This court addressed a writ petition seeking regularization and regular time scale of pay for a petitioner appointed as a Craft Teacher. The court held that benefits cannot be granted in violation of rules, as relaxation is an exception for deserving cases and not a routine administrative prerogative.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD).No.20409 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.10.2020 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD).No.20409 of 2013
R.Rajakumari
... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order bearing Letter No.5833/Ne.Va.2/2013 dated 05.08.2013 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to place the petitioner in the regular scale of pay.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Anwar Sameem For Respondents : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The order dated 05.08.2013 passed by the first respondent is sought to be quashed. Further direction is sought for to direct the respondents to place the petitioner in the regular time scale of pay.
2.The petitioner was appointed as part time Craft Teacher on 24.03.1980. She was continuing as part time Craft Teacher and subsequently, converted as full time Craft Teacher and attained the age of superannuation during the year 2015 itself. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that, the regular time scale of pay was not granted to her. Contrarily, she was paid consolidated pay even after the conversion of post from part time Craft Teacher to full time Craft Teacher.
3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner reiterated that, the petitioner is entitled for regularization in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
1/3
W.P.(MD).No.20409 of 2013
the regular time scale of pay. At least regular time scale of pay ought to have been extended for the petitioner after posting her as full time Craft Teacher. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents made a submission that, as per G.O.Ms.No.1366, Education Department, dated 15.09.1986, One Man Commission required the minimum general education qualification for Craft Teacher working in middle school to be raised to SSLC and those Craft Teacher did not possess such minimum qualification of SSLC, were permitted to complete the same within a period of three years from the date of Government Order i.e., 15.09.1986. However, the petitioner acquired SSLC certificate only during the year 1996 i.e., after the lapse of ten years from the date of issuance of the Government Order. To that extent, the respondents filed counter affidavit, which reads thus:-
“As per the Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu School Education Subordinate Service Special Rules, the appointing authority is the District Level Officer. But in the instant case the petitioner was appointed by the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer. Further, in terms of Rule 4 of the Special Rule, rule of relaxation was not followed in the appointment of the petitioner. Furthermore, as admitted by the petitioner till date no TTC certificate has been obtained by the petitioner in terms of the Rule 6(b) of the Special Rule. Hence, relaxation of rule 3, 4 and 6(b) is necessary.
8.Earlier the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P(MD).No.8827 of 2008 before this Court to consider the representation. This Court by order dated 23.01.2013 directed the respondents therein to consider her plea in accordance with law. Thereafter, having considered all those irregularity in appointment of the petitioner and the dispossession of the SSLC and T.T.C.Certificate in right time, the first respondent rejected the plea of the petitioner vide letter No.5833/Ni.Va.2/2013 dated 05.08.2013. challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.
9.The G.O.Ms.No.1529 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner herein, because the petitioner's appointment was made in violation of three rules namely Rule 3, 4 and 6(b) of the Tamil Nadu School Education Subordinate Service Special Rules. If the first respondent provide the same https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ benefit to the petitioner, then he has to relax all
2/3
W.P.(MD).No.20409 of 2013
the above said rules. Being the competent authority, the first respondent by using his discretionary power had declined to extend the benefit in favour of the petitioner and to that effect the present impugned order has been passed.”
costs.
rmk
To
BK(CO)
AP(06/11/2020) 3 P 5C
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner could be granted regularization and regular time scale of pay when her appointment violated established service rules.
Whether discretionary power to relax rules can be exercised routinely to correct such violations.
R.Rajakumari
The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department
The Director of Elementary Education
The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer
S.M.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
