Madras High Court
A.Akila vs P.Mariammal on 23 April, 2014
Bench: V.Ramasubramanian, V.M.Velumani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.04.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI Writ Appeal(MD)No.186 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)No.4 of 2014 1.A.Akila 2.A.Sasikumar 3.G.Kiruthiga 4.C.Rathi 5.K.Poongothai 6.N.Sumathi ... Appellants/ Third Parties Vs 1.1.P.Mariammal ... Respondent-1 Petitioner 2.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 3.The Teachers Recruitment Board, rep.by its Chairman, 4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai-600 006. ... Respondents 2&3/ Respondents 1&2 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 27.11.2013, made in W.P.(MD)No.17802 of 2013. !For Appellants : Mr.R.Bharanidharan ^For Respondent-1: Mr.Isaac Mohanlal For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, 2 & 3 : Spl.Govt.Pleader. :JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J) This appeal is by certain third parties to the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent, challenging an order of the learned Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent.
2.Heard Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 2 and
3.
3.In the year 2013, the Teachers Recruitment Board notified vacancies for appointment to the post of Post-Graduate Assistants in Schools in the State of Tamil Nadu. For short-listing the candidates for appointment, a written examination was held on 21.07.2013. The 1st respondent, who is a post- graduate in Commerce, with a degree in Education, applied and participated in the examination. She became successful in the examination and she was called for certificate verification, on 23.10.2013. However, her name did not find a place in the select list.
4.The 1st respondent made enquiries and she was informed that only those who studied their entire curriculum, right from the I-Standard upto the level of Post-Graduation in Tamil Medium, were considered as eligible under the quota reserved for persons who studied in Tamil Medium.
5.Aggrieved by the said stand taken by the respondents 2 and 3, the 1st respondent filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.17802 of 2013, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to consider her claim for appointment to the post of Post-Graduate Assistant in Commerce, under the quota reserved for persons who studied in Tamil Medium. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Judge, by an order dated 27.11.2013.
6.On the basis of the said order of the learned Judge, the Teachers Recruitment Board overhauled the entire select list of candidates. Consequently, the appellants herein, whose names were originally included in the list of candidates provisionally selected for appointment, were deleted from the select list. Therefore, challenging the order of the learned Judge, the appellants have come-up with this third party appeal.
7.The main grievance with which the 1st respondent herein filed the writ petition was that the benefit of preferential treatment to persons who studied in Tamil Medium should be granted to all those who had studied the qualifications prescribed for appointment to the concerned post, in Tamil Medium. But, the Teachers Recruitment Board took a stand that to be eligible for preferential treatment, a candidate should have studied the entire school curriculum as well as the entire higher education in Tamil Medium. The learned Judge accepted the contention of the 1st respondent that it is enough if the qualifications prescribed for the post alone have been acquired by studying in Tamil Medium. The learned Judge's opinion has now been accepted by the Government as well as the Teachers Recruitment Board and the entire select list has now been modified to the detriment of the appellants herein. Hence this appeal.
8.The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the benefit of preferential treatment to persons who studied in Tamil Medium are available only to those who had studied their entire school curriculum and higher education in Tamil Medium or as to whether those benefits are available to persons who studied the qualifications prescribed for the post alone in Tamil Medium.
9.In order to find out an answer to the above question, we must have a look at the genesis of this problem.
10.The Governor of Tamil Nadu promulgated an Ordinance known as "Tamilnadu Appointment on Preferential Basis in the Services under the State of Persons Studied in Tamil Medium Ordinance, 2010", providing for preferential treatment to persons who had studied in Tamil Medium. When the Ordinance was in force and had not been made into an Act, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.145, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 30.09.2010, setting apart 20% of vacancies for appointment in the services under the State to be filled-up by direct recruitment, for being filled-up on preferential basis by persons who studied in Tamil Medium. The Government Order gave an illustration as to how this 20% shall be accommodated in a 200 point roster that was already prevailing under the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services.
