Madras High Court
K.Pandiyan vs The Director Of Elementary Education on 5 September, 2022
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.A.No.1010 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.09.2022
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.1010 of 2022
K.Pandiyan .. Appellant
Vs
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Senthurai 621 714, Ariyalur District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Senthurai 621 714, Ariyalur District.
4.The Block Educational Officer,
Senthurai 621 714, Ariyalur District.
5.N.Radha
6.N.Raja Krishnan .. Respondents
(Respondents 5 and 6 impleaded vide
order dated 13.04.2022 made in
C.M.P. No.6654 of 2022 in W.A.No.1010 of 2022)
Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 16.03.2022 made in W.P.No.1643 of 2022.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1010 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran
For Respondents : Mr.S.Yashwanth,
Addl. Govt. Pleader
for R1 to R4
No appearance for R5 and R6
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.) This writ appeal is filed, aggrieved by the order of learned single Judge dated 16.03.2022 in W.P. No.1643 of 2022, in and by which even while directing the respondents to consider the representation of the writ petitioner and pass orders, the learned single Judge, in para 10, had found that since the writ petitioner's degree qualification was entered in the service register only on 23.11.2021 and the panel was prepared as on 01.01.2021, the respondents could not have included his name.
2. Heard Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.Yashwanth, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that in this case, the writ petitioner wrote his final Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1010 of 2022 examination on 23.10.2020 and the results were declared on 05.10.2021 only because of the covid-19 pandemic situation. It is settled law by the earlier pronouncements of this Court that once results are declared, the date of obtaining of the qualification would date back to the last date of writing of the examination. He would submit that even though the crucial date is 01.01.2021, the panel was prepared only on 15.11.2021. Before the date of preparation of the panel, as on 05.10.2021, the results were declared and the petitioner has submitted the results. It is only the administrative delay on the part of the respondents to enter the same in his service register only on 23.11.2021. Therefore, he would submit that the learned single Judge erred in taking into account the said date as the relevant date and not granting the positive direction as prayed for in the writ petition.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4, relying upon para 13 of the counter affidavit filed, would submit that even though the appellant wrote the examination on 23.10.2020, the results were declared on 05.10.2021, the qualification was entered in the service register only on 23.11.2021 and in the meanwhile, the crucial date i.e., 01.01.2021 Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1010 of 2022 and also the date of constitution of the panel i.e., 15.11.2021 passed by and therefore only because of the said fact, the writ petitioner's case was not considered. There was no fault on the part of the respondents in not considering the case of the writ petitioner and since promotions have already been granted, the same could not be disturbed. He would submit that only taking into consideration all the relevant facts and attendant circumstances, the learned single Judge had disposed of the writ petition by giving a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner and therefore he would submit that there is nothing in this writ appeal and prays for dismissal of the same.
5. We have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of both sides and perused the material records in this case.
6. At the outset, by the earlier order of this Court in W.P. No.18339 of 2010, as confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.1636 of 2012, the law regarding the matter is settled in which this Court has categorically declared that once the person obtains the qualification, the date of obtaining the qualification will not be the date of declaration of results or the date of entering the Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1010 of 2022 same in the service register but the date of writing the last examination. Admittedly, the writ petitioner wrote the last examination on 23.10.2020. Therefore, once the results are declared on 05.10.2021, the same would date back to 23.10.2020. The crucial date for the promotion in the respective year is 01.01.2021 and therefore as on the crucial date, the writ petitioner has obtained the qualification. The only contention made by the respondents is that before panel was prepared in the month of November, the petitioner's qualification was not entered in the service register. It is seen that even the panel was prepared only on 15.11.2021. By the said time, on 05.10.2021 itself, the results were declared and the writ petitioner had informed about the same to the respondents.
7. In that view of the matter, it is only the administrative delay on the part of the respondents to enter the qualification in the service register which happened only on 23.11.2021 and that cannot be put against the writ petitioner for no fault of him. Therefore, we find that even though the learned single Judge has directed the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner, the observations made in para 10 of the impugned order cannot stand scrutiny in view of the earlier pronouncements of this Court that the qualification will date Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1010 of 2022 back to the last date of examination.
8. In view of our finding, this writ appeal is disposed of in the following terms:
8.1 The order of learned single Judge dated 16.03.2022 in W.P. No.1643 of 2022 is set aside;
8.2 W.P. No.1643 of 2022 is allowed with a direction to the respondents to include the name of the writ petitioner in the panel for promotion for B.T. Assistant (Science) as on 01.01.2021 and accordingly promote him from the date of promotion of his juniors with all service and monetary benefits;
8.3 It would be open for the respondents either to create a supernumerary post or to fit him in any available vacancy notionally from the date of his retrospective promotion or to revert the junior most person and to grant promotion to the writ petitioner;
8.4 The above exercise shall be carried out within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;
8.5 There shall be no order as to costs.
(P.U., J) (D.B.C., J)
05.09.2022
Index:No
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1010 of 2022
mmi/22
To
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Senthurai 621 714, Ariyalur District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Senthurai 621 714, Ariyalur District.
4.The Block Educational Officer,
Senthurai 621 714, Ariyalur District.
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1010 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
mmi
W.A.No.1010 of 2022
05.09.2022
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis