SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.21974 of 2017 and. For Petitioner               : Mr.G.Rajagopalan                                                     Senior Counsel                                                     For M/s.Bader Sayeed                 For R1 to R3           : Mrs.S.Mythreyechandru                                                     Special Government Pleader                                                                   For R4                              : No appearance ORDER. In view of the facts and circumstances, it is established that the appointment of the writ petitioner is not in accordance with the rules applicable in the State of Tamil Nadu for appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the order passed by the respondents.           Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

by ·

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED  : 28.09.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.No.21974 of 2017

and

W.M.P.Nos.23025 & 23026 of 2017

 

G.Heera Khatoon                                                                              …Petitioner

Vs.

 

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

Rep.by its Secretary to Government,

Ministry of School Education,

Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

 

2.The Director of School Education,

Directorate of School Education,

College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

 

3.The District Education Officer, Chennai East

Choolaimedu, Chennai – 600 094.

 

4.The Muslim Higher Secondary School,

Rep.by The Correspondent,

No.278, Triplicane, High Road,

Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005.                                        ..Respondents

 

Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the proceedings of the Third Respondent dated 03.01.2017 in Na.Ka.No.3255/B2/2016 and for the records of the proceedings of the Fourth Respondent dated 14.07.2017, quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to approve the petitioner appointment to the post of P.G.Assistant from 01.07.2011. to reinstate the petitioner to the said post with effect from 14.07.2017 with continuity in service, and to pay salary to her from 01.07.2011 with all attended monetary benefits.

 

For Petitioner               : Mr.G.Rajagopalan

Senior Counsel

For M/s.Bader Sayeed

 

For R1 to R3           : Mrs.S.Mythreyechandru

Special Government Pleader

 

For R4                              : No appearance

 

ORDER

The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for approval of her appointment as P.G. Assistant (Hindi Pandit) in the 4th respondent Aided School is under challenge in the present writ petition.

 

  1. The writ petitioner states that she was appointed as P.G. Assistant in the 4th respondent Aided School with effect from 01.07.2011. She has completed Master of Arts in Hindi Literature and also completed B.Ed. and M.Phil. degrees. The petitioner had 11 years of previous work experience. He served as a Teacher in Anjuman Matriculation Higher Secondary School, T.Nagar from 05.06.2000 till 30.06.2011. The petitioner states that she is fully qualified for appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant in the 4th respondent Aided School. The petitioner was continuously working in the 4th respondent Aided School from 01.07.2011 onwards and no salary has been paid to her as her appointment was not approved by the competent educational authorities. The repeated representations sent by the writ petitioner also went in vain. The proposal submitted by the 4th respondent School Management was also not considered by the competent authorities and finally, the order impugned was passed, rejecting the approval of appointment of the writ petitioner as P.G. Assistant (Hindi Pandit) in the 4th respondent Aided School. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

 

  1. The impugned order was issued pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.27045 of 2014 dated 30.06.2016.

 

  1. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner acquired the degree qualification of Siksha Visharad issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad. The degree is approved by the University Grants Commission as it is found in the Schedule to University Grants Commission Regulations and therefore, it is a valid degree for the purpose of public employment. The petitioner acquired the said degree of Siksha Visharad during the Academic Years 1993-95. Therefore, the question of equivalence would not arise, since during the relevant point of time, the degree was considered as a valid degree for all purposes including public employment. Thus, the issue raised by the respondents at this length of time became unnecessary and the appointment of the writ petitioner in the year 2011 is to be approved for all purposes under the provisions of the Statutes and Rules in force.

 

  1. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner is fully qualified and possessing all requisite educational qualifications. She has served in a Private School at T.Nagar, Chennai for about 11 years and thereafter, joined in the 4th respondent School in a sanctioned post. When the petitioner was appointed in a sanctioned post and the Management verified the qualifications of the writ petitioner and she was selected and appointed, there is no reason for the respondents at this length of time to reject the approval of appointment, despite the fact that the petitioner possessed the requisite qualification and therefore, the order impugned is untenable and to be set aside.

 

  1. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 objected the said contention by stating that the department has not questioned the validity of the degree obtained by the petitioner i.e., Siksha Visharad issued by Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, at Allahabad, they are on the issue of grant of equivalence to B.Ed., degree. As per the Tamil Nadu Educational Service Rules, the requisite qualification prescribed for the P.G. Assistant is Post Graduation and B.Ed., degree. However, the qualification of Siksha Visharad acquired by the writ petitioner is not equivalent to B.Ed., degree in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Government has not granted any equivalence and in the absence of such equivalence, the said degree cannot be considered as a valid qualification for the purpose of appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant (Hindi Pandit) in the State of Tamil Nadu, more so, in Tamil Nadu Educational Services.

