Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 2868
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
Kuppusamy(Died) – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Guziliamparai Panchayat Union (Regular) – Respondent
S.A.No.673 of 2001
Decided on : 03-04-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr.R.Nandakumar
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of estoppel in the context of the respondent's selection of the appellant for the post of Noon Meal Organiser after a personal interview, despite the appellant not meeting the prescribed educational qualification.
Headnote:
Estoppel - Qualification for Employment - G.O.Ms.No.918, Backward Classes Welfare, Nutritious Meal Programme and Social Welfare Department - 10th standard passed or failed - [G.O.Ms.No.918, Backward Classes Welfare, Nutritious Meal Programme and Social Welfare Department, dated 03.11.1989] - The court discussed the interpretation of the educational qualification fixed for the post of Noon Meal Organiser and the application of estoppel in the context of the respondent's selection of the appellant for the post after a personal interview. The court found that the prescribed qualification was only 10th standard passed or failed, and the post was not a technical one. It concluded that the appellant should have been given an opportunity to meet the qualification and that the respondent was estopped from contending that the appellant was not qualified for the post after selecting him for the position. The judgment of the first appellate Court was set aside, and the judgment of the trial Court was restored.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased appellant filed a suit for declaration and injunction after being removed from the post of Noon Meal Organiser. The trial Court decreed the suit, but the appeal by the respondent was allowed. The deceased appellant's legal heirs pursued a second appeal, raising substantial questions of law regarding the reversal of the trial Court's judgment and the respondent's estoppel from contending the appellant's lack of qualification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased appellant was appointed as Noon Meal Organiser based on the paper publication and personal interview, and his appointment was subsequently cancelled without giving him an opportunity to meet the qualification. It concluded that the respondent was estopped from contending that the appellant was not qualified for the post after selecting him for the position.
Issues: The issues involved the reversal of the trial Court's judgment, the respondent's estoppel from contending the appellant's lack of qualification, and the legality of the appellant's removal from service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prescribed qualification was only 10th standard passed or failed, and the post was not a technical one. It concluded that the appellant should have been given an opportunity to meet the qualification and that the respondent was estopped from contending that the appellant was not qualified for the post after selecting him for the position.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed, the judgment of the first appellate Court was set aside, and the judgment of the trial Court was restored. The legal heirs of the original appellant were entitled to benefits from the respondent.
JUDGMENT :
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2001 passed in A.S.No. 53 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Dindigul, reversing the order and decree dated 21.10.1997 passed in O.S.No.138 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur.
The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. The deceased appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.138 of 1995 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedasandur, against the respondent for declaration and injunction. The trial Court, after the trial, decreed the suit filed by the deceased appellant/plaintiff. Against which, the respondent/defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.53 of 1999 before the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul. After hearing the appeal, the Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Against which, the deceased appellant/plaintiff has filed the second appeal raising the following substantial questions of law before this Court:
“1). Whether the learned appellate Court is right in reversing the judgment and decree of trial Court and non-suiting the plaintiff especially when the plaintiff has satisfied the requirement as stated in the advertisement.
2). Whether the respondent is estopped from contending that the appellant is not qualified for the post of Organiser when the respondent has selected him for the post after personal interview.”
2. The learned counsel appearing for the deceased appellant/ plaintiff would submit that there was a paper publication in daily Thinathanthi, dated 22.07.1991 called for the post of Noon Meal Organiser, wherein, the qualification was mentioned as 10th standard failed or passed and the age limit was mentioned as within 25 to 30. On seeing the paper publication, the deceased appellant/plaintiff applied for the said post and after conducting personal interview and verification of the documents, he was selected for the post of Noon Meal Organiser and appointment order was issued to him, on 09.12.1991. Pursuant to which, he joined in that post and worked as a Noon Meal Organizer in Methaipatti Union School Centre. All of sudden, without giving an opportunity, the deceased appellant/plaintiff was removed from service on 26.12.1991. Challenging the same, he filed a suit for declaration declaring the removal order dated 26.12.1991 passed by the respondent, is null and void and restraining the respondent not to disturb him from working as a Noon Meal Organiser in the said school. The Trial Court decreed the said suit. Against which, the respondent/defendant filed an appeal before the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul. The said appeal was allowed. Challenging the same, the deceased appellant/plaintiff has filed the present appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, the sole appellant/plaintiff died therefore, now the legal heirs of the deceased appellant are prosecuting this appeal.
3. The contention of the respondent/defendant is that as per G.O.Ms.No.918, Backward Classes Welfare, Nutritious Meal Programme and Social Welfare Department, dated 03.11.1989, the educational qualification fixed for the post of Noon Meal Organiser in Nutritious Meal Centres was either SSLC passed or failed under old regulations or SSLC passed or failed under new regulations. As the deceased appellant did not appear for SSLC, he was not having the prescribed qualification. Since his appointment was purely temporary, his service can be terminated at any time, even without any reason. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the said fact and decreed the suit. Whereas, the lower appellate Court rightly appreciated that even not appearing for SSLC examination in old pattern, cannot be equated with SSLC failed in new pattern. Therefore, there is no merit in the second appeal and the substantial question of law, which has been formulated by thi
