Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 588 (MAD)

Principal (in-charge) v. R. Anbazhagan

2014-03-04

M.SATHYANARAYANAN, N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2014
JUDGMENT N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge made in W.P.No.11512 of 2010, dated 13.09.2012, wherein the order passed by the first respondent therein, who is the first appellant herein, dated 17.05.2010, cancelling the appointment of the writ petitioner/respondent herein, was set aside. 2. The writ petitioner, who was appointed as Pump Operator by the first appellant, as per order, dated 20.11.2009, was ousted from service, by order, dated 17.05.2010, against which, he has filed the writ petition for reinstatement into service with all benefits. The case of the first respondent/writ petitioner before the learned single Judge was that he was initially appointed as Havil Dhar in Indian Army and was discharged after completing twenty years of service. It is also the case of the first respondent that he obtained Trade Proficiency Certificate, which is equivalent to ITI and his name was sponsored by the Employment Officer, Krishnagiri, for appointment to the post of Pump Operator. The writ petitioner attended the interview on 04.02.2009; selected by the first appellant on 20.11.2009; and joined duty on 02.12.2009. However, the second appellant directed the first appellant to cancel the appointment of the writ petitioner on the ground that the writ petitioner does not satisfy the qualification prescribed under the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.220, Higher Education Department, dated 06.07.2009. Based on the directions, the first appellant terminated the writ petitioner from service, by order dated 17.05.2010, wherein it is stated that the writ petitioner is lacking educational qualification and therefore, he is ousted from service. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, relying upon the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Technical Educational Subordinate Service issued in G.O.Ms.No.2100, Education Department, dated 18.09.1981, submitted that for the post of Pump Operator, on the date of selection, as per the said Rules, one must have passed V Standard in a recognised school and have practical experience for a period of not less than one year as a Pump Operator or Engine Attender in a Power House or Pump House. The writ petitioner had satisfied the said qualification, as on the date of sponsoring through employment exchange and the date of selection made. Therefore, the subsequent Rules issued in July 2009 cannot be made applicable. 4. The writ petitioner had satisfied the said qualification, as on the date of sponsoring through employment exchange and the date of selection made. Therefore, the subsequent Rules issued in July 2009 cannot be made applicable. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner also relied on the judgment made in W.P.No.10840 of 2010, dated 02.11.2010, for the proposition that the qualification prescribed subsequent to the selection will not be applicable to the selection already made. The said judgment was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2031 of 2011 and the writ appeal was dismissed on 23.11.2011 and following the said judgment, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants contended that the writ petitioner has not satisfied the technical experience required under the statutory rule then in force, that was on the date of selection, and the certificate produced by the petitioner dated 15.07.1995, is not equivalent to that of a Diploma Certificate. The said Certificate will not have any bearing on the facts of this case, as the respondent passed 10th Standard. 6. As per the statutory rule, for the post of Pump Operator, then in force, there is no requirement of pass in S.S.L.C. and pass in V Standard with technical experience for a period of not less than one year for Pump Operator or Engine Attender in a Power House or Pump House was sufficient. However, the writ petitioner has already passed S.S.L.C. and he has also produced a certificate, dated 15.02.2008, to show the previous experience of Pump Operator. Hence, we are unable to see any other reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. The N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR,J. And M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J. reason stated in the impugned order is only lack of educational qualification. The writ petitioner satisfies the educational qualification. Therefore, there is no error or infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge. 7. In view of the reasons stated above, the writ appeal is dismissed. Connected M.P. is closed. No costs.