Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2416 (MAD)

Sivakumar v. Secretary

2011-04-27

K.CHANDRU

body2011
Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge an order of the first respondent in G.O.(D)No.116, P&AR Department, dated 18.08.2010 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to the third respondent, i.e., Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Chennai to include the name of the petitioner in the panel fit for promotion to the post of Foresters on being appointed on transfer from the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service for the year 2007-08 and to promote him as Forester from the date on which his juniors were promoted. 2. The petitioner is working as a Junior Assistant on compassionate ground on account of death of his father while in service. The petitioner had studied upto SSLC. Thereafter, he had joined M.A. in the Annamalai University under the Open University System. He had passed out during December, 2003. According to the petitioner, under the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service, the post of a Forester can be filled up only either by direct recruitment or recruitment by transfer from the members of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service or by promotion from among the holders of the post of Assistant Draughtsman. He also claimed that 4% quota was fixed for staff to be appointed on transfer from the Ministerial Service and 1% from the Assistant Draughtsman. 3. According to the petitioner, by G.O.Ms.No.214, Environment and Forest Department, dated 7.7.1993, the educational qualification for holding the post of Forester was prescribed as a Degree in Arts. The third respondent by proceedings, dated 29.4.2008 had published a list of persons who were eligible to be transferred from the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service and fit for promotion to the post of Forester for the year 2007-2008 and who are qualified as on 15.8.2007. The name of the petitioner was not found place in the said list. Therefore, the petitioner along with three others filed writ petitions being W.P.Nos.12638 to 12641 of 2008 and sought for quashing of the panel for promotion, dated 29.04.2008. Those writ petitions were disposed of by a common order, dated 28.05.2008. Even at that stage, the respondents took up the contention that the M.A. Degree obtained from the Open University System from the Annamalai University was held to be not valid by the division bench. Those writ petitions were disposed of by a common order, dated 28.05.2008. Even at that stage, the respondents took up the contention that the M.A. Degree obtained from the Open University System from the Annamalai University was held to be not valid by the division bench. However, the said judgment was stayed by the Supreme Court as well as a direction was given to consider the case of the petitioner. On such direction, the third respondent by an order, dated 2.7.2008 informed the petitioner that the issue is receiving attention by the State and that after getting clarification, it will be considered. It was thereafter, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.116, P&AR Department, dated 18.08.2010 came to be passed. 4. The said G.O referred to the final judgment passed by the Supreme Court, dated 25.2.2009 on an identical issue which was subsequently reported in Annamalai University Vs. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 590 . In that Government Order, the Government had decided not to accept the recommendation of the Equivalence Committee and had directed the P.G. Degree obtained through Open University System without obtaining basic degree cannot be considered as one possessed P.G. Degree for appointment into public service. Therefore, the petitioner finding that the said G.O will be standing in his way for getting promotion to the post of Forester by transfer from other service, has come forward to challenge the said G.O. 5. On notice from this Court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit, dated 9.3.2011. In the counter affidavit, it was contended that the petitioner did not possess degree as required under the rules and that the degree obtained in M.A by Open University System without obtaining basic degree cannot be considered as equivalent. Though the petitioner cited the case of one Elango, an Assistant Draughtsman, it was stated that he was in possession of SSLC as well as Diploma in Civil Engineering. Therefore, his name was considered in the panel. Hence the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. The petitioner also referred to the order passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.137, Environment and Forest Department, dated 27.11.2008 wherein certain persons who were posted as Sociologist got their qualification ratified by the Government. In those cases, they were all appointed for the years 1988-89, 1992-93 and 1997-98 when the issue itself was in fluid stage. 7. 6. The petitioner also referred to the order passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.137, Environment and Forest Department, dated 27.11.2008 wherein certain persons who were posted as Sociologist got their qualification ratified by the Government. In those cases, they were all appointed for the years 1988-89, 1992-93 and 1997-98 when the issue itself was in fluid stage. 7. The counsel for the petitioner Ms.Selvi George placed reliance upon a judgment of the division bench in K.Sakthi Rani Vs. Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and others reported in 2010 (4) MLJ 849 , wherein the division bench notwithstanding the Annamalai University's case (cited supra), had granted relief to the Advocates who had already enrolled under the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu on applying the principal of promissory estoppel, acquiescence and legitimate expectation. It is not clear as to how the said judgment has any application to the case pleaded by the petitioner. In that case, the bench did not disagree with the judgment of the Supreme Court. Even otherwise they could not disagree with that finding, but strangely failed to adopt the argument of promissory estoppel to uphold the persons who had already enrolled as Advocates under the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu without having any basic degree. 8. But, in the present case, the petitioner has not been given any appointment and that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Annamalai University (cited supra) is very much the law of the land. The Supreme Court has clearly held that the degree might have been issued by the University recognized by the U.G.C., but for the purpose of employment, it is the statutory rules framed by the State Government which is relevant. Such Open University System degree without having completion of school training cannot be recognized as a valid degree for the purpose of entering into the service. 9. In the light of the above, the writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.