M. Chitra Mary Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
(prayer: petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings na.ka.no.4362/a4/2015 dated 10.08.2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the 3rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as b.t assistant (tamil) w.e.f 15.06.2011 and pay arrears of salary with all consequential benefits arising thereon.) 1. the petitioner passed b.sc (physics), after undergoing three years regular degree course. thereafter, she joined b.ed in regular course and successfully passed out the same in april 1998. thereafter, she completed m.a(tamil) through correspondence course in annamalai university and passed the same in may 2003. she also studied b.lit(tamil) in may 2007 and the duration of the b.lit., course is one year. 2. the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one year b.lit degree course is not valid. however, the petitioner is in possession of b.sc., b.ed., m.a., and b.lit(tamil). according to him, the petitioner studied m.a(tamil) through correspondence course, after getting a valid degree. hence, the post graduate degree in m.a(tamil) through correspondence course, is valid as per the judgment of the apex court inannamalai university vs. secretary to government reported in2009 (4) scc 590. while so, she was appointed as a b.t assistant(tamil) in the 4th respondent school on 15.06.2011 in a regular vacancy that arose due to the retirement of a person. 3. the petitioner also passed tet examination and obtained 92 marks out of 150 marks. the 4th respondent school sought approval from the 3rd respondent, who is the competent authority to approve the appointment of the petitioner for the purpose of grant, but the 3rd respondent passed an order dated 23.04.2015, rejecting the approval on the ground that the petitioner obtained b.lit(tamil) in one year course and the one year degree is invalid one. 4. the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing w.p(md)no.9704 of 2015 before this court. this court held that there is nothing wrong in the order dated 23.04.2015 of the 3rd respondent, refusing to approve the appointment of the petitioner, based on b.lit., qualification of the petitioner, since b.lit., was one year duration. however, the court permitted the 4th respondent to forward necessary proposal for approval of the appointment, if the petitioner possesses necessary qualification. 5. in these circumstances, the 4th respondent sought approval, based on b.sc., m.a., b.ed., qualifications for the appointment of the petitioner to the post of tamil pandit in the 4th respondent school. the same was rejected by the 3rd respondent by the impugned order dated 10.08.2015, as stated above and the present writ petition is questioning the aforesaid order. 6. heard both sides. 7. while the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with, as the same is contrary to the statutory provisions, the learned government advocate has sought to sustain the order. 8. the qualifications to various posts in aided schools are governed by rule 15 of the tamil nadu recognised private schools (regulations) rules, 1974, read with annexure v to the said rules. it is useful to extract serial no.5 in annexure-v, with regard to the qualifications for appointment as teacher in private aided schools. the said clause deals with the qualifications for the tamil pandit and the same is extracted hereunder:- name of the post.qualifications.5. tamil pandits[(1) m.a. (tamil) or b.a. (tamil) or b.litt. (tamil) or m.o.l. (tamil) or b.o.l. (tamil); and b.ed. or b.t or l.t or secondary grade training or] (2)s.s.l.c. completed and oriental title of madras, madurai or annamalai university; and pandits training certificate or secondary grade training certificate: provided that persons who have passed pulavar panditham examinations of the madurai tamil sangam to be held upto april 1977 only with pandits training or secondary grade training are also eligible for appointment as tamil pandits in schools: provided further that persons appointed as tamil pandit in any school prior to the 1st april 1976 shall be eligible for appointment in any other school even after 1st april 1976 9. as per the aforesaid clause, one who is in possession of m.a(tamil) with b.ed., is qualified for appointment to the post of tamil pandit. 10. it was sought to be argued that the petitioner did not possess b.a(tamil) and she studied only b.sc(physics). 11. a person who has studied in science stream at graduation level could take up his post graduation in arts stream and thevice versa is not permitted. the same is also not an illegal one. hence, a person who passed b.sc(physics) could study m.a(tamil), or m.a(english) or m.a(history) etc, but a person who studied b.a(history) etc., could not seek to join m.sc(maths/physics/chemistry) etc., in science stream and the same is not provided in the university regulations. hence, the petitioner obtained m.a(tamil) qualification as per the rules framed by the university. furthermore, rule 15 of the tamil nadu recognised private schools (regulations) rules, 1974, read with annexure-v, does not state that the candidate should possess b.a(tamil) as well as m.a(tamil) and b.ed. on the other hand, the rule states m.a(tamil) and b.ed. therefore, if a person possesses a valid m.a(tamil) with a valid b.ed.(tamil), such person is entitled to be appointed to the post of tamil pandit in a private aided school. unless the rules contemplate that the candidate should have also possessed the tamil degree at the graduation level also, the candidate cannot be denied appointment to the post of tamil pandit, stating that the petitioner does not possess a degree in tamil. 12. it is the submission of the learned government advocate that since the petitioner obtained an invalid b.lit., degree, she is not eligible for appointment as tamil pandit. the impugned order proceeds that the petitioner possesses b.lit., and m.a(tamil) and therefore her appointment is not approved. if the petitioner is in possession of only b.lit., without m.a(tamil), i could have no hesitation to reject the claim of the petitioner, but in this case, the petitioner is in possession of a valid m.a(tamil) degree and also a valid b.ed., degree as required in annexure-v of the tamil nadu recognised private schools (regulations) rules, 1974, referred to above, for appointment as tamil pandit. 13. further, i am fortified by a division bench judgment taking a similar view in w.a(md)no.145 of 2012 dated 28.02.2012(district educational officer, nagercoil, kanyakumari district and the director of school education, chennai vs. d.mercy jagadalet). it is relevant to extract paragraphs 5 and 6 of the aforesaid judgment. ''5. as already pointed out, rule 15(6) of the tamil nadu recognised private schools (regulation) act, 1974 prescribes that the teacher and other persons employed in a private school should possess the qualifications specified in annexure v. sl.no.5 in annexure-v relates to essential qualification required for tamil pandits, according to which a graduation or post-graduation with tamil as a major is a mandatory one. given the fact that the respondent had done her m.a. with tamil as a major, we do not find any reason for rejecting the candidature of the said teacher for appointment in a private school as a tamil teacher. 6. learned additional government pleader, however, pointed out that as far as junior grade tamil pandits are concerned, minimum requirement is a graduation in tamil, as per annexure-v(a), inserted by g.o.ms.no.125, school education (x2) department, dated 12.11.2003. we do not think that mere fact the respondent possessed higher qualification, by way of post-gradation in tamil, should stand in the way of her being appointed as a junior grade tamil pandit. the fact that she had her b.a. done in history as a major subject could not be viewed as an impediment, when she is better qualified with m.a. degree in tamil. in such circumstances, we have no hesitation in rejecting the plea of the appellant. while dismissing the writ appeal, we direct the respondents to pass orders on the approval of the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ? 14. in the result, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. the respondents are directed to pass orders approving the appointment of the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. no costs. consequently, m.p(md)nos.1 and 2 of 2015 are closed.

