Allowed

J.Vellathurai, v. the Joint Director of School-

Madras HC18 Nov 2013WP(MD)/16424/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the denial of the petitioner's inclusion in promotion panels due to non-regularization of services. The High Court directed the respondents to regularize the petitioner's services and include him in the promotion panel for Headmaster, subject to a departmental verification of his educational certificates without requiring him to approach institutions personally.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus directing regularisation of services as B.T. Assistant and inclusion in Headmaster panel subject to enquiry on certificate genuineness.

J.Vellathurai, Vs the Joint Director of School- — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

J.Vellathurai

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.11.2013

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.16424 of 2013 and

M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Joint Director of School Education,

¶11

College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.

¶12

2.The Chief Educational Officer, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to regularise the petitioner's services in the post of B.T. Assistant with effect from 16.02.2000 and consequently direct the first respondent to include the petitioner's name in the panel to the post of High School Headmaster published by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.91500/C1/E1/ 2012, dated 29.04.2013, for the academic year 2013-2014.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govindarajan For Respondents : Mr.S.Kumar,Additional Government Pleader ORDER

¶15

The petitioner claims that he studied Bachelor of Science (Botany) Course in Madurai Kamaraj University and obtained the degree from the said University. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, he joined B.Ed. Degree Course and obtained the degree from the same University in the year 1986. Thereafter, he was selected for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher by the Government and accordingly appointed to the said post in the year 1989. His probation in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher had been declared by the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, by his Proceedings dated 22.08.1990 with effect from 01.06.1990. Thereafter, he was transferred to Tuticorin District. Subsequently, he was promoted as B.T. Assistant by the first respondent, by his Proceedings dated 04.02.2000. The next avenue of promotion for the petitioner is to the post of Headmaster of a High School. For such appointment, State-wide seniority is followed by the first respondent. According to him, he should have been promoted going by his merit as well as his seniority, but he has not been so far promoted. The grievance of the petitioner is that he should be considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster of a High School. Therefore, he is before this Court with this writ petition.

¶16

2.In the counter, it is submitted that the name of the petitioner has not been included in the seniority list as his service in B.T. Assistant has not been regularised. It is further stated that his name will be included only if his services as B.T. Assistant has been regularised. In respect of non-regularisation of his services, it is stated in paragraph2 of the counter that proposals for regularisation of service as B.T. Assistant was forwarded to the first respondent by the second respondent and the same has been returned vide Letter No.L.Dis. 44871/C2/E1/2013 dated 24.06.2013 of the Joint Director of School Education (Personnel), https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with a remark that the certificates produced by the petitioner when he joined the service, such as X Std. Mark Sheet, XI Std. Mark Sheet and

¶17

¶18

Degree Certificates for B.Sc. and B.Ed. Courses, should be verified and genuineness certificates should be obtained from the institutions where the petitioner studied, and that since the said genuineness certificates have not been produced, the petitioner's services in B.T. Assistant has not been regularised.

¶19

3.I have considered the above submissions. At the outset, I have to state that if the respondents have got any doubt regarding the genuineness of the certificates produced by the petitioner, it is for them to verify the same. They cannot demand the petitioner to approach the institutions where he studied to get genuineness certificates to show that these certificates are genuine. This procedure is not known to law at all. It is not as though the certificates of the petitioner are all fake or false. Only a doubt has arisen in the mind of the respondents. In my considered opinion, since the petitioner's services as Secondary Grade Teacher has already been regularised and since he has also been promoted as B.T. Assistant, in fitness of things, he should be included in the panel for promotion to the post of Headmaster, however, subject to the verification to be done by the Department regarding genuineness of the certificates. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed with the following directions:

¶20

1)The respondents shall regularise the services of the petitioner in the post of B.T. Assistant, however, subject to the outcome of the enquiry to be held in respect of the genuineness of the certificates of the petitioner.

¶21

2)On such regularisation of the services of the petitioner in the post of B.T. Assistant, he shall be promoted as Headmaster of a High School, subject to other qualifications such as seniority, etc., and also subject to the outcome of the enquiry in respect of the genuineness of the certificates produced by the petitioner.

¶22

3)It is further directed that the above order of regularising the services of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant as stated in Clause-1 as above, shall be issued within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

4.It is made clear that the respondents will be at liberty to verify the genuineness of the certificates produced by the petitioner and take further action if the certificates are found to be either fake or false.

¶24

5.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶26

\True copy\

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

1.The Joint Director of School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.

¶30

2.The Chief Educational Officer, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District. +1 CC to M/s.K.Govindarajan, Advocate Sr.No.56355 +1 CC to the Spl.Govt.Pleader Sr.No.56438

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.16424 of 2013 and

¶32

M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013

¶33

18.11.2013

¶34

km https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ NA/22/11/2013/P2/5C

J.Vellathurai, v. the Joint Director of School-

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Vellathurai, v. the Joint Director of School-

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Pitchai, S/O Sappani Pillai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

V.Subramanian, Vs the Superintending Engineer

R.J.a.Raveendran, Vs the Commissioner

T.Valli, Vs the Agriculture College and

G.Manoharan Vs the State

S.S.Hassan Aboobacker, Vs the Director of School