11.Thereafter, the State Legislature passed the Act and the same received the assent of the Governor on 27.11.2010. Therefore, the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 2010 came into force with effect from 07.09.2010. (The date on which the Ordinance was promulgated).
12.Section 2(3) of the Act defines a person who studied in Tamil Medium as follows:
"2(d)"persons studied in Tamil medium" means persons who have obtained the educational qualification or qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment in the Rules or Regulations or orders applicable to any appointment in the services under the State through Tamil Medium of Instruction;"
13.Even G.O.Ms.No.145, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 30.09.2010, issued in exercise of the power conferred by the Ordinance, defines the phrase "persons studied in Tamil medium" under Rule 2(b), as follows:
"2(b)"persons studied in Tamil medium" means persons who have obtained the educational qualification or qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment in the rules or regulations or orders applicable to any appointment in the services under the State through Tamil medium of instruction;"
14.Therefore, prima facie, it appears that to be entitled for preferential treatment, a person should have obtained the educational qualification prescribed for direct recruitment to a particular post, in Tamil medium. Neither the Act nor the Rules, prescribe that to be eligible for the benefit of preferential treatment, a person should have studied in Tamil medium the entire curriculum, starting from Class-I upto the higher education. Therefore, we do not find anything wrong with the interpretation given by the learned Judge, going by the plain meaning of the phrase "persons studied in Tamil medium".
15.However, Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned counsel for the appellants, contended, inviting our attention to the "Statement of Objects and Reasons" of the Act, that the interpretation given by the learned Judge would defeat the very object of the Act. The object of the Act, as seen from the Statement of Objects and Reasons, is to provide preferential treatment to persons who studied in Tamil medium, as they had very little chances of getting selected in the employment of Central Government, other State Governments or in Private Sectors. Another object indicated in the Statement is that unless such employment opportunities are provided, on preferential basis, the populace of the State would not be induced to pursue school and college education through Tamil Medium. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the interpretation virtually goes contrary to the object of the Act.
16.We do not think so. The reason is that before the advent of the Ordinance in September, 2010, many people might have studied in English medium as well as Tamil medium. One of the primary objects of the Act was to turn the interest and attention of the populace of the State towards Tamil as the medium of instruction. Therefore, persons who had studied in English medium upto the year 2010 were entitled to obtain under-graduate or post-graduate degrees in Tamil medium, at least after the Ordinance and fulfil one of the twin objects to which our attention had been drawn by the learned counsel for the appellants. If we give an interpretation that will deny the incentive to persons who had studied in English medium to turn to Tamil medium, the same would also be destructive of the objects of the Act.
17.As a matter of fact, the learned Judge did not give an interpretation, according to his own understanding of the provisions of the Act. The learned Judge appears to have proceeded on the basis of the letter of the Government itself to this effect. In Letter bearing No.99/S/2011-1, dated 11.01.2011, the Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, had sent a communication to the Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the Chairman of the Teachers Recruitment Board, the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board and the Commissioner of Employment and Training, giving guidelines as to how to understand the provisions of the statute. The clarifications issued by the Government read as follows:
"(i) nr;rl;lk; kw;Wk; mjidj; bjhlh;e;J btspaplg;gl;l tpjpfspd;go, jkpH;bkhHp K}ykhfg; goj;j egh;fs; vd;why; murpd; fPH;tUk; gzpfspy; Beuo epakdA;fspy; xt;bthU gjtpf;fhd t[pjpfspy; my;yJ Mizfspy; Beuo epakdj;jpw;fhd tFj;Jiuf;fg;gl;l fy;tpj; jFjp my;yJ fy;tpj; jFjpfisj; jkpHbkhHp K}ykhfg;
goj;Js;s egh;fs; vd;W tiuaWf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. njd;go vl;lhk; tFg;g[ fy;tpj; jFjp eph;zapf;fg;gl;Ls;s gjtpf;F vl;lhk; tFg;gpid jkpH;bkhHp K}ykhfg; goj;Js;s egh;fSf;F Kd;Dhpik tHA;fg;gl Btz;Lk;. mBjBghd;W, gj;jhk; tFg;g[ fy;tpj jFjp eph;zapf;fg;gl;Ls;s gjtpf;F gj;jhk;; tFg;gpid jkpH;bkhHp K}ykhfg; goj;Js;s egh;fSf;F Kd;Dhpik tHA;fg;gl Btz;Lk;. mBjBghd;W nsA;fiy gl;lg;gog;g[ fy;tpj jFjp eph;zapf;fg;gl;Ls;s gjtpfSf;F nsA;fiy gl;lg;gog;gpid jkpH;bkhHp K}ykhfg; goj;Js;s egh;fSf;F Kd;Dhpik tHA;fg;gl Btz;Lk;. mBjBghd;W KJfiy gl;lg;gog;g[ fy;tpj; jFjp eph;zapf;fg;gl;Ls;s gjtpfSf;F KJfiy gl;lg;gog;gpid jkpH;bkhHp K}ykhfg; goj;Js;s egh;fSf;F Kd;Dhpik tHA;fg;gl Btz;Lk;.
