Disposed

The State of Tamil Nadu v. G.Veeramuthu

Madras HC13 Nov 2017WA/1357/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench disposed of a writ appeal challenging the ineligibility of a respondent for a Post Graduate Assistant post due to alleged simultaneous completion of M.A. and B.Ed. The court upheld the lower view but left open the decision for the Government to verify Transfer Certificates.

What did the court decide?

Government directed to decide within two months by examining Transfer Certificates to verify if courses were completed simultaneously.

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs G.Veeramuthu — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.11.2017

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶4

W.A.No.1357 of 2017

¶5

and

¶6

W.M.P.No.18750 & 18751 of 2017

¶7

The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶8

rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶9

The Member Secretary,

¶10

Teachers Recruitment Board,

¶11

EVK Sampath Maligai,

¶12

DPI Compound, College Road,

¶13

Chennai 600 006. Appellants/Respondents

¶14

Versus

¶15

G.Veeramuthu Respondents/Petitioner

¶16

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 26.9.2016 passed in W.P.No.27600 of 2014 on the file of this court.

¶17

WP.NO.27600/2014

¶18

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in RC. No.680/PG/ LC/2014 dated 30.9.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the Post of Post Graduate Assistant in Tamil with retrospective effect

¶19

For appellants : Mr.R.Prathapkumar, AGP For respondent : Mr.N.A.Ravindran

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

(Judgment of the court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.)

¶22

Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr.N.A.Ravindran, learned counsel, who takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

¶23

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

¶24

The matter relates to eligibility of the respondent herein for appointment to the post Post Graduate Assistant (Tamil) for which he had applied with his educational qualification of M.A. (Tamil) and B.Ed. Considering that the respondent herein had completed both the above said courses simultaneously, his candidature was treated as ineligible by the appellants which was challenged before the learned Single Judge. Since the impugned order was set aside by the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal has been filed.

¶25

Counter has been filed by the respondent wherein it has been clarified by the respondent herein that he had joined the M.A(Tamil) degree course during the year 2008-2009, but, subsequently, he discontinued the same in the academic year 2009-10 and joined the B.Ed., course and thereafter, re-joined and continued his M.A.(Tamil) degree in the academic year 201011 which is evident from the Transfer Certificate issued by the Annamalai University where he had done the M.A.(Tamil) Degree. This aspect has been appreciated by the learned Single Judge in detail. In a similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this court has held in W.A.No.866 of 2015( Dated 27.1.2017) that in the absence of any specific clause requiring the students to complete the 2 year Post Graduate course in two succeeding academic sessions, it will not be fair or reasonable to conclude that pursuing the Post Graduate Course of M.A.(English) by the writ petitioner therein in three academic sessions amounts to an improper or illegal exercise. Such being the case, no doubt, the case of the respondent has to be upheld.

¶26

However, we leave it open to the Government to take a decision in the matter by looking into the additional documents like Transfer Certificates produced by the respondent to substantiate that he had not done both the courses simultaneously and take a decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶27

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

ssk.

¶30

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

¶31

To:

¶32

The Principal Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶33

The Member Secretary,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
EVK Sampath Maligai,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai 600 006.
+1cc to Mr.N.A.RAVINDRAN Advocate, S.R.No. 80285/17
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 80544/17
W.A.No.1357 of 2017
VGI (CO)
TR(21/11/2017)

¶34

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

The State of Tamil Nadu v. G.Veeramuthu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Tamil Nadu v. G.Veeramuthu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.S.R.Lakshmi Bhuvaneshwari Vs The Registrar

Union of India, Vs The Registrar

R.Paranthaman, Vs The Joint Registrar of Co-op

The Assistant Provident Fund Vs M/S Renaissance Rtw Asia (P)

Tmt. E.Manjula, Vs Director of Treasuries &

The Chief General Manager, Vs the Industrial Tribunal