எஸ்.எஸ்.எல்.சி. மற்றும் ஆசிரியர் பட்டய பயிற்சி முடித்து பட்டம் பெற்றவருக்கு பதவி உயர்வு வழங்க உயர்நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவு

எஸ்.எஸ்.எல்.சி. மற்றும் ஆசிரியர் பட்டய பயிற்சி முடித்து பட்டம் பெற்றவருக்கு பதவி உயர்வு வழங்க மறுத்து மாற்று திறனாளிகளுக்கான நலத்துறை கமிஷனர் பிறப்பித்த உத்தரவை சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றம் ரத்து செய்தது.

தர்மபுரியில், காது கேளாதோருக்கான அரசு மேல்நிலைப்பள்ளியில் சந்திரசேகரன் என்பவர் முதுநிலை ஆசிரியராக தற்காலிக பதவி உயர்வு அளிக்கப்பட்டு நியமிக்கப்பட்டார். முறைப்படி பதவி உயர்வு வழங்க சந்திரசேகரன் கோரினார். "தேவையான தகுதியை பெறாததால், முதுநிலை ஆசிரியராக பதவி உயர்வு வழங்க முடியாது" என மாற்றுத் திறனாளிகள் நலத்துறையின் கமிஷனர் உத்தரவிட்டார். கடந்த 2012 பிப்ரவரியில் உத்தரவு பிறப்பிக்கப்பட்டது. அதனால், இடைநிலை ஆசிரியராக பதவி இறக்கம் செய்யும் நிலை ஏற்பட்டது.

கமிஷனரின் உத்தரவை ரத்து செய்யவும், பதவி உயர்வு அளிக்கவும் கோரி சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றத்தில் சந்திரசேகரன் மனுத் தாக்கல் செய்தார். அரசு தரப்பில் தாக்கல் செய்யப்பட்ட பதிலில் "பிளஸ் 2 முடிக்காமல் தொலைதூர கல்வி மூலம் பட்டம் பெற்றுள்ளார். எனவே, அந்த பட்டம் செல்லாது; முதுகலை பட்டமும் செல்லாது" என, கூறப்பட்டது. மனுவை, நீதிபதி அரிபரந்தாமன் விசாரித்தார். மனுதாரர் சார்பில் வழக்கறிஞர் பி.சந்திரசேகர் ஆஜரானார்.

மனுவை விசாரித்த நீதிபதி அரிபரந்தாமன் பிறப்பித்த உத்தரவு: மனுதாரர் எஸ்.எஸ்.எல்.சி. படித்துள்ளார். 1978 வரை எஸ்.எஸ்.எல்.சி. தான் இருந்தது. அதன்பின் தான் பிளஸ் 2 முறை அறிமுகமானது. கர்நாடகாவில் இரண்டு ஆண்டு ஆசிரியர் பயிற்சி படிப்பு முடித்து சான்றிதழ் பெற்றுள்ளார். தமிழக அரசு 2012 டிசம்பரில் பிறப்பித்த உத்தரவில் "எஸ்.எஸ்.எல்.சி. தேர்ச்சி பெற்று ஆசிரியர் பயிற்சி சான்றிதழ் பெற்றவர்கள் பிளஸ் 2வில் தேர்ச்சி பெற்றது போல் பட்டப் படிப்பில் சேர தகுதி உள்ளது" என, கூறப்பட்டுள்ளது.

பத்தாம் வகுப்பு முடித்து, ஆசிரியர் கல்வியில் பட்டயப் படிப்பு முடித்தவர்களை பிளஸ் 2 தேர்ச்சி பெற்றது போல் கருத வேண்டும் என, நீதிமன்றமும் பல உத்தரவுகளை பிறப்பித்துள்ளது. எனவே, மாற்றுத் திறனாளிகள் நலத் துறை கமிஷனரின் உத்தரவு ரத்து செய்யப்படுகிறது. மனுதாரருக்கு முதுநிலை ஆசிரியராக பதவி உயர்வு அளிக்க வேண்டும். அதற்குரிய பணப் பலன்கள், சலுகைகளை வழங்க வேண்டும். இவ்வாறு, நீதிபதி அரிபரந்தாமன் உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளார்.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.04.2014

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

W.P.NO.13060 OF 2012

AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2012

V.Chandrasekaran .. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary 

   Department of Differently Abled

   Fort St. George,

   Secretariat, 

   Chennai - 600 009.

