JUDGMENT : P.D. Audikesavalu, J. (Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent, praying to set aside the order in W.P. No. 10073 of 2005 dated 22.06.2010 and to grant the relieves as prayed for in W.P. No. 10073 of 2005.) The intra-Court Appeal arises out of the order dated 22.06.2010 in W.P. No. 10073 of 2005 passed by the Learned Judge of this Court. 2. The chronological sequence of events leading to the filing of this Writ Appeal are given below:- (i) The Appellant was selected as Secondary Grade Teacher by proceedings No. 522/AA2/94 dated 18.07.1995 by the Tamil Nadu Teachers Recruitment Board and she was posted at Panchayat Union School, Veerappatti, Annavasal Union by proceedings Na. Ka. No. 6361/AA3/95 dated 25.07.1995 by the District Elementary Educational Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'DEDO' for short), Pudukkottai. (ii) The DEDO, Pudukkottai by proceedings Na. Ka. No. 6361/AA3/95 dated 12.02.1996 informed the Petitioner that it was found on evaluation of her Teacher's Training Certificate obtained from Kerala that she had not secured 50% marks each of the two years of the course and as such, her certificate cannot be evaluated and resultantly, her appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher at Veerappatti Panchayat Union School, Annavasal Union stands cancelled. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer was further directed to relieve her from service. The Appellant challenged the cancellation of her appointment in O.A. No. 1598 of 1996 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. (iii) The Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai by proceedings Rc. No. 9460/C2/96 dated 04.08.1997 verified the Teacher's Training Certificate of the Appellant and reported that the Kerala Teacher's Training Certificate held by the Appellant has been evaluated as equivalent to Secondary Grade Teacher Training Certificate of Tamil Nadu. The said fact was recorded by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in the order dated 25.09.1998 in O.A. No. 1598 of 1996 and the application was treated as closed. (iv) The Appellant was thereafter selected by the Tamil Nadu Teachers Recruitment Board for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the Tamil Nadu Elementary Educational Sub-ordinate Services by proceedings Na. Ka. No. 2725/AA3/96 dated 25.10.1999 and posted at the Panchayat Union Middle School, Perujunai, Annavasal Union. (iv) The Appellant was thereafter selected by the Tamil Nadu Teachers Recruitment Board for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the Tamil Nadu Elementary Educational Sub-ordinate Services by proceedings Na. Ka. No. 2725/AA3/96 dated 25.10.1999 and posted at the Panchayat Union Middle School, Perujunai, Annavasal Union. (v) Later, the Appellant made a representation dated 09.03.2000 to the Director of Elementary Education that she had been wrongly kept out of service during the period from 13.02.1996 till reinstatement by order dated 25.10.1999 and hence, that period should be regularized restoring her seniority in service with consequential monetary benefits arising therefrom, which was followed by representations dated 07.07.2000 and 27.01.2005. (vi) Since there was no response to the same, the Appellant filed W.P. No. 10073 of 2005 before this Court seeking a direction to the Respondents to pay her salary for the period from 31.07.1995 to 04.11.1999 on the basis of evaluation of her Teacher's Training Certificate. (vii) When W.P. No. 10073 of 2005 came up for admission on 24.03.2005, an interim order was passed in W.P.M.P. No. 10910 of 2005 directing the Respondents to consider the representation of the Appellant dated 09.03.2000 seeking salary as Secondary Grade Teacher from 31.07.1995 to 04.11.1999. (viii) The Director of Elementary Education by order Na. Ka. No. 2357/L 3.3.2005 dated 10.10.2005 held that the Appellant was entitled to salary only for the period from 31.07.1995 to 12.02.1996, and had conspicuously not stated anything relating to the claim made by her for salary from 12.02.1996 till she was reinstated in service by order dated 25.10.1999. (ix) The Learned Judge, who heard the Writ Petition was not inclined to accede to the claim made by the Appellant for salary for the period from 31.07.1995 to 04.11.1999 and in the order dated 07.02.2011 in W.P. No. 10073 of 2005, held as follows:- "3. The Learned Counsel has also made a prayer for payment of salary to the Petitioner for the period from 31.07.1995 to 04.11.1999. This cannot be considered for the reason that though the Petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 31.07.1995, she was subsequently removed from the service by order dated 12.02.1996. The said order was challenged by the Petitioner by filing O.A. No. 1598 of 1996 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, but the said original application came to be closed on 25.09.1998. The said order was challenged by the Petitioner by filing O.A. No. 1598 of 1996 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, but the said original application came to be closed on 25.09.1998. Therefore, the order of removal from service dated 12.02.1996 became final. In that view of the matter the prayer for payment of salary for the period from 31.07.1995 to 04.11.1999 cannot be considered." (x) The Appellant had also made a claim in that Writ Petition for transfer from Pudukkottai District to Kanyakumari District on the basis of G.O. No. 388, School Education Department dated 19.06.1996, and it was held that the aforesaid Governmental Order was only a one time measure and that it was left open to the Appellant to participate in future counselling and the Respondents were directed to consider the case of the Appellant sympathetically by keeping in mind her seniority for transfer to her native district. (xi) Aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2011 in W.P. No. 10073 of 2005, insofar as it denies the salary to the Appellant for the period from 31.07.1995 to 04.11.1999, the Appellant has preferred the present Writ Appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. C. Johnson, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, Mr. C. Munusamy, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 4. