direct the Second Respondent to appoint the Petitioner Evanjalin Mary, A, bearing Roll No.12 TE 32275002 as a Graduate Teacher (B.T.Asst.,) in any of the Tamil Nadu Government Schools.
For Petitioners : M/s.S.Krishnasamy
For Respondents : Mr.V.Subbiah
Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records from the Second Respondent relating to her non-selection bearing Roll.No.12 TE 32275002 and to quash the same. Further, she has sought for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Second Respondent to appoint her as Graduate Teacher (BT Assistant) in any of the Tamil Nadu Government Schools for appointing her as a Graduate Teacher.
2.According to the Petitioner, she did her School Education on St. Joseph Girls Higher Secondary School at Dindugul and passed +2 examination in the month of March, 2000. She obtained 758 marks in her +2 Examination. She studied B.A. English Literature in the academic year 2004-2007 in Holy Cross College, Tiruchirappalli. She passed the said Degree in First Class with 'A' Grade.
3.She studied Bachelor of Education during 2007-2008 at Peace College of Education at Dindugul. She passed theory and practical with First Class. She also studied Master of Arts Degree in English (Literature) at Madurai Kamaraj Evening College, Dindugul in 2009-2011 and she scored Second Rank in her M.A. English (Literature). She also studied Master of Education Degree at Gandhigram Rural University during 2008-2009 and she scored First Class in the M.Ed., Course.
4.She is fully qualified to write the Teachers Eligibility Test and the Second Respondent conducted a supplementary TET Examinations on 14.10.2012. She attended the said examinations. Her Roll Number is 12 TE 32275002. She scored 103 marks out of 150 marks, which made her to qualify for the Graduate Teachers Post. Appointments were given for those candidates who passed the qualification test subject to the verification of their certificates as per the other Government guidelines and communal roaster. She was directed to attend the certificate verification on 06.11.2012 in St. Marys Higher Secondary school, Dindugal. She attended Certificate verification on 06.11.2012 along with required certificates. The results were published in the internet and she was learnt that she was not selected. Indeed, in the remarks column, it was stated as 'communicative English'.
5.It comes to be known that in the publication of results relating to the Tamil Nadu Teachers Eligibility Test - Supplementary 2012 [Graduate Assistants] Department of School Education, Teachers Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai-600 006, as against the Petitioner's Roll No.12 TE 32275002, under remarks column, it was mentioned as 'Communicative English'. It is the case of the Petitioner that she approached the Second Respondent/Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai and explained that her B.A. English Literature is a regular English Literature Degree, together with an additional subject of Communicative English, which was not accepted by the Second Respondent and in fact, she was required to obtain a certificate from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission stating that her B.A. English Literature Degree is equivalent to the regular B.A. English Literature Degree. She made a representation to the First Respondent to direct the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to issue such equivalent certificate. However, it appears that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has not responded so far.
6.At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings to the notice of this Court to the G.O.(Ms) No.270, Higher Education (K2) Department, dated 31.12.2013 in Item No.5, it is stated as under:
Sl.No. Name of the Course Equivalent/Not Equivalent
5) Public Services Educational Qualification Consideration of B.A., English with Speciliazation in Communicative English awarded by Bharathidasan University as Equivalent to B.A. English for the purpose of Employment in Public Services .
Equivalent
7.From the aforesaid G.O., it is latently and patently clear that B.A. English Degree with Specialisation in Communicative English awarded by the Bharathidasan University is considered as equivalent to B.A. English for the purpose of employment in public services. Besides this, this Court aptly points out that the order of the Full Bench of this Court dated 29.11.2013 in W.P. (MD).Nos.W.P.(MD)Nos.16181, 16051, 16052, 15660 & 16780 of 2012 and 18793 of 2013 and Contempt Petition (MD)No.637 of 2013 between Nadar Thanga Shubha Laxman.A Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 and another [where one of us (M.VENUGOPAL,J) was a party)], whereby and whereunder in paragraphs 21 to 25, it is observed and laid down as follows:
"21.In yet another judgment of the Apex Court in Udai Singh Dagar vs. Union of India, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 306, while considering almost a similar issue with regard to protecting the rights and privileges of diploma and certificate holders in Veterinary Science, it was held that not only a vested or accrued right but also inchoate right is protected. Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on a decision in Court of Appeal in Chief Adjudication Officer vs. Maguire, reported in (1999) 2 All ER 859 (CA). It is relevant to extract paragraph 71 of the above said judgment:-
71. The expression unless a different intention appears contained in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, thus, in this case, would be clearly attracted. A right , whether inchoate or accrued or acquired right, can be held to be protected provided the right survives. If the right itself does not survive and either expressly or by necessary implication it stands abrogated, the question of applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would not arise at all. (See banisdhar vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 557 and Thyssen Stahlunion GmbH vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. reported in (1999) 9 SCC 334.