Judgment:

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 3^rd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.4362/A4/2015 dated 10.08.2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the 3^rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as B.T Assistant (Tamil) w.e.f 15.06.2011 and pay arrears of salary with all consequential benefits arising thereon.)

1. The petitioner passed B.Sc (Physics), after undergoing three years regular degree course. Thereafter, she joined B.Ed in regular course and successfully passed out the same in April 1998. Thereafter, she completed M.A(Tamil) through correspondence course in Annamalai University and passed the same in May 2003. She also studied B.Lit(Tamil) in May 2007 and the duration of the B.Lit., course is one year.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one year B.Lit degree course is not valid. However, the petitioner is in possession of B.Sc., B.Ed., M.A., and B.Lit(Tamil). According to him, the petitioner studied M.A(Tamil) through correspondence course, after getting a valid degree. Hence, the post graduate degree in M.A(Tamil) through correspondence course, is valid as per the judgment of the Apex Court inAnnamalai University vs. Secretary to Government reported in2009 (4) SCC 590. While so, she was appointed as a B.T Assistant(Tamil) in the 4^th respondent school on 15.06.2011 in a regular vacancy that arose due to the retirement of a person.

3. The petitioner also passed TET examination and obtained 92 marks out of 150 marks. The 4^th respondent school sought approval from the 3^rd respondent, who is the competent authority to approve the appointment of the petitioner for the purpose of grant, but the 3^rd respondent passed an order dated 23.04.2015, rejecting the approval on the ground that the petitioner obtained B.Lit(Tamil) in one year course and the one year degree is invalid one.

4. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing W.P(MD)No.9704 of 2015 before this Court. This Court held that there is nothing wrong in the order dated 23.04.2015 of the 3^rd respondent, refusing to approve the appointment of the petitioner, based on B.Lit., qualification of the petitioner, since B.Lit., was one year duration. However, the court permitted the 4^th respondent to forward necessary proposal for approval of the appointment, if the petitioner possesses necessary qualification.

5. In these circumstances, the 4^th respondent sought approval, based on B.Sc., M.A., B.Ed., qualifications for the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Tamil Pandit in the 4^th respondent school. The same was rejected by the 3^rd respondent by the impugned order dated 10.08.2015, as stated above and the present writ petition is questioning the aforesaid order.