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant strenuously urged that inasmuch as the Appellant was not at fault for the belated evaluation of her Teacher's Training Certificate till 04.08.1997, the Appellant could not be deprived of her salary for the period from 31.07.1995 to 04.11.1999. It is pointed out that the Appellant should be treated as to be in continuous service from 31.07.1995 onwards with her seniority as Secondary Grade Teacher reckoned from that date with all monetary benefits arising therefrom. 5. It is pointed out that the Appellant should be treated as to be in continuous service from 31.07.1995 onwards with her seniority as Secondary Grade Teacher reckoned from that date with all monetary benefits arising therefrom. 5. The Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents vehemently opposed the aforesaid claims made on behalf of the Appellant and contends that the appointment of the Appellant was cancelled with effect from 12.02.1996 on the basis of the then prevailing instructions as she had not secured 50% marks in each of the two years in the Teacher's Training Certificate obtained by her from Kerala and that the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in the order dated 25.09.1998 in O.A. No. 1598 of 1996 had closed the proceedings challenging the cancellation of her appointment and had not granted any relief for reinstatement in service with backwages and that the subsequent appointment of the Appellant pursuant to the order Na. Ka. No. 2725/AA3/96 dated 25.10.1999 passed by the DEDO, Pudukkottai, would only enable to treat the Appellant as fresh entrant and she cannot be extended any benefit of treating her as appointed from an earlier date without having actually worked during that period. 6. Though the relief sought by the Appellant in the Writ Petition is for a direction to the First Respondent to consider and pass order on her representation dated 09.03.2000 followed by reminders dated 07.07.2000 and 27.01.2005 seeking salary as Secondary Grade Teacher from 31.07.1995 to 04.11.1999, inasmuch as the First Respondent had already disposed the representation of the Appellant by order dated 10.10.2005 pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 24.03.2005 in W.P.M.P. No. 10910 of 2005 and both the parties have addressed their submissions on merits both before the Learned Judge in the Writ Petition as well as before the Division Bench of this Court, it would be appropriate at this distance of time to adjudicate upon the main contention raised by the Appellant in her representation, which has been sought to be disposed. 7. In that factual backdrop, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the claim of the Appellant for treating her to be in employment from 31.07.1995 till 04.11.1999 is justified and if so, what are the benefits that she would be entitled? 8. 7. In that factual backdrop, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the claim of the Appellant for treating her to be in employment from 31.07.1995 till 04.11.1999 is justified and if so, what are the benefits that she would be entitled? 8. Admittedly, the Appellant has worked for the period from 31.07.1995 till she was relieved from service on 12.02.1996 and the First Respondent in the order dated 10.10.2005 has also found that the Appellant is entitled to salary for that period and as such, she has to be paid the same. 9. The entitlement of the Appellant for salary for the period from 12.02.1996 to 04.11.1999 now has to be determined. It cannot be disputed that the Appellant was not allowed to work from 12.02.1996 due to the decision of the DEDO, Pudukkottai that she had to be relieved from service on the ground that she had not secured 50% marks for each of the two years of the Teacher's Training Certificate Course that she had undergone in Kerala. It may also be pointed out here that there was no necessity at all to have terminated the service of the Appellant on 12.02.1996 in a hasty manner without sending Teacher's Training Certificate obtained by the Appellant from Kerala for evaluation by the concerned authority and in any event, the cancellation of her appointment was in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, which cannot be countenanced. After obtaining clarification from the Government of Kerala, the DEDO, Pudukkottai by proceedings Na. Ka. No. 2725/AA3/96 dated 08.11.1996 had required the Appellant to produce the original copy of the Teacher's Training Certificate for evaluation. The said Teacher's Training Certificate obtained by the Appellant from Kerala on evaluation was found to be equivalent to the Secondary Grade Teacher Training Certificate of Tamil Nadu by proceedings Rc. No. 9460/C2/96 dated 04.08.1997 issued by the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai. As such, the DEDO, Pudukkottai ought to have reinstated the Appellant immediately thereafter, but had failed to take any action in that regard even then. The Appellant had to again approach the Teachers Recruitment Board with the evaluated Teacher's Training Certificate and had got appointment by proceedings Na. Ka. No. 2725/AA3/96 dated 25.10.1999 and was posted in the Panchayat Union Middle School, Perujunai, Annavasal Union. 