 

  1. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, in order to substantiate the claim, referred the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand and the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court passed an order on 20th August 2018, in the case of The State of Jharkhand through the District Education Officer and others vs. Purnima Sinha and another, in L.P.A.No.121 of 2015 held as follows:

“The case of the writ petitioner, as depicts from the impugned judgment, is that the petitioner was working as an English Teacher and had got training certificate of Siksha Visharad (Teachers Training) course from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. The service of the writ petitioner was terminated on the ground that the said certificate was not equivalent to B.Ed., The impugned order, however, shows that before issuing the termination order, no notice was given to the petitioner and on that ground alone, the service of the petitioner has been terminated.”

 

  1. In the case of Mandipander Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and others, the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, also considered the similar issue and passed an order on 18.09.2008 in C.W.P.No.16587 of 2007, holding that “the institution, Hindi Sahitya Samelen Allahabad from where she has passed B.Ed., is not recognised one nor its degree has been considered as equivalent to that of B.Ed., Degree.”
  2. With reference to the above judgments, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner replied that the development referred is not applicable in respect of the degree acquired by the petitioner, since the petitioner acquired the degree during the Academic Years 1993-95. The High Court considered that the degree granted by Hindi Sahitya Samelen Prayag, Allahabad is not a valid degree. Such a situation would not arise at all, in view of the fact that the petitioner acquired the degree in the Academic Years 1993-95 and during the relevant point of time, the validity of the degree was not in question.

 

  1. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 responded by stating that it is not the question of validity of the degree possessed by the writ petitioner. It is the issue regarding equivalence, which was considered by the Education Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu.

 

  1. As far as the validity of the degree is concerned, the University Grants Commission in its Schedule, approved the degree and therefore, the degree may be valid for all purposes. However, the equivalence of the said degrees with B.Ed., qualification is concerned, the Government of Tamil Nadu took a decision that it is not equivalent and the said decision became final for appointments in the Education Department.

 

  1. In support of the said contention, the learned Special Government Pleader relied on the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, which states that the qualification of the writ petitioner that Siksha Visharad and the certificate issued by the Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad (Hindi Viswa Vidyalaya) is equivalent to Diploma in Teacher Education and not equal to B.Ed., of the Certificate issued by the State of Tamil Nadu Universities. As per the letter issued by Director of School Education in O.Mu.No.156671/D3/1979 dated 09.11.1979 and O.Mu.No.461/G/61 dated 28.09.1961, it was mentioned that as regard the certificates Rashtra Basha Praveen issued by Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha and Siksha Visharad issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag alone is considered for appointment. The Andhra Government vide its G.O.No.663, Education Department dated 11.03.1965, it was mentioned that the certificate held by the writ petitioner is eligible for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Assistant and not as Post Graduate Assistant, the Orissa Government vide its letter No.XVII O(ii) 21/70/C13218/EYD dated 23.02.1981 is recognized the certificate as Certificate Course. Hence, the writ petitioner’s certificate is not equivalent to that of B.Ed., in the State of Tamil Nadu.

 

  1. The writ petitioner is working from the year 2011 without salary is not on the fault of the department. The 4th respondent Management has appointed a Teacher without verifying her qualifications and the said Management removed her from the service. The duty of the 3rd respondent is to verify that whether a qualified Teacher is appointed for the said post or not, if not, he cannot grant approval for the wrong appointment made by the 4th respondent Management. The writ petitioner has filed W.P.No.2305 of 2014 and appropriate orders were passed by the 3rd respondent.

 

  1. This Court is of the considered opinion that as far as the equivalence of various degrees awarded by the Universities across the country are concerned, the respective State Governments are empowered to take a decision. Education being the State subject and in concurrent list, the State has to take a decision with regard to the equivalence to be granted to various degrees issued by the Universities across the country, which all are recognised and approved by the University Grants Commission. Rules are in force for grant of equivalence of various degrees. The Government of Tamil Nadu also issued orders, granting equivalence regarding various degrees granted by the Universities concerned, based on the recommendations of the equivalence committee, which is an expert body.

