Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 14 (MAD)

K. Alagarraj v. State of Tamilnadu

2014-01-03

R.SUBBIAH

body2014
ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records pertaining to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide Na.Ka.No.12515/C2/E1/2009, dated 21.11.2013, and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to declare the completion of probation of the petitioner on 06.03.2009 and sanction all monetary benefits including annual increment from 2012. 2. The petitioner passed B.Sc. (Chemistry) in the year 1999 and M.Sc., (Chemistry) in the year 2001 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner studied B.Ed., in Special Education-Mental Retardation at Madurai Kamaraj University and he registered the same in the district employment exchange. Pursuant to the paper advertisement dated 02.09.2006 made by the Teacher Recruitment Board for recruiting B.T. Assistant for the academic year 2006-2007, the petitioner applied for the same and passed the written examination conducted on 05.11.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared for certificate verification on 26.12.2006. After certificate verification by the Teacher Recruitment Board, the petitioner was selected and posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Kalamaruthur, Villupuram District, by an order dated 04.03.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner joined duty and he has completed two years probation on 06.03.2009. However, his probation has not been declared by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner made a request to declare his probation. The Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Kalamaruthur, vide his letter in Na.Ka.No.163/09-10, dated 05.02.2010, recommended to declare the completion of probation of the petitioner, and for that purpose the petitioner had handed over al his original certificates and the same was forwarded to the Chief Educational Officer, Villupuram. But, there was no response from the respondents. 3. On 04.06.2013, on general transfer, the petitioner was transferred from Government Higher Secondary School, Kalamaruthur to Government High School Musundapatti. While so, the 2nd respondent issued impugned show cause notice dated 21.11.2013 stating that on the date of petitioner’s appointment, he was not eligible to be appointed as B.T. Assistant, on the ground that his B.Ed. Special Education is not a valid degree for appointment as B.T. Assistant. In fact, subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant, B.Ed. Special Education was declared as equivalent to B.Ed. General Education by G.O.(Ms).No.56, Higher Education (K2) Department, dated 24.04.2012. Special Education is not a valid degree for appointment as B.T. Assistant. In fact, subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant, B.Ed. Special Education was declared as equivalent to B.Ed. General Education by G.O.(Ms).No.56, Higher Education (K2) Department, dated 24.04.2012. Hence, the impugned show cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to give explanation as to why the services rendered by petitioner from the date of appointment till the date of issuance of the above said GO (from 07.03.2007 to 23.04.2012) should not be treated as invalid service. The said impugned notice was received by the petitioner during the first week of December-2013. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had passed M.Phil (Chemistry) in the year 2009 and it is higher qualification than B.Ed., General Education. However, since the Government issued G.O.(Ms)No.56, Higher Education (K2) Department, dated 24.04.2012 declaring B.Ed., Special Education as equivalent to B.Ed., General Education, the impugned show cause notice has been issued by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition before this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 5. The petitioner herein has passed B.Ed. Special Education in Mental Retardation at Madurai Kamaraj University in the year 2005. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 02.09.2006 made by the Teacher Recruitment Board, the petitioner applied for the post of B.T. Assistant and he was selected and issued with an order of appointment dated 04.03.2007 by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has joined duty and he has also completed his two years probation in the year 2009. In spite of his completion of probation, his probation was not declared by the respondents. While so, the impugned show cause notice was issued by the 2nd respondent stating that since B.Ed. Special Education was declared as equivalent to B.Ed. General Education by G.O.(Ms).No.56, Higher Education (K2) Department, dated 24.04.2012, as to why the services rendered by the petitioner from the date of his appointment till the date of issuance of the above said GO i.e., from 07.03.2007 to 23.04.2012 should not be treated as invalid service. 6. It is contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that G.O.(Ms)No.56, Higher Education (K2) Department, dated 24.04.2012, declaring B.Ed. Special Education as equivalent to B.Ed. 6. It is contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that G.O.(Ms)No.56, Higher Education (K2) Department, dated 24.04.2012, declaring B.Ed. Special Education as equivalent to B.Ed. General Education is only clarificatory in nature and the said GO does not say that the said equivalence could be applied only prospectively. Further, the declaration of equivalence has to be applied only from the date of degree. 7. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the said GO could be applied only for future selection and the declaration of equivalence cannot help the petitioner since the petitioner obtained B.Ed. Special Education degree in the year 2005, whereas the said GO was issued on 24.04.2012. 8. But, I am of the considered view that the Teacher Recruitment Board is not correct in stating that the declaration made in G.O.(Ms)No.56, Higher Education (K2) Department, dated 24.04.2012, has to be applied for future selection only. In fact, the said GO does not mention that the declaration of equivalence could be applied only for future selection. The said GO is silent about the applicability of declaration. If the declaration made in the said GO has to be applied prospectively, then there should be a specific mentioning to that effect in the said GO. In the absence of such mentioning in the said GO, it has to be held that the said GO is a clarificatory in nature and the same has to be applied from the date of the decree obtained by the petitioner herein. 9. In fact, this Court in an identical matter in W.P.No.5645 of 2010 [M. Muthukumaran vs. The Teachers Recruitment Board and another], by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 9 SCC 622 [Commissioner of Income Tax I, Ahmedabad Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Private Limited], [vide., order dated 18.07.2013] has come to the conclusion that the impugned GO therein is only clarificatory in nature and it has to be applied from the date of degree. The relevant portion is the said judgment of this Court is as follows:- “In my view, the Teachers Recruitment Board is not correct in stating that equivalence as declared in G.O.Ms.No.72 could be applied only for future selection. The declaration in G.O.Ms.No.72 is only clarificatory. The relevant portion is the said judgment of this Court is as follows:- “In my view, the Teachers Recruitment Board is not correct in stating that equivalence as declared in G.O.Ms.No.72 could be applied only for future selection. The declaration in G.O.Ms.No.72 is only clarificatory. The clarification that is issued in G.O.Ms.No.72 could be applied from the date of the degree obtained by the petitioner in this case, G.O.Ms.No.72 nowhere states that equivalence could be applied only hereinafter.” Therefore, by following the above said judgment of this Court, I am of the opinion that the present writ petition is liable to be allowed, since G.O.(Ms)No.56, Higher Education (K2) Department, dated 24.04.2012, has to be applied from the date of degree and not in further appointments alone. 10. In fine, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and the respondent are directed to declare the completion of probation of the petitioner on 06.03.2009 and sanction eligible monetary benefits to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No Costs.