Allowed

U.Amirtham, v. the Joint Director of School

Madras HC5 Mar 2014WP(MD)/301/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order refusing to relieve a petitioner from a Police post to accept a more senior teaching post due to alleged irregularities in prior permission for higher studies and missing service register entries. The High Court held the refusal unsustainable and directed relief.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Superintendent of Police to relieve the petitioner from the post of Police Constable Grade-I within two weeks to enable her to join as P.G. Assistant.

U.Amirtham, Vs the Joint Director of School — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.03.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABABU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.301 of 2014 & M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2014

U.Amirtham

: Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Joint Director of School Education, (Higher Education)

¶11

College Road,Chennai-600 006.

¶12

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dindigul,Dindigul District.

¶13

3.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul,Dindigul District. ...Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No,.A2/42903/2013 dated 20.12.2013 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the third respondent to relieve the petitioner from the post of Police Constable Grade-I so as to enable her to join as P.G.Assistant (Tamil) at Government Higher Secondary School R.Vellodu, Dindigul District within the period stipulated by this Court.

¶15

For Petitioner :Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar for M/s. Ajmal Associates

¶16

For Respondents :Mr.V.Muruganandham

¶17

Addl. Govt.Pleader.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition is filed for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No,.A2/42903/2013 dated 20.12.2013 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the third respondent to relieve the petitioner from the post of Police Constable Grade-I so as to enable her to join as P.G.Assistant (Tamil) at Government Higher Secondary School R.Vellodu, Dindigul District within the period stipulated by this Court.

¶20

The case of the petitioner is as follows:

¶21

The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable Grade-II on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 03.03.2003. She was promoted as Police Constable Grade-I during 2013. While she was in service, she studied B.Lit degree in Annamalai University through Correspondence course during the academic year 2004-

¶22

¶23

2007, after getting prior permission from the concerned authority. She completed M.A (Tamil) during 2008-2009 and subsequently also completed B.Ed during April 2007. She applied for the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil)when the Tamil Nadu Teacher Recruitment Board invited applications for appointment to the said post. She secured 101 marks in the written test and after Certificate verification she was also issued with an appointment order to the post of P.G.Assistant(Tamil), by the first respondent through his proceedings dated 02.12.2013. The petitioner was informed to join duty as P.G Assistant (Tamil) at Government Higher Secondary School, R.Vellakodu, Dindigul District within a period of seven days. Hence, she approached the third respondent on 11.12.2013 and 18.12.2013 and made a request to relieve her from the post of Police Constable Grade-I, so as to enable her to join the post of P.G.Assistant (Tamil). The said request was rejected by the impugned proceedings on the ground that she had completed B.Ed Degree without any prior permission from the concerned authorities.

¶24

The third respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated as follows:

¶25

The petitioner has been selected for the above post of Teacher by the Teachers Recruitment Board and she submitted a petition on 11.12.2013, requesting to relieve her from the Police Department. On a perusal of the Service Book of the petitioner it was learnt that no entries were made with regard to her pass in B.Lit(Tamil) and M.A(Tamil) degree courses. She had not obtained prior permission from the competent authority to appear for the examination held by the Teachers Recruitment Board as she did not get permission to study B.Ed degree course. She availed medical leave to do the above B.Ed degree course. G.O.Ms.No.362, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(Per-A) Department dated 04.11.2012, contemplates seeking of prior permission for Government servants who are desirous of acquiring higher qualifications by appearing privately.

¶26

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on records.

¶27

The order under challenge in this writ petition is passed by the third respondent whereby the petitioner' s request for relieving her from the post of Police Constable Grade-I so as to enable her to join P.G.Assistant (Tamil) at Government Higher Secondary School was rejected on the reasons that she had not obtained prior permission for studying B.Ed Degree course and that there were no entries in the Service Register with regard to the degrees passed by the petitioner in B.Lit(Tamil) and M.A(Tamil).

¶28

In so far as the degrees passed by the petitioner in B.Lit(Tamil) and M.A(Tamil) literature are concerned, it is admitted by the third respondent in the impugned order itself that the petitioner had already obtained permission from the Department. The only lapse attributed on the part of the petitioner is that after passing the Degrees, no proper entries were made in the Service Register.

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. In my considered view, it cannot be a reason to reject the request made by the petitioner for relieving her, especially when the petitioner

¶30

¶31

had obtained permission and studied those courses. Not making entries with regard to passing of those courses may be an irregularity but cannot be stated as an illegality. Thus, I find that the reasons stated in the impugned order is not sustainable.

¶32

While giving to the other reasons namely not obtaining the

¶33

permission for doing B.Ed Degree course is concerned, no doubt it is true that the petitioner has not obtained permission to study the said course. But, at the same time, it is not in dispute that the course was studied by the petitioner while she was on leave. It is stated that the petitioner studied B.Ed Degree course after obtaining such leave from the Department. May be she might have not informed the authorities that she studied B.Ed Degree Course. Here again in my considered view not obtaining permission may be irregular conduct on the part of the petitioner and cannot be treated as illegal conduct. Even assuming that such conduct of the petitioner is liable for some action at the hands of the Departments, the fact remains that no action is taken against the petitioner so far, even though the petitioner studied B.Ed degree as early as in the year 2007. Now that more than seven years have lapsed and the petitioner has got an appointment as P.G. Assistant with better pay and position. Therefore, in all fairness, the petitioner ought to have been relieved from the Police Department to join the Education Department.

¶34

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the impugned order is un-sustainable. Accordingly the same is set aside and consequently the writ petition is allowed . The third respondent is directed to relieve the petitioner from the post of Police Constable Grade-I, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order so as to enable her to join the post of P.G.Assistant (Tamil). Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶37

/True Copy/

¶38

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶39

¶40

1.The Joint Director of School Education, (Higher Education)College Road,Chennai-600 006.

¶41

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,

¶42

Dindigul,Dindigul District.

¶43

3.The Superintendent of Police,

¶44

Dindigul,Dindigul District.

¶45

+1cc to M/s. Ajmal Associates Advocate, Sr.No. 13958

¶46

+1cc to Spl.GOvernment Pleader Sr.No. 14115 gsr

¶47

AA/12.03.2014/3p- 6c/

¶48

W.P(MD)No.301 of 2014 05.03.2014

¶49

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

U.Amirtham, v. the Joint Director of School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.Amirtham, 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

K.S. Kavitha, Vs the Joint Registrar of

G. Arumaidurai Vs the District Manager

T. Sankar Vs the Senior Regional Manager

S. Sam Josephraj Vs the Senior Regional Manager

Sivakumar Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

C.Rajendran, Vs the Principal Chief