The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner for the issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the charge memo issued by the respondent against the petitioner in Na.Ka.No.H2/121685/2003 dated 19.01.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to comply with the order dated 13.06.2003 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.6236 of 2001 and to get the petitioners Secondary Grade Teacher Training Certificate, issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, evaluated by the competent authority and to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment that is 02.06.1999 and to grant all the service and other attendant benefits with in a time frame.
2.The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1985, he completed his SSLC in the Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Thirumangalam, Madurai District. Thereafter, he acquired the Plus Two qualification in the year, 1987. Followed by the completion of his +2, he had undergone Teacher Training Course in BVN Teacher Training Institute, Robertsonpet, KGF in the Karnataka State. Accordingly, he acquired the qualification in the Teacher Training Course and registered the same in May 1991 with the office of the District Employment Exchange, Madurai.
3.After a period of 8 years service that is in the year 1999, the name of the petitioner was sponsored by the employment exchange for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Assistant in the Kallar Reclamation Department. However, on 02.06.1999 by the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.97724/98 H2 of the Special Deputy Collector (Kallar Reclamation), Madurai, the petitioner was given appointment as Teacher in the Kallar Higher Secondary School, Pappapatti, Madurai District. Pursuant to his appointment, the Head Master of the aforesaid school sent a proposal in Na.Ka.No.172/2000 dated 12.09.2000 to the Special Deputy Collector (Kallar Reclamation) for the regularization of the service of the petitioner. The further case of the petitioner is that though at the relevant point of time, the service of 185 teachers were regularized, the service of the petitioner was not been regularized. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that as he completed his Teacher Training Course in the State of Karnataka, his certificate was not evaluated and thereby his service was not regularized.
4.The petitioner applied with the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training on 23.01.2001, for the evaluation of his certificate. However the said authority, by his proceedings in O.Mu.No.4306/C3/2001 dated 26.06.200 rejected the evaluation on 3 grounds by referring G.O.Ms.No.1236 Education Department dated 17.09.1984, the three grounds are as follows:
(a) That as those candidates, who have undergone teachers training course in Tamil Nadu, those who have undergone the said course in Karnataka also should have obtained 50% marks in each subject in each year of the teachers training course.
(b) That the petitioner was not eligible to join the teachers training course as then he did not acquire the requisite qualification of +2.
(c) That the petitioner has not secured 50% of marks in two subjects of second year of his teacher?s training course.?
5.In the mean time, the Head Master of the Government Kallar Higher Secondary School, Pappapatti, Madurai district again sent a proposal in Na.Ka.No.172/2000 dated 10.07.2001 with the request to the authority concerned for the regularization of the service of the petitioner. At the same time the petitioner filed an OA.No.6236/2001, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to quash the rejection order passed by the Director of Teacher Education Research and Training vide his proceedings in O.Mu.No.4306/C3/2001 dated 26.06.2001. Even before the Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner not only prayed for the evaluation for his Teacher Training Course certificate, but also sought for regularization of his service with all consequential benefits. While entertaining the aforesaid O.A.No.6236/2001, the Learned State Administrative Tribunal granted an order of interim injunction not to oust the petitioner from his service. However, it is the case of the petitioner that pending O.A and in the currency of the injunction, the respondent issued a charge memo against the petitioner inNa.Ka.No.H2/121685/2003 dated 14.01.2000 under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules by framing four charges against him. The charges are:
Charge No.1: That the petitioner has created a situation of not being able to evaluate other State Teachers Training Course. My certificate by getting less than 50% marks, in violation of relevant Government Rules and orders. Charge No.2: That the petitioner has secured less than 50% marks i.e. 59 marks out of 120 marks, in two subjects.
Charge No.3: That he is working in violation of Government orders by having secured less than 50% of marks.
Charge No.4: That the petitioner suppressed facts and secured employment and thereby he got Government funds by way of salary by cheating the Government.?
6.The further grievance of the petitioner is that he has not suppressed any fact; on the other hand, he was given employment through employment exchange and continuing his service. He also pleaded that similarly placed teachers like the petitioner namely one Vetriazhagan and Selvi. Nazeema, they were given relaxation in the evaluation by the order passed in a batch of writ petition in W.P.Nos.7759, 11097, 4600 and 13396/98 of this court. He has also extracted the order passed in the aforesaid batch of the writ petitions in his affidavit. Further he justifies his plea on the strength of the order passed in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions and sought for the relief as prayed for.