22.The above observation of the Apex Court clearly answers the doubt raised in this Reference that a right whether inchoate or accrued or acquired right can be held to be protected, provided the right survives. In the light of the said principle, if the case on hand is considered, admittedly, the equivalence committee has considered and approved the equivalent nature of the degree and certificate obtained by the candidates. Similarly, the Government Order issued by the Government also agrees with the validity of the degree, therefore, from the date the degree was obtained by the candidate, the right is accrued, hence the same should be protected. While so, giving a different meaning that the validity of the degree will have prospective effect or retrospective effect is uncalled for. To make it even further clear, we wish to mention at the risk of repetition that when both the equivalence committee and the Government Order issued by the State Government have not chosen to restrict the validity of the degree obtained in any one of their orders, it goes without saying that the validity of the degree from the date of acquisition will stand to benefit the candidates, therefore, the question of introducing the prospective or retrospective ruling will tantamount to violent interpretation against the settled legal position. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B.S.Vadera vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1969 SC 118, wherein, the law is well declared that an accrued and acquired right of a person cannot be taken away with retrospective effect.
23.Also, in the present case, neither the Equivalence Committee nor the Government Orders in G.O.Ms.Nos.72, dated 30.04.2013 and 117, dated 02.07.2013, confined the validity of the degree obtained by the candidates to operate prospectively, therefore, as per the above judgments, when the vested rights are created from the date of their acquisition of equivalent degrees, the Respondents cannot take a stand that the degrees obtained by the Petitioners will only have prospective effect from the date of issuance of Equivalence Certificate. When both the Equivalence Committee and the Government Order have consistently not mentioned the effect of the validity of the degree, it is not proper to hold prospective by any one, more so, by the Court. That apart, a degree or a certificate issued by any University or competent educational authorities always have the effect on par with a decree issued by a competent civil court. Besides, it is well settled legal position that even an executing court cannot go behind its decree and this principle will mutatis mutandis undoubtedly apply to the case on hand as well.
24.It must be stressed here that fairness demands that no court can afford to have more than one view on one or the same issue; lest, there will be inconsistency. Consistency and Uniformity are the basic virtues inherent in every court proceedings. The law is meant to protect people from inconsistency bred by any legal confusion and confrontation. When two of the learned single Judges' orders have not been addressed nor over-ruled on the vital point, we are duty-bound to iron out the inconsistency to have uniformity and consistency on the issue involved. To uphold the 'one court-one view' principle, in turn, to restore the consistency and uniformity, we hereby hold that the view taken in Geetha's case is incorrect, therefore, it is over-ruled.
25.In view of the above settled position and for the foregoing reasons, we hold that the equivalence certificate issued by the committee constituted by the Government declaring that the degrees obtained from one University is equivalent to the degrees obtained from yet another University cannot be held to be only prospective in operation but will have its effect and validity right from the date of issuance, therefore, with due respect to the Hon'ble Division Bench, the view taken in N.Geetha's case is incorrect. Accordingly, the reference is answered."
8.It is to be noted that this Court on 19.12.2012 in M.P.No.2 of 2012 in W.P.No.33995 of 2012 has passed the following order:
"any appointment made pursuant to the notification is subject to the result of the Writ Petition. Notice."
9. In view of the fact that the Petitioner's B.A. English Degree with Specialisation in Communicative English is considered to be an equivalent of B.A. English Degree in terms of G.O.(Ms).No.270, Higher Education (K2) Department, dated 31.12.2013 [issued by the Principal Secretary to Government] and also in view of the order of the Full Bench of this Court dated 29.11.2013 in W.P.(MD).Nos.W.P.(MD)Nos.16181, 16051, 16052, 15660 & 16780 of 2012 and 18793 of 2013 and Contempt Petition (MD)No.637 of 2013 as referred supra, this Court holds that the Petitioner's B.A. English Literature Degree with Specialisation in Communicative English is equivalent to B.A. English Literature Degree and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that she is entitled to be considered for the appointment to the post of Graduate Assistant (English) by the Second Respondent in a Fair, Just and Objective and in a dispassionate manner and accordingly, this Court directs the Second Respondent to pass a reasoned speaking order on merits [Of course after providing due opportunities to the Petitioner by adhering to the Principles of Natural Justice] within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Further, this Court directs the Second Respondent to place the Petitioner at the appropriate place (in seniority) in the manner known to law and in accordance with law (if situation so warrants).
10.With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
31.01.2014
kal
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
To
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
(Education Department),
Fort St. George,
Chennai.
2. The Teachers Recruitment Board,
Rep. by its Chairman,
4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maaligai,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
M.VENUGOPAL, J
kal
W.P.No.33995 of 2012 &
M.P.No.2 of 2012
31.01.2014