 

  1. In the present case, the qualification for appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant is Masters degree with B.Ed., qualification. The petitioner completed Masters degree and regarding B.Ed., degree, the petitioner states that the Siksha Visharad is equivalent to B.Ed., degree. However, the Government of Tamil Nadu has not recognised the Siksha Visharad degree as equivalent to B.Ed., degree. Pertinently, no decision has been taken by the Government of Tamil Nadu in this regard. If at all a decision is to be taken, the petitioner has to approach the Government by way of an application to refer the matter to the equivalence committee for consideration. As of now, the Director of School Education in letter dated 28.09.1961, states that the certificates Rashtra Basha Praveen issued by Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha and Siksha Visharad issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag alone is considered for appointment and that too, for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and not for the post of P.G. Assistant. Therefore, the Government of Tamil Nadu has not considered the degree of Siksha Visharad for appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant (Hindi Pandit). When the Government of Tamil Nadu has not considered the said qualification as equivalent to B.Ed., degree for the purpose of grant of appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant, the appointment of the writ petitioner by the 4th respondent Management cannot be said to be in consonance with the rules prevailing in the State of Tamil Nadu.

 

  1. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner made a submission that the Government has to consider the case for grant of equivalence.

 

  1. However, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 made a submission that the degree of Siksha Visharad was not considered as equivalent to B.Ed., degree as per the letter of the Director of School Education and if at all an exercise is to be done in this regard, the procedures are to be followed and the petitioner has to make a representation to the Government for the purpose of consideration. As of now, the degree of Siksha Visharad is not considered as equivalent to B.Ed., degree and therefore, the appointment made in the year 2011 cannot be validated.

 

  1. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to the directions of this Court, an enquiry was conducted by the competent authorities by affording opportunity to the parties. However, the 4th respondent/Management remained absent wantonly without any valid reason and therefore, they have appointed the writ petitioner, knowing the fact that she was not possessing the requisite qualification of B.Ed., degree in accordance with the rules in force.

 

  1. The educational qualifications for appointment to the post of Teachers, at no circumstances, be compromised. The candidates, who possessed the requisite qualification alone are to be considered for appointment to the Teaching posts. Courts have insisted even the degree obtained through Open University and Correspondence courses shall not be considered for appointment, more specifically, for Teaching posts, in view of the fact that the Teachers appointed are bound to impart better education to the children studying in the Schools. The Courts have held that the candidates, who studied the regular courses alone must be considered for appointment. This being the importance of educational qualifications attached to the post of Teachers in Education Department, the Court cannot either relax or take any lenient view in respect of the educational qualifications prescribed for Teaching posts. Any such misplaced sympathy by the Courts would lead to unconstitutionality. In the matter of qualifications, the Government is the competent authority and it is the prerogative of the employer to prescribe educational qualifications suitably for the Teaching posts, for imparting better education to the children.

 

  1. In the present case, the qualifications prescribed for the post of P.G. Assistant is Post Graduate with B.Ed., degree and the petitioner acquired the degree of Siksha Visharad from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad, which was considered as equivalent to Diploma in Teachers Education and not considered as equivalent to B.Ed., degree granted by the Universities in the State of Tamil Nadu. Thus, the Education Department has not granted equivalence to the B.Ed., degree as far as Siksha Visharad degree issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad, is concerned.

 

  1. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner served in the 4th respondent Aided School from the year 2011 to 2017 and thereafter, she was relieved and not in service for the past about 5 years. However, the salary due to her is yet to be paid. It is made clear that the Government is not obligated to pay the salary, since her appointment was not approved by the competent authorities of the Government. Thus, the 4th respondent/Management is directed to settle the salary as applicable to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

 

  1. In view of the facts and circumstances, it is established that the appointment of the writ petitioner is not in accordance with the rules applicable in the State of Tamil Nadu for appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the order passed by the respondents.

 

  1. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

 

                                                                                28.09.2022

 

 

 

Index  : Yes

Speaking order:Yes

kak

 

To

 

1.The Secretary to Government,

State of Tamil Nadu,

Ministry of School Education,

Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

 

2.The Director of School Education,

Directorate of School Education,

College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

 

3.The District Education Officer, Chennai East

Choolaimedu, Chennai – 600 094.

 

4.The Correspondent,

Muslim Higher Secondary School,

No.278, Triplicane, High Road,

Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005.

 

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

 

kak

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W.P.No.21974 of 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28.09.2022

You may also like...