(ii) BkYk; kjpg;bgz;/khw;Wr; rhd;wjH;fspy; ve;j gapw;W bkhHpapy; (Mediumof Instruction) eph;zapf;fg;gl;l fy;tpj; jFjpapid bgw;Ws;sdh; vd;gjid fz;lwpa Koahj epiyapy; mjw;fhd rhd;wpjiH, mg;gjtpf;F eph;zapf;fg;gl;l fy;tpj; jFjpapid gapd;w fy;tp epiyaj;jpypUe;J tpz;zg;gjhuh; bgw;W rkh;gpf;fBtz;Lk;. jw;BghJ nJ bjhlh;ghf brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; ePjpg;Bguhiz kD xd;W jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;L nilf;fhyj;jil tHA;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. BkBy Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s tpsf;fA;fs; cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; nilf;fhyj;jil Mizf;F cl;gl;ljhFk;. jil ePf;fg;gl;l gpd;g[ nit gpd;gw;wg;glyhk;."
18.In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the State before the learned Judge, the Government had extracted a portion of the above Letter dated 11.01.2011. Therefore, the order of the learned Judge assailed in this writ appeal was not based merely upon the contentions of the 1st respondent but based upon the stand taken by the Government.
19.As a matter of fact, even if we take a different view from the view taken by the learned Judge, the appellants may not get any benefit. Based upon the Government Letter, dated 11.01.2011 and based upon the interpretation given by the learned Judge in his judgment, in the writ petition, the Teachers Recruitment Board has revised the entire list of candidates provisionally selected for appointment. Unless that decision is challenged by the appellants, any order passed, even in their favour in this writ appeal, would not take them to their destination. Therefore, we do not wish to undertake a mere academic exercise.
20.As a matter of fact, the appellants cannot even be said to be aggrieved by the decision of the learned Judge. The ultimate direction issued by the learned Judge was only to confer the benefit of proper interpretation of Section 3 of the Act to the 1st respondent, who was the writ petitioner. The appellants are not actually aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge, but aggrieved by the action of the Government in issuing a clarification as to the persons to whom the benefit is to be conferred. Therefore, the appellants cannot have a grievance against the order of the learned Judge.
21.Moreover, by the interpretation that the Government had adopted to the provisions of the Act, the appellants do not go out of the purview of the benefit. Some more persons get included within the zone of consideration, by virtue of such an interpretation. Therefore, the appellants cannot make much ado about the same.
22.We must remember one thing. The Act conferring the benefit was not intended to penalize persons who have studied in English medium upto the year 2010. It was intended to confer the benefit upon persons who studied in Tamil medium. If more persons are attracted towards Tamil medium by virtue of the provisions of the Act, they should not be turned away, on the ground that they underwent their previous curriculum in English medium, etc. Therefore, we find no reasons to interfere with the order of the learned Judge. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.4 of 2014 is also dismissed.
gb To The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.