Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 75979

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice R. SURESH KUMAR
The Director of School Education – Appellant
Versus
R RAJU – Respondent
W.A.No.3646 of 2025 | C.M.P.No.30131 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:M.Suresh Kumar, Additional Advocate General assisted by S.Yashwanth, Additional Government Pleader
For the Respondents: S.Nedunchezhiyan

Equivalence of a degree dates from its issuance, not from the Government Order; service in a lower post does not justify denial of seniority in a higher post if qualified at initial selection, but only notional benefits are granted for period already paid.

Headnote:(A) Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (TET) - Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 - Sections 40(1) and 40(2) - Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules - Rule 22B, Instruction 6 - Government Order No.72, Higher Education Department, dated 30.04.2013 - Equivalence of degrees - Teacher appointment - Service benefits - Seniority.

(B) The Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Nadar Thanga Shubha Laxman Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2014 (3) CTC 433, held that once a degree/diploma/certificate is issued, it has validity from the date of issuance by the University/Institution, not from the date of Government Order accepting equivalence.

(C) Fundamental Rule 22B, Instruction 6 applies only when a government servant already in service obtains a new qualification and is selected to another post through public service commission or direct recruitment; it does not apply where the employee already possessed the required qualification at the time of initial selection but appointment was delayed due to administrative doubt.

(D) An employee who has worked and received salary in a lower post cannot claim arrears of salary for the higher post for that period; only notional benefits (seniority, increments) may be granted.

Facts of the case:
The writ petitioner, a member of Scheduled Caste, obtained B.A. (English with Computer Applications) in 2011, cleared Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) in October 2012, and was eligible for appointment as secondary grade teacher and BT Assistant (English). Due to doubt over equivalence of his degree with B.A. (English), his appointment as BT Assistant was withheld. He joined as secondary grade teacher on 17.12.2012. After G.O.Ms.No.72 (30.04.2013) declared equivalence, he was appointed as BT Assistant on 25.02.2014. He sought regularisation of service from 17.12.2012. The authority rejected the request. The writ petition was allowed by the Single Judge directing full arrears from 17.12.2012 and seniority. The State appealed.

Findings of Court:
The Single Judge correctly applied the Full Bench ruling that equivalence dates from certificate issuance. However, the direction for arrears of salary from 17.12.2012 cannot stand because the petitioner had already drawn salary as secondary grade teacher during that period. The petitioner is entitled only to notional benefits (seniority and increments) from 17.12.2012 till 24.02.2014. Seniority shall be from 17.12.2012, placing him above his juniors.

Issues: (1) Whether Instruction 6 of FR 22B applies to the petitioner's case? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to full arrears of salary from the date of joining as secondary grade teacher?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that equivalence of a degree takes effect from the date of issuance of the degree, not from the date of the Government Order recognising equivalence. FR 22B applies only if the employee was already in service and thereafter acquired a new qualification and was selected to another post. Since the petitioner already possessed the qualification at the time of initial selection and the delay was due to administrative doubt, FR 22B does not apply. An employee who has worked and been paid for a lower post cannot claim arrears of salary for the higher post for the same period; only notional benefits can be granted.

Result: Writ Appeal partly allowed. The order of the Single Judge quashing the impugned order dated 11.04.2019 is upheld. The consequential direction is modified: the writ petitioner is entitled to notional benefits from 17.12.2012 till 24.02.2014, and seniority from 17.12.2012 onwards, placed above his juniors. No costs.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.)

This intra Court appeal arises against the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.34451 of 2019, dated 25.04.2025.

2.The parties shall be referred to as per their respective ranks in the writ petition.

3.The writ petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste community. He obtained Diploma in Teacher Education in the year 2008. Thereafter, he secured his graduation in English with Computer Applications from the Bharathiyar University in the year 2011. He completed his bachelor of education in the year 2012. Hence, he was eligible to be appointed to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher as well as BT Assistant in English. As required under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the petitioner took up the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) in October, 2012. The petitioner secured 92 marks in Paper-I and 102 marks in Paper-II.

4.The respondents had called for applications from eligible persons to be appointed to the post of secondary grade teachers as well as BT assistants. The petitioner was one such candidate. The petitioner, having cleared TET with high marks, was expecting appointment as BT Assistant (English). However, his appointment was withheld by the Teachers Recruitment Board, since a doubt arises in the mind of that authority whether his degree in B.A. (English with Computer Application) can be treated as equivalent to B.A. (English).

5.Since the petitioner had secured eligibility for appointment of a secondary grade teacher, he was issued proceedings on 12.12.2012. He joined the said post on 17.12.2012. He was functioning in the said post till 24.02.2014.

6.In the meantime, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.72, Higher Education Department, dated 30.04.2013, holding that B.A.(English with computer application) is equivalent to B.A. (English) literature. Consequent to this Government Order, the Joint Director of School Education, issued proceedings on 22.02.2014, appointing the petitioner as B.T. Assistant (English) in the Government High School, Komapuram, Pudukottai District. The petitioner was relieved from the post of secondary grade teacher on 24.02.2014 and joined the post of B.T. Assistant (English) on 25.02.2014.

7.The petitioner claimed that he is entitled to count the period of service rendered by him in the post of secondary grade teacher for service benefits in the post of B.T. Assistant. He claimed that he should be given seniority and other benefits on par with his juniors, who were given appointments, in the year 2012. The request of the petitioner that his services should be regularised from 17.12.2012 was rejected by the 2^nd respondent on 11.04.2019. The 2^nd respondent stated that the services of the petitioner can be regularised only from 25.02.2014 and there is no provision for regularisation of his services from 17.12.2012 when he joined the service as a secondary grade teacher. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.34451 of 2019.

8.This Court entertained the writ petition and directed the respondents to file a counter. The counter affidavit admitted the aforesaid factual position regarding the qualifications of the petitioner, his clearing TET examination as well as being appointed initially as a secondary grade teacher in the year 2012 and as a BT Assistant in the year 2014. It was pleaded that as per Rule 22B of the Fundamental Rules, the petitioner is eligible only for the minimum pay prescribed for the post of BT Assistant, since it is an entry level directly recruited post. The counter also pleaded that the petitioner had joined the secondary grade services in Elementary Education and was subsequently appointed as BT Assistant in Secondary Education Department and since separate seniority lists are being maintained, the contention of the petitioner is untenable.

9.With the pleadings having been completed, the learned Single Judge took up the matter for disposal.

10.The learned Judge referred to an aut

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 75979

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASHonourable Mr Justice R. SURESH KUMARThe Director of School Education – AppellantVersusR RAJU – RespondentW.A.No.3646 of 2025 | C.M.P.No.30131 of 2025

Equivalence of a degree dates from its issuance, not from the Government Order; service in a lower post does not justify denial of seniority in a higher post if qualified at initial selection, but only notional benefits are granted for period already paid.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice R. SURESH KUMAR
The Director of School Education – Appellant
Versus
R RAJU – Respondent
W.A.No.3646 of 2025 | C.M.P.No.30131 of 2025