10. The Appellant had to again approach the Teachers Recruitment Board with the evaluated Teacher's Training Certificate and had got appointment by proceedings Na. Ka. No. 2725/AA3/96 dated 25.10.1999 and was posted in the Panchayat Union Middle School, Perujunai, Annavasal Union. 10. In this context, it would be necessary to refer to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Nadar Thanga Shubha Laxman vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (Order dated 29.11.2013 in W.P. (MD) No. 16181 of 2012 etc., batch) in which it has been held that the Equivalence Certificate issued by the Committee constituted by the Government declaring that the degree obtained from one University is equivalent to the degree obtained from yet another University cannot be held to be only prospective in operation, but it will have its effect right from the date of issuance. 11. The circumstance that the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in the order dated 25.09.1998 in O.A. No. 1598 of 1996 had not passed any express order directing the reinstatement of service, cannot be put against the Appellant inasmuch as the fact that the Teacher's Training Certificate obtained by the Appellant had been evaluated and regarded as equivalent to Secondary Grade Teacher Training Certificate of Tamil Nadu had been taken cognizance and the said order does not contain any adjudication rejecting the claim of the Appellant for the same. This gives the impression that the Tribunal expected the concerned authorities on their own to extend the necessary benefits that the Appellant would be lawfully entitled in pursuance thereof. Again, having regard to the common course of natural events and human conduct, the fact that the Appellant had promptly applied in the recruitment for Secondary Grade Teachers in the year 1999 and had got appointment, instead of indefinitely waiting for the order of reinstatement into service from the Respondents, would clearly go to show that she had been vigilant in asserting her rights and had prudently mitigated the loss of salary that would occur due to non-employment, and that it deserves appreciation and cannot be construed to mean as if the Appellant had forfeited her claim to the benefits that she would be eligible if she had not been wrongfully terminated on 12.02.1996 by the DEDO, Pudukkottai. 12. 12. This incontrovertible fact situation coupled with the aforesaid legal position would clearly show that the Appellant was not at fault for not being able to work during the period from 12.02.1996 to 04.11.1999 and the same was attributable only to the wrongful act of the DEDO, Pudukkottai. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya [ (2013) 10 SCC 324 ] after referring to the earlier decisions relating to the consequences of wrongful termination from service, has succinctly culled out the propositions and held in para no. 38.5 as follows:- “38.5. The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior Courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc., merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay the same. The Courts must always keep in view that in the cases of wrongful / illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give a premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages.” This principle squarely applies to the present case and as such, the Respondents, who were responsible for the non-employment of the Appellant for the period from 12.02.1996 to 04.11.1999, are bound to compensate the Appellant with the salary for that period. 14. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the Appellant is deemed to be in continuous service as Secondary Grade Teacher from the date of her initial appointment in service on 18.07.1995 onwards, reckoning her seniority from that date with all consequential monetary benefits flowing therefrom including salary payable for the period from 18.07.1995 to 04.11.1999. 14. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the Appellant is deemed to be in continuous service as Secondary Grade Teacher from the date of her initial appointment in service on 18.07.1995 onwards, reckoning her seniority from that date with all consequential monetary benefits flowing therefrom including salary payable for the period from 18.07.1995 to 04.11.1999. The Respondents are directed to compute the monetary benefits and fix the seniority of the Appellant and communicate the decision taken thereon to the Appellant along with a working-sheet by 15.03.2019. The amount computed and found payable to the Appellant shall be paid to her expeditiously and a report of compliance in that regard shall be filed before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court by 30.04.2019. 15. The Writ Appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms. It is also made clear that the Appellant shall be entitled to seek transfer from Pudukkottai District to Kanyakumari District in terms of the relief granted to her in that regard in the order dated 22.06.2010 in W.P. No. 10073 of 2005. No costs.