7.Per contra, the respondent has filed counter affidavit which is sworn by the Joint Director, Kallar Reclamation Madurai and the Assistant Accounts Officer, Kallar Reclamation, Madurai. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that as the petitioner obtained less than 50% of marks in the Teacher Training Course his certificate was not evaluated and thereby his service was not regularized. It is further contended that though the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal disposed of the O.A.No.6236 of 2001, filed on behalf of the petitioner with a batch of writ petitions on 30.06.2003, the learned Tribunal directed the consent authority to evaluate the certificate of the teachers. But, it was also the direction of the court that the names of those candidates can be considered for future appointment on priority basis. Further, it is also held by the learned Tribunal that those persons cannot ask that they should be included as the matter of right in the batch of teachers appointed in the year 1999 or before that. Furthermore, it is contended by the respondent that the petitioner can very well filed his explanation for the charge memo and can appear before the Enquiry Officer to justify his grievance. Further the respondent also prayed challenging the charge memo is premature and the interim stay granted by this court in M.P.No.1 of 2010 on 05.03.2010 is to be vacated by dismissing the writ petition.
8.I heard Mr.A.Thirumurthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
9.Having regard to the affidavit and the counter affidavit on either side and the entire materials available on record this court is found that the following aspects are admitted by the petitioner and the respondent.
10.That the educational qualifications, the appointment of the petitioner and the disposed of the OA.No.6236 of2001 by the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal however it is seen from the records from that when the petitioner came to know about the common order of the batch of OAs including the petitioners OA.No.6236 of 2001 by the common order dated 13.06.2003 by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, he filed application for the amendment of his prayer in the writ petition in addition to the quashment of the charge memo that is the evaluation of his Teacher Training Course Certificate and Regularization of his service with all attended benefits. This court puts its anxious consideration in respect of the 4 charges framed against the petitioner which are extracted earlier. The perusal of the charges would show that they are arising out of the non- evaluation of the Teacher Training Course Certificate. Further, all the four charges are inter-related undoubtedly. At this juncture it is useful to extract the order passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal based on the order passed by this Hon?ble court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.7759, 11097 and 13416 of 1997.
?The government passed G.O.Ms.No.442 Education Department dated 27.0485 directing the Director of School Education to evaluate Karnataka State Teachers Training Certificates subject to the following conditions:
i) Teacher Training Certificate holders of Karnataka State should have passed their SSLC in Tamil Medium with Tamil as I language or should have taken Tamil as I Language in SSLC if they studied in English Medium.
ii) They should have obtained 50% of marks in aggregate in their SSLC as in the case of Teachers Training Certificate holders of Tamil Nadu.
iii)They should have obtained 50% of marks in each subject in their Teacher Training Certificate as in the case of Teacher Training Certificate holders of Tamil Nadu.
iv) If they have studied other than Tamil Medium in their SSLC as well as Teachers Training Certificate and satisfy the conditions (II) and (iii) ?????.
It is pointed out by all the applicants that Government itself has deviated from insisting upon this minimum of 50% by passing G.O.(2D) No.284 Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 15.12.95 and G.O.Ms.No.1196 Education (U1) Department, dated 13.12.90. These two G.Os. admittedly granted relaxation of the rules relating to 50% marks in case of one Nazeema and Vetri Alagan W.P.Nos.7759, 11097, 4600 and 13416 of 1997 were filed by one Sivakumar, Keethipathi Subramaniam and Koya Bujamma before the High Court Madras. All these applications were dealt with together and were disposed of by justice P.D.Dinakaran in the judgment dated 23.02.1998. In all these cases petitioners have already secured employment and evaluation was pending and they were either not paid salary pending evaluation or they were sought to be terminated on the throat of evaluation being refused to them. All the applicants relied upon the above said G.Os. of 1992 and 1995 as per which one Nazeema and Vetri Alagan were granted exemptions who have obtained less than 50% marks in their Teachers Training Certificate issued by the Karnataka Government. His lordships also refers to the order of the Division Bench to which his lordship also was the party, where in directions have been given to evaluate the certificates issued by the Karnataka State Government. But those certificate have been issued prior to September 1984. The applicants mainly relied upon evaluation given to Vetri Alagan and Nazeema and prayed for similar treatment to them also. In this aspect judgment is as follows:
?It is not in dispute that the petitioners in W.P.Nos.7759,11097 and 13416 of 1997, as well as Mr.Vetriazhagan and Selvi Nazeema, have passed the respective Teachers Certificate Higher Course Examination conducted by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, subsequent to G.O.Ms.No.1236 Education Department dated 17.09.84 came into force.
I do not find any special reason to treat the case of Mr.Vetriazhgan and Selvi Nazeema from that of the petitioners herein as all of them had admittedly written the Teacher?s Certificate Higher Course examination conducted by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination board only after passing of G.O.Ms.No.1236 Education Department, dated 17.09.84.
