Allowed

R.Renugadevi v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC1 Feb 2017WP/6312/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged cancellation of her appointment as B.T. Assistant by the Joint Director of School Education, alleging violation of natural justice and reliance on a subsequent Government Order. Court quashed the cancellation and directed issuance of appointment order as Graduate Assistant.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order cancelling appointment quashed. Petitioner directed to be appointed as Graduate Assistant (Science) in existing vacancy within six weeks.

R.Renugadevi Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 01.02.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.6312 of 2013 &

¶6

M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶7

R.RENUGADEVI W/O.P.THIRUMOORTHY NO.28/A2 KUMARAN GARDEN OPP TO KONGU ARTS COLLEGE KATHIRAMPATTI (POST) ERODE DISTRICT 638 107 ... PETITIONER Vs 1.THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU EDUCATION DEPARTMENT FORT ST.GEORGE CHENNAI 9 2.THE CHAIRMAN TEACHERS RECRUITMENT BOARD 4TH FLOOR E.V.K.SAMPATH MAALIGAI DPI COMPOUND COLLEGE ROAD CHENNAI 6 3.THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION DPI COMPOUND COLLEGE ROAD CHENNAI 6 4.THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION (PERSONNEL) DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION DPI COMPOUND COLLEGE ROAD CHENNAI 6 5.THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERODE 638 002. ... Respondents The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to Na. Ka. No. 96600/C2/E1/12 dt. Nil.1.2013 on the file of the 4th respondent herein and quash the same consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Graduate Assistant (Science).

¶8

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

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Munuswamy

¶10

For Respondents : Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi Government Advocate

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the cancellation of her appointment order, who was appointed as B.T.Assistant (Science) in Government High School, Kadattati, Erode District.

¶13

According to the petitioner, she was selected and appointed as B.T.Assistant by the second respondent after conducting Eligibility Test and certificate verification as per the rules contemplated for the selection process. The petitioner also joined in the said service. After some time, the fourth respondent suddenly cancelled the appointment order of the petitioner, without giving an opportunity to her. Hence,the petitioner has challenged the same in this writ petition.

¶14

Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.72, Higher Education (K2) Department, dated 30.04.2013 wherein, it has been classified that B.Sc. Bio Chemistry is not equivalent to B.Sc Chemistry. In the light of the said order, the respondents have rightly cancelled the appointment of the petitioner, who was appointed as B.T.Assistant.

¶15

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶16

5.The petitioner was provisionally selected and appointed by the Teacher Recruitment Board, namely,the second respondent herein for the post of B.T.Assistant. After verification of all the records and after the petitioner being joined as B.T.Assistant, in Government High School, Kadattati, Erode District, the fourth respondent had cancelled the appointment order vide its proceedings Na. Ka. No. 96600/C2/E1/12, dated 29.1.2013 stating that B.Sc. Bio Chemistry.is not equivalent to B.Sc. Chemistry, on the basis of the communication received from the second respondent dated 04.12.2012. The said impugned order has been passed by the third respondent, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent violated the principles of natural justice, hence, the cancellation of appointment order issued against the petitioner is illegal and perverse.

¶17

In response to the submission made by the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government Advocate that the respondents have acted only as

¶18

per the G.O.Ms.72, Higher Education (K3) Department, dated 30.04.2013, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner had been selected and appointed to the said post by the fourth respondent on 10.12.2012. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner had been appointed prior to the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.72, Higher Education (K3) Department, dated 30.04.2013, referred supra and the petitioner had been working in the said school. While so, the respondents by relying upon the subsequent Government Order cancelled the appointment of the petitioner, especially, without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. The fourth respondent had passed the impugned order without adverting to the principles of natural justice. Hence, impugned order passed by the fourth respondent is liable to be quashed.

¶19

By considering the above facts, the impugned order is quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The third respondent is directed to issue appointment order to the petitioner as Graduate Assistant (Science) in the existing vacancy within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar smi To 1.THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU EDUCATION DEPARTMENT FORT ST.GEORGE CHENNAI 9

¶21

2.THE CHAIRMAN TEACHERS RECRUITMENT BOARD 4TH FLOOR E.V.K.SAMPATH MAALIGAI DPI COMPOUND COLLEGE ROAD CHENNAI 6

¶22

3.THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION DPI COMPOUND COLLEGE ROAD CHENNAI 6

¶23

4.THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION (PERSONNEL) DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION DPI COMPOUND COLLEGE ROAD https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ CHENNAI 6

¶24

5.THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERODE 638 002.

¶25

+1cc to Mr.C.Munusamy, Advocate, S.R.No.6208 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.6922

¶26

W.P.No.6312 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶27

CP(CO)
CA(27/02/2017)

¶28

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

R.Renugadevi v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Renugadevi v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Vaithiyalingam, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.

V.Govindaraj Vs the Managing Director

Smt.K.Selvi Vs the Commissioner of Police

R.Anuradha Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Ramaswamy Pillai, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

S.Ekambaram, Vs the Presiding Officer