6. Heard both sides.

7. While the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with, as the same is contrary to the statutory provisions, the learned Government Advocate has sought to sustain the order.

8. The qualifications to various posts in aided schools are governed by rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, 1974, read with Annexure V to the said rules. It is useful to extract serial No.5 in Annexure-V, with regard to the qualifications for appointment as teacher in private aided schools. The said clause deals with the qualifications for the Tamil Pandit and the same is extracted hereunder:-

Name of the Post.

Qualifications.

5. Tamil Pandits

[(1) M.A. (Tamil) or B.A. (Tamil) or B.Litt. (Tamil) or M.O.L. (Tamil) or B.O.L. (Tamil); and B.Ed. or B.T or L.T or Secondary Grade Training or] (2)S.S.L.C. completed and Oriental Title of Madras, Madurai or Annamalai University; and Pandits Training Certificate or Secondary Grade Training Certificate: Provided that persons who have passed Pulavar Panditham Examinations of the Madurai Tamil Sangam to be held upto April 1977 only with Pandits Training or Secondary Grade Training are also eligible for appointment as Tamil Pandits in Schools: Provided further that persons appointed as Tamil Pandit in any school prior to the 1st April 1976 shall be eligible for appointment in any other school even after 1st April 1976

9. As per the aforesaid clause, one who is in possession of M.A(Tamil) with B.Ed., is qualified for appointment to the post of Tamil Pandit.

10. It was sought to be argued that the petitioner did not possess B.A(Tamil) and she studied only B.Sc(Physics).

11. A person who has studied in Science stream at graduation level could take up his post graduation in Arts stream and thevice versa is not permitted. The same is also not an illegal one. Hence, a person who passed B.Sc(Physics) could study M.A(Tamil), or M.A(English) or M.A(History) etc, but a person who studied B.A(History) etc., could not seek to join M.Sc(Maths/Physics/Chemistry) etc., in Science stream and the same is not provided in the University regulations. Hence, the petitioner obtained M.A(Tamil) qualification as per the rules framed by the University. Furthermore, rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, 1974, read with Annexure-V, does not state that the candidate should possess B.A(Tamil) as well as M.A(Tamil) and B.Ed. On the other hand, the rule states M.A(Tamil) and B.Ed. Therefore, if a person possesses a valid M.A(Tamil) with a valid B.Ed.(Tamil), such person is entitled to be appointed to the post of Tamil Pandit in a private aided school. Unless the rules contemplate that the candidate should have also possessed the Tamil degree at the graduation level also, the candidate cannot be denied appointment to the post of Tamil Pandit, stating that the petitioner does not possess a degree in Tamil.

12. It is the submission of the learned Government Advocate that since the petitioner obtained an invalid B.Lit., degree, she is not eligible for appointment as Tamil Pandit. The impugned order proceeds that the petitioner possesses B.Lit., and M.A(Tamil) and therefore her appointment is not approved. If the petitioner is in possession of only B.Lit., without M.A(Tamil), I could have no hesitation to reject the claim of the petitioner, but in this case, the petitioner is in possession of a valid M.A(Tamil) degree and also a valid B.Ed., degree as required in Annexure-V of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, 1974, referred to above, for appointment as Tamil Pandit.

13. Further, I am fortified by a Division Bench judgment taking a similar view in W.A(MD)No.145 of 2012 dated 28.02.2012(District Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District and the Director of School Education, Chennai vs. D.Mercy Jagadalet). It is relevant to extract paragraphs 5 and 6 of the aforesaid judgment.

''5. As already pointed out, Rule 15(6) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1974 prescribes that the teacher and other persons employed in a private school should possess the qualifications specified in Annexure V. Sl.No.5 in Annexure-V relates to essential qualification required for Tamil Pandits, according to which a graduation or post-graduation with Tamil as a major is a mandatory one. Given the fact that the respondent had done her M.A. with Tamil as a major, we do not find any reason for rejecting the candidature of the said teacher for appointment in a private school as a Tamil Teacher.

6. Learned Additional Government Pleader, however, pointed out that as far as Junior Grade Tamil Pandits are concerned, minimum requirement is a graduation in Tamil, as per Annexure-V(A), inserted by G.O.Ms.No.125, School Education (X2) Department, dated 12.11.2003. we do not think that mere fact the respondent possessed higher qualification, by way of post-gradation in Tamil, should stand in the way of her being appointed as a Junior Grade Tamil Pandit. The fact that she had her B.A. done in History as a major subject could not be viewed as an impediment, when she is better qualified with M.A. Degree in Tamil. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in rejecting the plea of the appellant. While dismissing the writ appeal, we direct the respondents to pass orders on the approval of the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ?

14. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pass orders approving the appointment of the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 are closed.