BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated:- 12.12.2011 Coram:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.RAJA Writ Petition (MD) No.8660 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 and Contempt Petition (MD) No.560 of 2011 W.P. (MD) No.8660 of 2011 A.Duraisamy ... Petitioner vs. 1. The District Educational Officer, Office of the District Educational Officer, Karur,Karur District. 2. The Director of School Education, Office of the Director of School Education, College Road,Chennai-6. 3. The Head Master, Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Karur, Karur District. 4. The State rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Educational Department, Secretariat, Chennai. ... Respondents Contempt Petition No.560 of 2011 A.Duraisamy ... Petitioner vs. 1. C.Jeyalakshmi The District Educational Officer, Office of the District Educational Officer, Karur, Karur District. 2. O.Chandra, The Headmaster, Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Karur, Karur District. ... Respondents Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issuance a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent Na.Ka.No.2256/A1/2010 dated 28.07.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to serve as Junior Assistant in any one of the Government Higher Secondary School. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Contempt Petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to deal with the respondents for their wilful and deliberate disobedience to the order dated 03.08.2011 in MP (MD) No.1 of 2011 in WP MD No.8660 of 2011 to grant interim stay of the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.2256/A1/2010 dated 28.07.2011 pending disposal of WP.8660/2011. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Lakshmanan For Respondents : Mrs.S.Bharathi,Government Advocate COMMON ORDER The petitioner herein seeks to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of R-1, the District Educational Officer, Karur, in Na.Ka. No.2256/A1/2010, dated 28.07.2011, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to serve as Junior Assistant in any one of the Government Higher Secondary Schools. The petitioner has also filed Contempt Petition No.560 of 2011 against the respondents therein alleging that they disobeyed the interim order passed by this Court on 03.08.2011 in MP (MD) No.1 of 2011 in WP (MD) No.8660 of 2011. 2. The name of the petitioner was sponsored for employment by the Employment Exchange and, on 08.02.1989, he was appointed as Office Assistant in the Education Department. The petitioner, who failed in the Old pattern SSLC of 11 years, joined +1 and then passed +2 in September, 1982. Thereafter, he completed B.A. in October, 1989, M.A. in December, 1999 and B.Ed. in May, 2000, after obtaining due sanction from the Office. In the meantime, he was promoted as Lab Assistant in 1994 and thereafter, further promoted to the post of Junior Assistant on 02.12.2010. While so, a show cause notice, dated 27.05.2011, was served on him by the Education Department seeking explanation as to why he should not be de-promoted to the post of Lab Assistant on the ground that he does not possess minimum educational qualification of SSLC. The petitioner, by reply dated 06.06.2011, submitted a detailed explanation stating that he had possessed the minimum educational qualification viz., +2, as on the date of his entry into service and also highlighted that, based on the said qualification, after obtaining due permission from the office, he completed higher studies viz., B.A., M.A. And B.Ed. The first respondent, however, disagreed with the explanation and passed the impugned order, de-promoting the petitioner as Lab Assistant. On the ground that the authorities have completely misread the case of the petitioner and erroneously concluded that he did not possess the minimum qualification, the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order stating that in very many Departments of the Government, persons similarly placed like him, continue to serve with due promotions and other service benefits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that, admittedly, the petitioner failed in the Old SSLC examination in 1976-77, however, he privately wrote +1 and +2 and again, he failed. He was successful in the +2 examination in 1982 and therefore, when he joined the service as O.A. on 08.02.1989, he was not having the minimum educational qualification viz., pass in the Old SSLC. Therefore, according to her, the impugned order does not call for any interference. 4. Even at the outset, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances involved herein, it must be stated that the action of the respondents in de-promoting the petitioner does not stand to any logic or fairness. It is seen that the petitioner, after being unsuccessful in the Old Pattern SSLC of 11 years, did not straight away apply and appear for the +2 examinations. Both the impugned order as well as the show cause notice clearly reflect that he joined +1 directly in the Government Higher Secondary School at Lalpet and thereafter, in +2, he was not successful in the examination held in April, 1980, however, he completed +2 in the examinations held in September, 1982. Admittedly, the petitioner does not belong to new SSLC pattern of 10 years, but he belonged to 11 year stream of Old SSLC and, as mentioned above, after joining 11th Standard by getting admission in a Government School, in +2, though he was unsuccessful in the first instance, later, he successfully completed the course as a private candidate. Though the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents much highlighted letter No.42/83-1 which states that , “ even though the persons who have failed in the 11 year pattern of SSLC are made eligible for admission to first year of Higher Secondary Course by the orders of Education Department they are not considered to be possessing minimum educational qualification for appointment in the public service.”, in my view, the said letter, which is dated 17.01.1988, will in no way advance the case of the respondents at this remote point of time. Admittedly, the petitioner successfully completed his +2 during September, 1982, ie., much prior to the said letter. That is why, when the name of the petitioner was sponsored through the Employment Exchange in the year 1989, despite existence of the above referred letter at that time, the Education Department did not object for appointment of the petitioner as Office Assistant. Therefore, the appointment order, dated 08.02.1989, of the petitioner vis-a-vis the above said letter dated 17.01.1988, would make the position very clear that +2 qualification held by the petitioner at the relevant time was accepted by the Education Department as the minimum educational qualification and further, acting on the same, the Department admittedly permitted him to pursue higher studies and also granted promotion upto the post of Junior Assistant. The petitioner also vigorously pursued all the higher studies and earned a couple of degrees and shown him to be a good academician. That being the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ position, at this point of time, when the petitioner is at the middle of his 50s and enjoying the fruits of promotion, depriving such privilege on the flimsy and self-assumed ground is wholly unwarranted and it only depicts the narrow-mindedness and complete unfairness with which the authorities acted in the case. 5. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order is wholly unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the Writ Petition is ordered as prayed for. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. In view of the said order, this court does not desire to go into the contempt petition filed by the petitioner except directing the respondents/authorities to pass necessary orders, forthwith restoring the position of the petitioner as Junior Assistant in the Government School wherein he was working and, if no vacancy is available there, in any other Government School in the vicinity. Consequently, the Contempt Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Educational Officer, Office of the District Educational Officer, Karur, Karur District. 2. The Director of School Education, Office of the Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-6. 3. The Head Master,Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Karur, Karur District. 4. The Principal Secretary,School Educational Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 5.Mrs.C.Jeyalakshmi The District Educational Officer, Office of the District Educational Officer, Karur, Karur District. 6. O.Chandra, The Headmaster, Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Karur, Karur District. +1cc to Mr.Lakshmanan, Advocate, Sr.No.43268 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No.43478 Order in WP(MD) No.8660/2011 & Cont. Petn. (MD) No.560/11 JI/SMA/28.12.2011/9C/4P 12.12.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/