Join us on Facebook

Please wait.. 10 Seconds Cancel
இந்த செய்திகள் எல்லாம் பல்வேறு மின் இணையதில் இருந்து சேகரிக்கபட்டு இருக்கிறது. நோக்கம், இந்த செய்திகள் எல்லாம் எல்லா மக்களையும் சென்றடைய வேண்டும். இந்த மின் இணையதில் பிறர் கருத்துகள் இடம் பெற்று காயபடுதுவதாக அல்லது தனிப்பட்ட கருத்தாக இருந்தால் சொல்லிவிடுங்கள் நீக்கி விடலாம். மேலும் இத்தளத்தில் உள்ள தகவல்களுக்கு உண்மை தண்மை கூற இயலாது இத்தகவல் மின்வாரியத்தில் பணியாற்றும் ஊழியர்களுக்கும் பொதுமக்களுக்கும் பயன்படும் நோக்கில் வெளியிடப்படுகிறது

தங்கள் பகுதியில் நடைபெறும் வாரியம் தொடர்பான தகவல்களை எனது ganeshtnebgobi@gmail.com ஈமெயிலுக்கு அனுப்பினால் இந்த வலை தளத்தில் வெளியிடப்படும் அதன்முலம் அனைவரும் பயனடைவர்
நேரடி நியமனம் தொடா்பான தங்கள் சந்தேகங்களை இந்த முகநுால் குழுவில் இணைந்து தெரிவிக்கவும்.
TNEB Recruitment 2015-16 https://www.facebook.com/groups/1662721517343327/

Mar 20, 2014

திறந்தவெளி பல்கலையில் படித்தவருக்கும் ஆசிரியர் வேலை; உயர் நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவு ( JUDGEMENT இணைப்பு )

திறந்தவெளி பல்கலைக்கழகத்தில் பட்டபடிப்பு படித்தவர்களுக்கும்  பணி வழங்க வேண்டும் என்று உயர் நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவிட்டது.  திறந்தவெளி பல்கலைக்கழகத்தில் படித்த மாணவி கனிமொழி சென்னை  உயர் நீதிமன்றத்தில் தாக்கல் செய்த மனு: நான் 10ம் வகுப்பு படித்து  முடித்துவிட்டு 12ம் வகுப்பு படிக்காமல் டிகிரியை திறந்தவெளி  பல்கலைக்கழகத்தின் மூலம் படித்து முடித்தேன். பின்னர் பட்டமேற்  படிப்பை கல்லூரியில் சேர்ந்து படித்தேன்.
அதன்பிறகு முழு கல்வி தகுதி  பெற  பிளஸ் 2 தனியாக தேர்வு எழுதி வெற்றி பெற்றேன். அதன்பிறகு  ஆசிரியர் தகுதி  தேர்வில் பங்கேற்று எழுத்து தேர்வில் வெற்றி பெற்றேன்.  ஆனால் எனக்கு ஆசிரியர் பணி வழங்க அரசு மறுத்து விட்டது.

எனவே எனக்கு பணி வழங்க உத்தரவிட வேண்டும். இவ்வாறு அவர்  வழக்கில் கூறியுள்ளார். இந்த வழக்கை நீதிபதி நாகமுத்து விசாரித்து,  மனுதாரர் உரிய கல்வித்தகுதி பெற்றுள்ளார். அவர் எப்படி படித்தார் என்று  கணக்கில் எடுத்துக்கொண்டது தவறானது. எனவே அவரது கல்வி  தகுதியை கருத்தில் கொண்டு பணி வழங்க வேண்டும் என்று  உத்தரவிட்டார்.

                                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS 

                                                                                                                          DATED: 11.03.2014

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

W.P.No.1068 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014

V.Kanimozhi   .. Petitioner

  - Vs -

1. The Director of School Education,
    DPI Complex,
    College Road, Chennai 600 006.

2. The Chairman,
    Teachers' Recruitment Board,
    DPI Complex, College Road,
    Chennai 600 006. .. Respondents

Prayer:-  Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the proceedings of the second respondent published in the website on 03.01.2014, quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to select and appoint the petitioner to the post of P.G. Assistant Tamil for the year 2012-2013.

For Petitioner     : Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy

For Respondents      : Mr.D.Krishnakumar,
      Special Government Pleader
- - - - -
O R D E R

The Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB), Government of Tamil Nadu issued Notification/Advertisement in Advertisement No.02/2013 inviting applications for direct recruitment to vacancies for the year 2012-2013 for the post of Post Graduate Assistants / Physical Education Directors Grade-I in the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service.  The petitioner claims that she is fully qualified for being appointed as Post Graduate Assistant Teacher in Tamil.  Therefore, she submitted her application and her application was entertained and duly registered by the TRB assigning Roll No.13PG15011028.  The written examination was held on 21.07.2013.  The petitioner participated in the same and she was called for certificate verification.  After certificate verification, now the TRB has published the final list of selected candidates, in which, the petitioner has not been included.  The petitioner's candidature has been rejected by the TRB by quoting G.O.Ms.No.107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 18.08.2009.  In other words, according to the TRB, the petitioner had not studied the courses in order.  The petitioner is aggrieved by the same and that is how she is before this Court with this writ petition.

