High Court · 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 02..12..2009CORAMTHE HON’BLE Mr.H.L.GOKHALE, CHIEF JUSTICEandTHE HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMARW.A.No.1640 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 2009------------D.Rukmani,W/o.Ponnusamy,Sirunesalur Village,Veppur, Virudhachalam,Cuddalore District. ..Appellant/Petitioner. Vs. 1. The District Educational Officer, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District. 2. The Chief Educational Officer, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District. 3. The Head Master, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Veppur, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District. 4. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 5. The Assistant Employment Exchange Officer, Employment Exchange, Sankarapuram, Villupuram. ..Respondents/Respondents PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the LettersPatent against the order of the learned single Judge dated30.09.2009 passed in W.P.No.37605 of 2006. W.P.No.37605/2006: The Writ Petition filed underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue awrit of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records ofthe first respondent in his proeedings inNa.K.No.13740/A1/95 bdated. 24.12.1997 to quash the same https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicantinto service and to pay her all backwages and otherattendant benefits.------------ For Appellant :: Mr.Bharath ChakravarthyFor Respondents:: Mr.G.Sankaran, Spl. Govt. Pleader------------ J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon’ble the ChiefJustice) Heard Mr.Bharath Chakravarthy, learned counsel in support ofthis appeal, and Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleaderappears for the respondents. 2. This appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by a learnedsingle Judge, whereby the learned single Judge has dismissed the writpetition filed by the appellant herein. 3. The brief facts of the case are this wise: The appellant was appointed as Part Time Scavenger in aGovernment Higher Secondary School at Veppur, Cuddalore District on2nd December, 1987. Subsequently, she was appointed as Watchman on 30thApril, 1992 in the same school. On 24th November, 1997 she was servedwith a show cause notice stating that the certificate produced by herto prove her educational qualification was found to be bogus one. Thecertificate was stated to have been issued by the Headmaster of oneAsad Middle School at Mettupalayam. The appellant submitted herexplanation on 11.12.1997, which is to the following effect:- “As referred in the reference, I joined in service asScavenger in the year 1997 and was cleaning toilets. I am awidow, belonging to Adi Dravida Community. I came to thismenial job, since I could not do any other job. As requestedfor the promotion, my deceased father went to my school where Istudied upto 5th standard in my native place and obtained recordsheet from the school and sent the same along with theappointment order, educational qualification, seniority orderto the office of the District Educational Officer, through theHead Master, Government High School, Veppur. After receivingall the above documents, I was given the post of Night Watchmansympathetically. I was working from the year 1992 continuously. I wasjoined as Watchman in the year 1992 and working continuously.My Service Register was also sent within one year forregularization of my services. Therefore, I am continuouslyworking since May, 1992. I received a show cause notice dated25.11.1997 for disciplinary action from your office. I studiedin the Sirunesalur School upto 5th Standard and got promoted andall the certificates relating to my appointment, seniority https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order, eligibility certificates were already sent to youroffice. Therefore, I request your good self to kindly considerthis widow’s request sympathetically and kindly regularize meand do the needful.” The above explanation was not found to be satisfactory, andtherefore, the 1st respondent by his impugned order dated 24.12.1997removed her from service. 4. Challenging the said removal order, the appellant filed anapplication before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennaibearing O.A.No.3434 of 1998, which after the abolition of the saidTribunal came to be transferred to this Court. Earlier, the Tribunalhad granted an order of interim stay, which continued during thependency and disposal of the writ petition by a learned single Judgeof this Court. The learned single Judge who heard the matter took theview that since the certificate tendered by the petitioner/appellantat the time of her regularization was not found to be a genuine one,the impugned dismissal order passed by the first respondent could notbe disturbed, and therefore, he dismissed the writ petition. Beingaggrieved by that order, this appeal has been preferred by theappellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the onlyrequirement for the appointment to the post, which the appellantoccupies, was that the person should know how to read and write. Thatis seen from her appointment order dated 30th April, 1992 itself. Thelearned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to explain tous as to how the earlier certificate was tendered to the concernedoffice. It is, however, seen from the impugned order dated 24.12.1997passed by the 1st respondent that when the appellant submitted herexplanation, she had given her school certificate to show that shehad studied in a school at Sirunesalur, South Arcot District. Thesubmission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that thatcertificate should have been verified as to whether it was a genuineone or not, and without examining that aspect the appellant had beendismissed from service, which the learned single Judge ought not tohave accepted. We may note here that a photo copy of the saidcertificate issued by the Sirunesalur School was produced before usfor our perusal. 6. Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader, on theother hand, submitted that since the certificate tendered by theappellant at the time of her regularization was found to be a bogusone, the departmental authorities as well as the learned single Judgecould not be faulted with for the view taken by them.7. We have noted the submissions of both the learned counsel. Ascan be seen, the post in which the appellant was working was that ofa scavenger, and subsequently, that of a watchman. Appellant is awidow and at all material times her claim was that she had studied https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ upto 5th Standard. The requirement was that the person concernedshould be able to read and write. There was no dispute that she wasin a position to read and write. It appears that on some complaintsthe respondents went into the issue of genuineness of thecertificate, which was tendered by the appellant at the time of herregularization. This is after the lapse of five years. The appellantcandidly accepted before the officer concerned that the certificatewhich was in their record was not her certificate and she studied inanother school. In the said circumstances, what was expected of theofficer concerned was to find out whether she had really studied inthe school at Sirunesalur as claimed by her. Without doing that heproceeded only on the basis of the certificate which was on record,and since, that certificate was not a genuine one, he passed theimpugned order that the appellant be removed from service. In ourview, this is an erroneous approach. The defence taken by theappellant ought to have been examined properly which could have beendone only after verifying the genuineness of the certificate issuedby the Sirunesalur School. For this reason, in our view, the appealdeserves to be allowed. We allow this appeal and set aside the orderpassed by the learned single Judge and also that of the departmentalauthorities. The appellant has been continuing in service by virtueof the interim order passed earlier. She will continue in servicehereafter also. Although we are passing this order, in the event thefirst respondent is still inclined to examine this aspect, it will beopen to him, which he may do so after issuing notice to the appellantand after getting the record from the Sirunesalur School as also fromthe Employment Exchange, if he deems it necessary. However, therewill be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetition is closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrarsm Copy to:-1. The District Educational Officer, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District. 2. The Chief Educational Officer, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The Head Master, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Veppur, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District. 4. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu, Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 5. The Assistant Employment Exchange Officer, Employment Exchange, Sankarapuram, Villupuram.1 cc To M/s.SaiBharath & Ilan, Advocate, SR.656361 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.65567W.A.No.1640 of 2009.PKB (CO)SS (10.12.2009