What is relevant for applying G.O.,Ms.No.1236 Education Department dated 17.9.84 is only the date of passing the examination, for teacher?s Certificate Higher Course conducted by Karnataka Secondary Education Board and the marks obtained in the public examination namely 50% in each of the subjects but not the year of joining or completing the course. So, once there is not dispute as to the fact that Mr.Vetriazhagan and Selvi Nazeema had written the said examination conducted by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board after the G.O.Ms.No.1236 Education Department dated 17.09.84 but could not secure 50% marks in each of the subjects as in the case of the petitioner in these writ petitions, there is no justification in relaxing the condition om G.O.Ms.No.1236 Education Department dated 17.9.84 in the case of Mr.Vetriazhagan and Selvi Nazeema alone, by passing G.O.Ms.No.1196 Education (U1) Department, dated 03.12.1992 and G.O.(2D) No.284 Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 15.12.1995 respectively and to refuse such benefits to the petitioners in these writ petitions, assuming the Government have passed the said G.Os.in favour of Mr.Vetriazhagan by oversight or mistake.
Applying the principles laid down in the above decision of the Apex court in Vishnudass Hundamal V.State of M.P.reported in AIR 1981 Sc 1636, I am obliged to hold that the petitioner in these writ petitions are all entitled for the very same favorable treatment by giving the benefits of the G.O.ms.No.1196 Education (U1) Department dated 3.12.1992 and G.O.Ms.(2D) NO.284 Education Science and Technology Department, dated 15.12.95 in order to remove the discrimination shown to them.
It is therefore necessary for this court to rectify the same by rejecting the argument of the learned Government Advocate that the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.1196 Education (U1) Department dated 3.12.1992 and G.O.Ms.(2D) No.284, Education Science and Technology Department, dated 15.12.95 as a special case and to direct the Government to extend the same benefit given in G.O.Ms.No.1196 (U1) Department dated 3.12.1992 and G.O.(2D) No.284 Education Science and Technology Department dated 15.12.95 to the petitioners in these writ petitions also as I am satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to be treated on par with Mr.Vetriazhagan and Selvi Nazeema in whose favour G.O.Ms.No.1196 Education (U1) Department dated 3.12.1992 and G.O.Ms.(2D) No.284 Education Science and Technology Department dated 15.12.95 respectively or otherwise it will be a gross violation of
Article 14 of the constitution of India.
For all the reasons stated above, the impugned orders in the above writ petitions are quashed with a direction to the Government to evaluate the Teachers Certificates of the petitioners issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, on par with that of the Teachrs in Tami Nadu???
There are less than only 100 applicants who are holding Karnataka and other State Certificates who have passed Secondary Grade Teachers Training Certificate Course conducted by those Governments but who have failed to secure 50% in all subjects in the examination. But all of them have registered their names in the Employment Exchange and they have been waiting for a long time. But for the refusal to evaluate their certificates they would have got their appointments in the year 1999 or in the following years. The exemption has been granted to only two persons and the High Court has held that similar persons are also entitled to benefits of the exempting G.Os.
Therefore I hold that these applicants are also entitled to have their certificates evaluated accordingly. Respondents are therefore directed to evaluate their certificates and to consider them for future appointment on priority basis. However these persons are not as a matter of right ask to be included just be batch of teachers appointed in the year 1999, or before that. All the applications are ordered accordingly granting them relief prayed for. M.As. are closed.
11.It is not disputed by the respondents that the order passed by the Tribunal is based on the common order passed by this Hon?ble Court dated 23.02.1998 in the batch of writ petitions. Undoubtedly, the issue involved in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions and the present writ petition are similar. Further, it is made it clear that the order was passed in the batch of writ petitions is based on the judgment of the Hon?ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1981 Sc 1636 where in the following observations was given:
In this connection, I am obliged to refer the decision of the Apex Court in VISHNUDAS HUNDUMAL Vs. STATE Of M.P. reported in AIR 1981 S.C. 1636 , where in it is observed as follows:
?When, discrimination is glaring the state cannot take recourse to inadvertence in tits action resulting in discrimination. The approach is, what is the impact of the State action on the fundamental rights of the citizen. In this case denial of equal protection is complained of. And this denial of equal protection flows from State action and has a direct impact of the fundamental rights of the petitioners. We, therefore, propose to take a constructive approach by removing the discrimination by putting the present petitioners in the same class as those who has enjoyed favorable treatment by inadvertence on the part of the regional Transport Authority.?
Applying the principles laid down in the above decision of the Apex Court in VISHNUDAS HUNDUMAL -Vs- State of M.P reported in A.I.R 1981 S.C.1636, I am obliged to hold that the petitioner in these Writ Petitions are all entitled for the very same favorable treatment by giving the benefits of the G.O.M.S.No. 1196 Education (-1) Department dated 03.12.1992 and G.O.(2-D) No. 284, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 15.12.1995 in order to remove the discrimination shown to them.