2. Study of courses in order means doing 10th standard followed by 12th standard (+2) followed by Under Graduate degree and followed by Post Graduate degree and then B.Ed. degree.  In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner studied 10th standard and passed.  Then she studied 12th standard (+2) but failed.  Thereafter, under the Open University Scheme, from the University of Madras, she did B.A. degree in Tamil directly and secured a degree.  Thereafter, she joined B.Ed. degree regular course and obtained that degree.  Then, she joined M.A. degree regular course in Annamalai University and secured M.A. degree.  Thereafter, she realised that unless she had passed the 12th Standard (+2) examination, she would not be eligible for appointment as Post Graduate Assistant Teacher.  Therefore, she decided to do 12th Standard (+2) privately and passed that also.  This according to the TRB, the petitioner before joining and obtaining B.Ed. degree, she had not passed the 12th standard (+2).  As I have already narrated, she passed the 12th standard (+2) at the end i.e., after having secured B.A. degree, B.Ed. degree and M.A. degree.  This, according to the TRB is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 18.08.2009 and it is stated to be the reason for rejection of the candidature of the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the said stand taken by the TRB is absolutely incorrect.  She would submit that of course, G.O.Ms.No.107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 18.08.2009, states that the degree obtained through Open University Scheme will be acceptable for Government appointments provided the candidate had done 10th standard followed by 12th standard (+2) before obtaining the Under Graduate degree.  This Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 18.08.2009, according to the learned counsel came to be considered by a Division Bench of this Court in J.Joseph Irudayaraj Vs. Joint Director of School Education in W.A.No.1064 of 2012, wherein, by judgment dated 06.11.2013, the Division Bench has held that after obtaining the Under Graduate degree and Post Graduate degree through Open University/Correspondence Course, if a candidate had done the 12th standard also, that would satisfy the requirements of G.O.Ms.No.107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 18.08.2009.  Relying on the said judgment, the learned counsel would submit that, in the case on hand also the petitioner is similarly placed and therefore she is entitled for the relief as prayed for.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents would vehemently oppose this petition.  According to him, unless a candidate studies the course in order i.e. 10th standard followed by 12th standard followed by Under Graduate degree and followed by Post Graduate degree and then B.Ed. degree the candidate will not at all be eligible for appointment as Post Graduate Assistant Teacher.  In this regard, the learned Special Government Pleader would rely on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in T.L.Muthukumar Vs. The Registrar General, Madras High Court in W.P.No.18729 of 2010 dated 10.02.2011.

5. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records carefully.

6. For the sake of convenience, let me first consider the Division Bench judgment of this Court in T.L.Muthukumar Vs. The Registrar General, Madras High Court (cited supra).  That was a case where G.O.Ms.No.107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 18.08.2009 referred to above was challenged.  While upholding the said G.O.Ms.No.107, dated 18.08.2009, in paragraphs 18 and 19, the Division Bench held as follows:

18. As discussed above, the rule framed by the High Court inter alia clearly lays down the qualification for the purpose of promotion from Categories 7, 8 and 9 to Category 6.  It is clearly mentioned that for the purpose of promotion, a person must possess and hold the B.A./B.Sc./B.Com or other Bachelor's degree of the Madras University or of a recognized University.  The rule does not recognize B.A. or B.B.A. degree from an Open University obtained by a candidate without having the basic +2 qualification.  The condition contained in the High Court Service Rules, therefore, cannot in any way be superseded by other law not applicable to the employees of the High Court.

19. Admittedly, the petitioners', although, obtained the first degree by correspondence course without having the basic +2 qualification.  Such degree having not been recognized under the Rules framed by the High Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 229 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners' cannot claim promotion on that basis.

7. A perusal of the above judgment, more particularly paragraphs 18 and 19 would go to show that while upholding G.O.Ms.No.107, dated 18.08.2009, this Court has taken the view that the degrees obtained from an Open University scheme from Annamalai University cannot be accepted for the purpose of appointment in the Madras High Court because as per the Madras High Court Service Rules, it is clearly stated that for the purpose of promotion, a person must possess and hold B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. or other Bachelor's degree of the Madras University or of a recognised University and the Rule does not recognise B.A. or B.B.A. Degrees from an Open University obtained by a candidate without having the basic +2 qualification. The Division Bench has however held that the conditions contained in the Madras High Court Service Rules cannot be in any way superseded by other law not applicable to the employees of the Madras High Court.

