Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1182
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND M. VENUGOPAL, JJ.
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai & Others – Appellants
Versus
R. Malarvili – Respondent
W.A. No. 288 of 2015 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2015
Decided On : 03-03-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants:K. Karthigeyan, Government Advocate (Education)
Headnote:
Against the order - Sole discretion of the authority - Against constitution or statutory provisions – Public service commission - Particulars found in above tabular statement would show that there is no dispute about qualifications possessed by petitioners for continuing in post of Secondary Grade Teachers or Primary School Head Masters or Drawing Masters or for promotion to the next higher post is denied is that they did not undergo a Higher Secondary Course - As a matter of fact, some of these writ petitioners have undergone a Higher Secondary Course or a Foundation Course, after completing their Degrees or Post Graduate Degrees. But, de hors courses undergone by them, they had also undergone a Diploma Course in Teacher Education of a duration of two years, before acquiring their Degrees -Question as to whether this two year Diploma in Teacher Education can be considered as a valid substitute for a pass in Higher Secondary Course, was considered by three learned Judges of this Court. The first such consideration was by etc. batch of cases, decided Government of Tamil Nadu – Held, Core emphatic plea taken on behalf of the Respondent/Petitioner is that Appellants/Respondents after accepting Technical Teacher Training Certificate and also appointing her as Arts Master in the year 1990 in Tamil Nadu Sub ordinate Service now after the lapse of about 16 years cannot be permitted to take a stand that she had not undergone education under pattern and therefore, she is not qualified and ineligible for appointment as Tamil - Also that the Appellants cannot take such a stand in view of the fact that there are no provisions in the statutory rules - Lastly, the stand of the Respondent/Petitioner is that prior to 1984, those who were appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher without taking into consideration qualification - In case those who had completed. with qualification are promoted as B.T. Assistant and Tamil up to Subsequently, the Government had passed order in the above benefit for promotion. Apart from that, since she had finished her S.S.L.C and thereafter, completed Technical Teachers Certificate Course which is equivalent to Diploma in Teacher Education and then completed U.G. Course. Hence, she is entitled to get her name in the panel on promotion as Tamil and as such with retrospective effect from the date of promotion of her juniors with consequential benefits. Also that there was no response from the Appellants/Respondents to the Respondent/Petitioners representation dated 11.08.2012 and hence, she has filed the present Writ Petition - As far as the present case is concerned, on going through the impugned order of the Learned Single Judge Court is of the considered view that the Learned Single Judge had observed in para4 of the order that “the question as to whether this two year Diploma in Teacher Education can be considered as a valid substitute for a pass in the Higher Secondary Course, was considered by atleast three Learned Judges of this Court and such consideration was decided by order Government of Tamil Nadu - Second batch of cases was decided by order and the third batch was decided by order respectively - That apart Government had issued a Higher Education Department, dated 18.12.2012 holding that a regular Diploma of a duration of three years obtained even in unrelated subjects could be considered as equivalent to a pass in the Higher Secondary Course - Appeal is dismissed
M.Venugopal, J.
1. The Appellants/Respondents have focused the instant intra-Court Writ Appeal before this Court as against the order dated 18.04.2013 in W.P.No.28868 of 2012 passed by the Learned Single Judge.
2. The Learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order dated 18.04.2013 in W.P.No.28868 of 2012 in para 4 inter-alia had observed as under:
“The particulars found in the above tabular statement would show that there is no dispute about the qualifications possessed by the petitioners for continuing in the post of Secondary Grade Teachers or Primary School Head Masters or Drawing Masters or for promotion to the next higher post is denied is that they did not undergo a Higher Secondary Course. As a matter of fact, some of these writ petitioners have undergone a Higher Secondary Course or a Foundation Course, after completing their Degrees or Post Graduate Degrees. But, de hors courses undergone by them, they had also undergone a Diploma Course in Teacher Education of a duration of two years, before acquiring their Degrees. The question as to whether this two year Diploma in Teacher Education can be considered as a valid substitute for a pass in the Higher Secondary Course, was considered by atleast three learned Judges of this Court. The first such consideration was by K.Suguna,J, in W.P.Nos.25432 of 2011 etc. batch of cases, decided on 02.07.2012 in M.Valarmathi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu. The second batch of cases was decided by S.Nagamuthu,J, in W.P.Nos.23382 of etc. batch on 10.09.2012. The third batch was decided by K.Chandru,J, by his order dated 27.11.2012 in W.P.Nos.22488 of 2012 etc. batch.”
And further in para 5 had observed as follows:
“In addition to the above, the Government had also come up with an order in G.O.Ms.242, Higher Education Department dated 18.12.2012, i.e., after the pronouncement of the orders of the three learned Judges, holding that a regular Diploma of a duration of three years obtained even in unrelated subjects could be considered as equivalent to a pass in Higher Secondary Course. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the claim that they have made.”
And resultantly, allowed the Writ Petition by directing the Appellants/Respondents to consider the claim of the Respondent/Petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Further, the Appellants/Respondents were directed to verify the particulars of the qualification secured by the Respondent/Petitioner as indicated in para 3 of the tabular statement:
| S.No. | W.P.No. | Name & Designation | Qualification | Date of appointment & post |
| 6 | 28868/12 | R.Malarvili Drawing Teacher | Oct.1986-SSLC March 1990-Teacher Certificate Course (Drawing) May 2006-B.Litt. May 2008-Tamil Pandit | 21.12.1996 Drawing Teacher |
3. The Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Appellants urges before this Court that the Writ Court should have appreciated the fact that the Government in G.O.Ms.No.107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.08.2009, had ordered that the Degrees, P.G. Degrees and Diplomas obtained after undergoing X Standard and Higher Secondary Course would be eligible for appointments/promotions in public service.
4. The Learned Government Advocate contends that the Writ Court ought to have seen that Government in G.O.Ms.No.242 Higher Education P1 Department, dated 18.12.2012, inter-alia had passed an order to the effect that those who studied X Standard and XII Standard examination and those who studied three years Degree Course and equivalent to them in order to get the employment opportunities and for getting promotion to be recognised and as such, the Respondent/Writ Petitioner would not come within the ambit of the aforesaid Government Order.
5. The prime submission of the Learned Government Advocate is that the Writ Cour