It is therefore necessary for this court to rectify the same by rejection the argument of the Learned Government Advocate that the Government passed G.O.M.S.No. 1196, Education (U-1) Department, dated 03.12.1992 and G.O. (2-D) No.284, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 15.12.1995 as a special case, and to direct the government to extend the same benefit given in G.O. M.S No. 1196, Education (u-1) department, dated 03.12.1992 and G.O.(2-D) No. 284 Education Science and Technology Department, dated 15.12.1995 to the petitioners in these Writ Petitions also as I am satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to be treated on par with Mr. Vetriazhagan and Selvi Hazeema in whose favour, G.O.M.S.No. 1196, Education (U-1) Department, dated 03.12.1992 and G.O. (2-D) No. 284 Education Science and Technology Department, dated 15.12.1995, respectively or otherwise it will be a gross violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
For all the reason stated above, the impugned orders in the above Writ Petitions, are Quashed with a direction to the Government to evaluate the Teachers Certificates of the petitioners issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, on par with that of the teachers in Tamil Nadu and to regularize their services and settle all their attendant benefits including the arrears of salary, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
In the result, the writ petitions are allowed.
12.It is also brought to the notice of this court that the Hon?ble Division bench of this court in a common order passed in a Writ Appeal filed by the State in W.A.Nos. 930,1009, 1010 and 10111 of 1998 dated 19.10.2005 the following observation was made:
?The main ground urged by the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the State, in these appeals is, that the benefit given to the other teachers in GO.Ms. o. 1196, Education (U-1) Department, dated 03.12.1992 and G.O. (2-D) No 284 Education Science and Technology Department, dated 15.12.1995, relaxing the said condition, was under special and exceptional circumstances and therefore, the order of the learned single Judge ought not to have put the Writ Petitioners on Par with those teachers.
We are unable to accept this contention, as on a perusal of the said GO.s dated 03.12.1992 and 15.12.1995, by which the condition was relaxed to Vetriazhagan and Selvi Nazeema, it is clear that no special circumstances have been taken into consideration.
Curiously, the Government pleader has made an alternate argument, stating that at any rate, those G.O.s have been subsequently withdrawn and cancelled by another G.O. (2-D) 100, school Education (U1) Department, dated 20.12.1997 and the ground of discrimination would not subsist.
We are afraid, such an argument cannot be advanced by the State, since the stand of the Government before the learned single Judge was, that those candidates, namely, Vetriazhagan and Selvi Nazeema were given the benefit, by passing appropriate G.O.s only as special cases and under exceptional circumstances.
When such a stand was taken by the Government before the learned single Judge, it is quite unfortunate on the part of the state to contend that the said G.O.s. said to have been passed under special and exceptional circumstances, have been withdrawn and therefore, the writ petitioners would not be entitled to any relief. Withdrawal of the said G.O.s was probably done, only to make out a ground for appeal against the order, passed by the learned single judge.
We are not happy over the attitude of the State Government in taking a contrary stand. It is strange to note that the Government Pleader has not shown any special and exceptional circumstances. On the basis of which, those G.O.s have been withdrawn. Hence, we do not find any merit in these appeals.
Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P. Nos. 11161, 11162, 11164, 11165, 13686, 13689 of 1998 and 13269 of 1999 are closed.?
13.Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion the issue involved in the present writ petition is already settled and the petitioner has also got orders in his favour from the learned Administrative Tribunal and the same has not been taken up for dispute by the respondent. So, in the light of the present legal position, this court comes to the conclusion that the charges framed by the impugned charge memo do not have any legal force as all the charges are arising out of the non-evaluation of the Teacher Training Course Certificate of the petitioner. Once, the Tribunal is ordered by giving directions to the concerned authority to evaluate the certificate of the petitioner, the framing of charges and keeping the same pending is nothing but an absurdity.
14.At the same time the issue to be decided in the writ petition is that whether the petitioner is entitled for the regularization of his service with all attendant benefits. At this juncture this court has taken note of the unblemished service of the petitioner since 02.06.1999. Apart from that till today he is in service for more than a period of seventeen years. In the long duration of the 17 years, any prudent man could get expertise in the field of his employment. Apart from that when the 17 years of service is taken note of this court, it is all unblemished. So, this court has no hesitation to ascertain that the service of the petitioner shall not be disturbed, but it should be regularized with all attended benefits.
15.In the result:
(a) the writ petition is allowed by quashing the impugned charge memo issued by the respondent against the petitioner in Na.Ka.No.H2/121685/2003 dated 19.01.2010.
(b) the respondent is directed to comply with the order dated 13.06.2003 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.6236 of 2001 and to get the petitioners Secondary Grade Teacher Training Certificate, issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, evaluated by the competent authority and to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment that is 02.06.1999 and to grant all the service and other attendant benefits.
(c) the said exercise should be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
16.However, considering the circumstances of the case there is no order as to cost. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To The District Revenue Officer, (Kallar Reclamation), Office of the District Revenue Officer, Kallar Reclamation, Madurai 625 020.
.