8. In my understanding, the above judgment of the Division Bench applies more specifically to the Madras High Court Service Rules.  The Division Bench had no occasion to examine the question as to whether completing 12th Standard (+2) after having already obtained B.A. degree course would satisfy G.O.Ms.No.107, dated 18.08.2009.

9. In the other judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in J.Jospeh Irudayaraj Vs. Joint Director of School Education, Chennai the other Division Bench of this Court had exactly examined the above issue.  In paragraphs 8 and 9 the Court has recorded the facts as follows:
8. Originally, even though the appellant has obtained degree only through open university, the appellant had subsequently appeared for the higher secondary examination and completed the same in June, 2010. The management sent the proposal on 07.08.2010 to the second respondent for approval as the appellant has completed his higher secondary examination in June, 2010. By the order dated 16.12.2010, the second respondent has again returned the proposal on the ground that the appellant has not studied in the pattern of 10 +2+3 as per G.O.Ms.No.107 P&AR Department dated 18.08.2009.

9. The learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that since the appellant has completed his higher secondary examination in June, 2010, proposal for approving the appointment of the appellant may be approved at least from June, 2010.
In paragraph 11, the Division Bench has held as follows:
11. We are of the view that the second respondent is to reconsider the matter in the light of para 4 of G.O.Ms.No.107 P&AR Department dated 18.08.2009. While so reconsidering the matter, the second respondent shall take into account that the appellant has been working from 2006, much prior to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Annamalai University v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department, Chennai ((2009) 4 SCC 590) and he has completed his higher secondary examination in June, 2010.

10. Thus, it is crystal clear that as per the law laid down by the Division Bench in J.Jospeh Irudayaraj's case (cited supra), the requirements of G.O.Ms.No.107, dated 18.08.2009 shall stand satisfied if the candidate has studied 12th Standard (+2) after completing B.A. degree course.  In other words, because courses are done in reverse order, it is no matter at all.  

11. The learned counsel has relied on yet another judgment of a learned Single Judge in S.Ashalatha Vs. The Director of School Education, Chennai in W.P.No.6870 of 2013 dated 25.03.2013, wherein, in paragraph 4, more or less in similar circumstances, this Court has held as follows:
4. But, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.361, Education, dated 31.12.1999, persons who had secured a Post Graduate Degree in a different subject than the subject in which Under Graduate Degree course was undergone, were made ineligible for appointment to the post of P.G. Assistants.  Therefore, the petitioner went back to an Under Graduate course, as it has not become routine for people to do courses in all orders, not necessarily in the chronological sequence, but in the reverse or even in perverse sequence.  Anyway, the petitioner completed three year B.Litt. from Madras University. Therefore, on the date on which she applied for appointment, the petitioner had an Under Graduate Degree as well as a Post Graduate Degree in the same subject, undergone in the regular stream, from the University of Madras.  In such circumstances, the rejection of her candidature on the ground that it was obtained in a reverse order is not correct.  Hence, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pass orders, appointing the petitioner, within a period of four weeks, if all other certificates are in order.  There shall be no order as to costs.  Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 are closed.

12. The Annamalai University's case (Annamalai University Vs. Secretary to Government reported in (2009) 4 SCC 590) has been referred to by the two Division Benches in their respective judgement.  That was a case where, a Post Graduate degree obtained directly under the Open University system without doing Under Graduate degree was valid or not came up for consideration.  In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that before obtaining M.A. degree, as per UGC regulations, a candidate should have completed +2, followed by Under Graduate degree course.  The Post Graduate degree obtained through Open University scheme directly without having obtained a Under Graduate degree cannot be considered for the purpose of appointment as a Principal in a College.  In that judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had no occasion to consider as to whether if a candidate completes a Under Graduate degree course after having obtained his Post Graduate degree under the Open University system will be eligible.  This question was virtually examined by the Division Bench in J.Joseph Irudayaraj's case (cited supra).  As a matter of fact, the Division Bench in J.Joseph Irudayaraj's case (cited supra) has extensively considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Annamalai University's case (cited supra).

13. In view of all the above, I have no hesitation to hold that rejection of the candidature of the petitioner by the second respondent is not sustainable.

14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the second respondent rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is hereby set aside and the second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner for appointment as Post Graduate Assistant Teacher in Tamil based on her marks secured after certificate verification, at any rate, final orders shall be passed by the second respondent in this matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.  No costs.


11.03.2014
Index   : Yes 
Internet: Yes 
kk  
S.NAGAMUTHU.J.,
kk

To

1. The Director of School Education,
    DPI Complex,
    College Road, Chennai 600 006.

2. The Chairman,
    Teachers' Recruitment Board,
    DPI Complex, College Road,
    Chennai 600 006.


W.P.No.1068 of 2014    
and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014
11.03.2014           
Post a Comment