Allowed

B.Jothimani v. The Commissioner

Madras HC29 Apr 2024WP(MD)/10329/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the discharge order due to non-completion of probation. Court allowed the writ, setting aside the order and directed reinstatement pending examination results.

What did the court decide?

Order setting aside the discharge order; direction to reinstate the petitioner and pass further orders after publication of examination results.

B.Jothimani Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP(MD) No.10329 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 29.04.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.10329 of 2024 and

¶7

WMP(MD)Nos.9281, 9283 & 9285 of 2024

¶8

B.Jothimani .. Petitione

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Commissioner, Employment and Training, Alandur Road, Thiru.Vi.Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032.

¶11

2.The Additional Director(Craftsmen Training), Employment and Training, Alandur Road, Thiru.Vi.Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

¶12

3.The Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Amaravathi Pudur, Devakottai Rastha,

¶13

Page No.1/8

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

WP(MD) No.10329 of 2024

¶16

Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. .. Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings in Sae.Mu.Aanai No.24330/UA2/2022-1, dated 05.04.2024 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits, back wages and all other monetary benefits.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Krishnan

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader for R1& R2

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent

¶22

Page No.2/8

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

WP(MD) No.10329 of 2024

¶25

in Sae.Mu.Aanai No.24330/UA2/2022-1, dated 05.04.2024 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits, back wages and all other monetary benefits.

¶26

2 .Heard Mr.S.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 &2.

¶27

3. The petitioner who was appointed as a Store Keeper in the 3^rd respondent I.T.I College was discharged from service on account of non completion of probation to the satisfaction of the second respondent. The petitioner was expected to pass the Departmental examination but she did not pass the same despite she was given 5 years time. As per Section 31(4) of the Tamil Nadu Government (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, the maximum period for probation can be extended only for 5 years. So

¶28

Page No.3/8

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

WP(MD) No.10329 of 2024

¶31

the Government servant is expected to acquire the test qualification within the prescribed period. In fact the probation will be declared if the conditions are fulfilled by an employee within two years of continuous period of 3 years of service. But the petitioner did not make use of the opportunity given to her. Having known that if she does not qualify herself by acquiring the test qualification she will be discharged from service, she did not make any efforts to pass within the maximum time limit given to her.

¶32

4. For ready reference Section 31(4) of the Tamil Nadu

¶33

Government (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 is extracted hereunder:

¶34

" 31. (4) The maximum period upto which the probation of a Government servant shall be extended so as to enable him to acquire the test qualification, be fixed as five years. If he does not acquire the test qualification even within the maximum period of five years, he shall be reverted and the qualified and the eligible junior shall be considered for promotion. If such a person is appointed by direct recruitment and has not acquired the test qualification even within the maximum period of five years, his probation shall be terminated."

¶35

Page No.4/8

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

WP(MD) No.10329 of 2024

¶38

5. Mr.S.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶39

that the petitioner has appeared for the Account Test in the month of December, 2023 and awaiting for the results. The petitioner expects the results are to be published in the next month. However, the petitioner was relieved from service with effect from 05.04.2024, even before she would get the results of her examinations. It is further submitted that the petitioner was deserted by her husband and she had undergone mental trauma and because of that she is not able to give her best in the examination. But that cannot be a reason for a Government servant to fulfill the requirement of service conditions. However by taking a sympathetic view, the petitioner shall be given with one more opportunity as she had already appeared in the examination and awaiting for results.

¶40

6. In view of the above stated reasons and taking a sympathetic view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. The 2^nd respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and shall pass Page No.5/8

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

WP(MD) No.10329 of 2024

¶43

any further orders after the results of her examination is published.

¶44

7. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of .

¶45

No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶46

29.04.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No PJL

¶47

To 1.The Commissioner, Employment and Training, Alandur Road, Thiru.Vi.Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032.

¶48

2.The Additional Director(Craftsmen Training), Employment and Training, Alandur Road, Thiru.Vi.Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

¶49

Page No.6/8

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

WP(MD) No.10329 of 2024

¶52

Page No.7/8

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

WP(MD) No.10329 of 2024

¶55

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶56

PJL

¶57

W.P.(MD)No.10329 of 2024 and WMP(MD)Nos.9281, 9283 & 9285 of 2024

¶58

29.04.2024

¶59

Page No.8/8

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

B.Jothimani v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Jothimani v. The Commissioner

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

G.Kannan Vs The Director of Pensions

M.Kannan Vs The chairman / Executive Authority

T.Bhuvaneswari Vs The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel)

Vasantha P Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

Venkatesh M Vs The Principal Accountant General a and E Tamil Nadu

Gnanadurai. D Vs The Chief Educational Officer