Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 3551
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HULUVADI G. RAMESH, RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, JJ.
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai and Others – Appellants
Versus
R. Veeramuthu and Another – Respondents
W.A. Nos. 1522, 1523 of 2016 & C.M.P. Nos. 18941 to 18943 of 2016
Decided On : 07-11-2017
For the Appellants : K. Venkataramani and P.S. Sivashanmugasundaram.
For the Respondents: R. Singaravelan for S.N. Ravichandran.
A new ground cannot be used to deny an employee's right to continue in employment, and their appointment should be considered for calculating benefits from the date of their joining.
Headnote:
Teacher Training Course - Employment - G.O.Ms. No. 1236, Education Department, dated 17.9.1984, G.O. (1D) No. 26, School Education Department, dated 21.02.2003 - The court held that a new ground cannot be put against the respondents to deny them their right to continue in employment, and their appointment has to be considered right from the date of their joining for calculating pension and terminal benefits, but the consequential benefits will flow only from the date of acquisition of 50% marks in the Teacher Training Course.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents' employment as Secondary Grade Teachers in Tamil Nadu was terminated due to not meeting the 50% marks requirement in the Teacher Training Course. They challenged the termination, and the court held that a new ground cannot be put against them to deny their right to continue in employment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents' right to continue in employment cannot be denied based on a new ground and directed the evaluation of their Teacher Training Course certificates and the calculation of benefits from the date of their joining.
Issues: The issues revolved around the termination of the respondents' employment based on the 50% marks requirement in the Teacher Training Course and the subsequent rejection of their request for evaluation of their certificates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that a new ground cannot be used to deny the respondents their right to continue in employment, and their appointment should be considered for calculating benefits from the date of their joining.
Final Decision: The writ appeals were disposed of, and the court directed the evaluation of the respondents' Teacher Training Course certificates and the calculation of benefits from the date of their joining as Secondary Grade Teachers.
HULUVADI G. RAMESH, J.
1. These writ appeals have been filed against the common order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. Nos. 21630 and 21631 of 2014 dated 16.04.2015.
2. The facts of the case would run thus:
The respondents herein have passed 10th standard in Kerala State during the year 1991 and 1998 respectively. The respondent in W.A. No. 1522 of 2016-Veeramuthu, joined Teacher Training Course in 1992 in Kerala State and completed the Course in 1994 and the respondent in W.A. No. 1523 of 2016-Peter, joined Teacher Training Course in 1989 in Kerala State and completed the Course in 1991. Thereafter, they were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers in the year 1995 in The Nilgiris and Coimbatore Districts in Tamil Nadu, respectively. The services of Mr. Veeramuthu was terminated on 31.08.1998 and he challenged the order of termination by filing Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 7484 of 1998 and the Tribunal granted an interim order staying the order of termination. The reason for termination was on the ground that the he has not obtained 50% marks in the Teacher Training Course undergone by him in Kerala State. During the pendency of the said Original Application before the Tribunal, he appeared for improvement examination and secured more than 50% marks. Thereafter, O.A. No. 7484 of 1998 was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P. No. 35206 of 2006. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Mr. Veeramuthu had passed Plus Two examination. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court, by order dated 08.01.2010 pointing out that G.O.Ms. No. 1236, Education Department, dated 17.9.1984 has been subsequently clarified in G.O. (1D) No. 26, School Education Department, dated 21.02.2003 and by virtue of Clause 3 and 4 in paragraph 4 of the said G.O., his case could not be considered. In the light of the said finding, it was held that the validity of G.O.Ms. No. 1236, Education Department, dated 17.9.1984 need not be gone into and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed leaving it open to Mr. Veeramuthu to work out his rights in accordance with G.O. (1D) No. 26, School Education Department, dated 21.02.2003, if already such benefit has not been extended.
3. Thereafter, the respondent in W.A. No. 1522 of 2016 sought for evaluation of his Teacher Training Certificate issued by the Kerala State. This was rejected by the 3rd appellant by order dated 23.07.2014 and the said order was impugned in W.P. No. 21630 of 2014. Though, initially the Mr. Veeramuthu's services was terminated on the ground that he had not secured 50% marks, subsequently, he had appeared for improvement examination and had secured more than 50% marks. However, the order impugned in the writ petition does not reject his case or place him in a disadvantageous position on the ground that he has not secured 50% marks, but a new ground was mentioned, stating that he has not passed Plus Two examination and owing to such reason, his request for evaluation of his Teacher Training Certificate has been rejected. At the first instance, his request for evaluation was rejected in 1996 for the reason that he has not secured 50% marks in the Teacher Training Course, however in the proceedings impugned in the writ petition, a new reason has been assigned, stating that he has not passed Plus Two examination.
4. So far as the respondent in W.A. No. 1523 of 2016 (A. Peter) is concerned, his services was terminated during May, 1996 as he did not secure 50% marks in Teacher Training Course in Kerala State. Aggrieved over the same, he moved this Court by filing W.P. No. 16063 of 1996 and this Court while entertaining the writ petition granted an order of interim stay. Subsequently, he appeared for improvement examination and secured 50% marks. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 26.12.2002 directing the respondents therein to evaluate his certificate. Pursuant t