2.The State Commissioner for the 

       Differently Abled

   Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road,

   K.K.Nagar, 

   Chennai - 600 078. .. Respondents 

PRAYER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Proc No.10661/SS1/2011 dated 08.02.2012 and quash the same and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Post Graduate Assistant (Tamil). 

  

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Chandrasekar 

For Respondents   : Mr.I.Arockiasamy 

Government Advocate 

 

O R D E R

Heard both sides. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 

 

                2.Though counter affidavit is not filed, the learned Government Advocate has made his submissions based on instructions.

 

                3.The petitioner passed S.S.L.C. (11 years course) in March 1974. He underwent Teacher Training Course in Karnataka for a period of two years from April 1982 to April 1984 and passed the said course. The Teacher Training Certificate obtained in Karnataka was considered as equivalent to the Teacher Training Certificate for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. The Director of Elementary Education evaluated the Teacher Training Certificate obtained by the petitioner from Karnataka and issued a certificate on 31.07.1986 stating that the same is equivalent to the Secondary Grade Teacher Certificate of Tamil Nadu. In the meantime, the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 10.01.1986.

 

                4.The petitioner passed B.Lit., (Tamil) in Madras University in May 1993 and also passed B.Ed., in May 1996. Subsequently, the petitioner passed M.A. (Tamil) in Madras University in October 1998. He worked as Middle School Headmaster (in-charge) in the School of Deaf and Dump between 30.03.1990 and 17.08.1991. Initially, the said school was a Primary School and later, it was upgraded as Middle School. Again, the petitioner was given in-charge of the post of Middle School Headmaster on 18.09.1996 and he continued in the same post till 23.08.1998. The petitioner was given full additional in-charge of the post of Middle School Headmaster on 06.08.2004. While so, the petitioner made a representation dated 08.06.2008 to the respondents to pay him the salary for the post of Middle School Headmaster. 

 

5.In those circumstances, the petitioner was again given temporary promotion to the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) from the post of B.T. Assistant (Tamil) on 17.08.2009, in Government High School for the Deaf, Erode, and he was posted in Government Higher Secondary School for the Deaf at Dharmapuri. The petitioner made a representation dated 06.07.2010 to the respondents to promote him regularly to the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil). 

6.Subsequently, the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P.No.25956 of 2011 and the same was disposed of on 11.11.2011 directing the second respondent to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner. 

 

                7.Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the said writ petition, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 08.02.2012 stating that the petitioner could not be posted as P.G. Assistant in Special School, as he does not possess the requisite qualification, as prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.08.2009 and hence, he has to be reverted to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. 

 

               8.This writ petition is filed to quash the aforesaid order dated 08.02.2012 of the second respondent and for a consequential direction to the respondents to promote him as P.G. Assistant (Tamil).

 

                9.The impugned order is solely based on G.O.Ms.No.107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.08.2009. According to the respondents, the petitioner obtained degree through Distance Education Mode, without passing +2 examination, and hence, the degree obtained by him is not a valid one. Since the petitioner did not have a valid degree, the Post Graduation obtained by him also is not valid and the impugned order relies on G.O.Ms.No.116, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.08.2010.

 

                

10.It is erroneously stated in the impugned order that the petitioner passed 10th Standard (S.S.L.C). But it is not so. The petitioner passed S.S.L.C. (11 years course) that was prevalent upto 1978 and thereafter only, 10+2 stream was introduced. Prior to 1978, after passing out S.S.L.C. (11 years course), one should pass Pre-University Course for admission in a degree course. 

 

               11.The petitioner obtained Teacher Training Certificate, after he underwent two years course in Karnataka, that is treated as equal to the Secondary Grade Teacher Training Certificate. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.242, Higher Education Department, dated 18.12.2012 stating that the candidates, who passed old S.S.L.C (11th Standard) and thereafter obtained Teacher Training Certificate, are eligible for admission to the degree course, as if they passed 10+2 stream. In view of the said Government Order, I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 

 

               12.At this juncture, it is also relevant to take note of the fact that so many orders were passed by this Court holding that the Teachers, who passed 10th standard and thereafter obtained Diploma in Teacher Education after undergoing two years course, it should be taken as that they passed 10+2 stream. 

13.I had an occasion to consider the similar issue in W.P.No.23595 of 2013 dated 27.08.2013. Paras 6 to 8 of the said judgment dated 27.08.2013 in W.P.No.23595 of 2013 are extracted hereunder:

"6.Paragraph 22 of the proceedings dated 13.9.2011 is extracted hereunder:

 "10+2+3 vd;w Kiwapy; gl;lk; bgw;wth;fSf;F kl;Lnk gjtp cah;t[ Kd;Dhpikg; gl;oaypy; nrh;j;J gjtp cah;t[ tH';fg;glntz;Lk;. nky;epiyg; gs;spfspy; bjhHpw;fy;tp gphptpy; Mrphpah; gapw;rp rhd;W bgw;wth;fs; +2 Mfnt fUj ntz;Lk; vd bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ. " 

7.The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the aforesaid proceedings in Na.Ka.No.12118/T1/2011 dated 13.9.2011 of the second respondent and for a direction to the respondents to treat the Diploma in Teacher Education acquired by the petitioner as equivalent to +2 examination and include the name of the petitioner at the appropriate place in the panel prepared as on 1.1.2013 for the post of B.Ed., Middle School Headmaster for Hosur Panchayat Union and for a consequential direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner as B.Ed., Middle School Headmaster with service and monetary benefits. 

8.This Court has already quashed the proceedings of the second respondent dated 13.9.2011 in Writ Petition Nos.28100 and 28101 of 2012 by order dated 17.10.2012 (R.Venkatachalamurthy Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and others). Paragraph 3 of the order dated 17.10.2012 is extracted hereunder:

"3.Mr.R.Saseetharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that +2 course should be considered equivalent to Diploma in Teacher Education. Admittedly, the petitioners have got Diploma in Teacher Education after completing 10th Standard. After completing Diploma in Teacher Education, they had undergone 3 years Degree course. Thus, according to the petitioners, they are eligible for promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster. In this regard the learned counsel has produced a copy of the order passed by this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.25432/2011 batch in M.Valarmathi V. State of Tamil Nadu and others wherein by the order dated 2.7.2012, while considering the very same question, a learned Judge has taken a view that the Diploma in Teacher Education Course should be equated to +2 course. Therefore, those who have studied 10th Standard and then Diploma in Teacher Education and thereafter, 3 years Degree course are eligible for promotion, provided they have got B.Ed., degree also. The petitioners do have the said qualification. Therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for such promotion."

                14.In the light of G.O.Ms.No.242, Higher Education Department, dated 18.12.2012 and the judgment dated 27.08.2013 in W.P.No.23595 of 2013, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and accordingly the same is quashed. The writ petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to promote the petitioner as P.G. Assistant (Tamil) as per the earlier order dated 17.08.2009, with all benefits. If the pay of P.G. Assistant was not given already, the respondents are directed to pay the same, pursuant to the earlier order dated 17.08.2009, from the date of promotion as P.G. Assistant, until his retirement on 30.04.2014. The respondents are further directed to settle the arrears of salary for P.G. Assistant, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 

16.04.2014

Index : Yes 

Internet : Yes 

Note : Issue order copy on 29.04.2014

TK

To

1.The Principal Secretary 

   Department of Differently Abled

   Fort St. George,

   Secretariat,

   Chennai - 600 009.

2.The State Commissioner for the 

       Differently Abled

   Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road,

   K.K.Nagar, 

   Chennai - 600 078. 

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.

TK

  W.P.NO.13060 OF 2012

16.04.2014