Appellants/Respondents 1 to 4 v. Sr.S.Sagayarani,B.T. Assistant,St.Ann's High School,Thensiruvallur Post,Kal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29.04.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESANW.A.No.369/20081.State of Tamil Nadu,rep. By its Secretary,Dept. of School Education,Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.2.The Director of School Education,College Road, Chennai-600 006.3.The Chief Educational Officer,Villupuram, 605 602, Villupuram District.4.The District Educational Officer,Villupuram, 605 602,Villupuram District.... Appellants/Respondents 1 to 4vs.1.Sr.S.Sagayarani,B.T. Assistant,St.Ann's High School,Thensiruvallur Post,Kalllakurichi, Villupuram 606 2042.The Correspondent,St.Ann's High School,Thensiruvallur Post,Pukkiravari (via)Kalllakurichi,Villupuram 606 204... Respondents/Petitioner/5th Respondent For appellants : Mr.S.Rajasekar AGP (Edn.)For respondents : Mr.P.Godson SwaminathPrayer :- Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent againstthe order made in W.P.No.46530/2006 dated 05.02.2008. This WP filed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ U/Art.226 of the constitution of India praying to issue a writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to theimpugned proceedings issued by the 4th Respondent DistrictEducational Officer in O.Mu.No.4646/A3/2006 dated 12.7.2006 (refusingapproval to the appointment of the petitioner as post GraduateAssistant) quash the same, and further direct the 4th respondent togrant approval forthwith to the appointment of the petitioner as PostGraduate Assistant on the basis of the educational certificatesissued by the competent universities viz. B.A.degree,B.Ed.Degree,M.A.degree and M.Ed Degree.J U D G M E N TAruna Jagadeesan, J.This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by thelearned Single Judge in W.P.No.46530/2006, dated 05.02.2008, whereby,the impugned order of the District Educational Officer, the fourthappellant herein, refusing approval of the appointment of the firstrespondent as B.T. Assistant (Junior Grade) was set aside and thefourth Appellant was directed to pay arrears of salary and otherbenefits from 05.08.2003, the date of her appointment.2.The first respondent has passed M.A. M.Ed. degree in Englishand was appointed as B.T. Assistant (Junior Grade) in English in theGovernment Aided Minority School, the second respondent herein inthe vacancy that had arisen on account of the transfer of oneJenoviya to another school of the same management. The secondrespondent submitted proposal to the District Educational Officer,Villupuram, for approval of the appointment of the first respondent,enclosing all the educational certificates, together with mark-lists.The fourth Appellant had sent communication to the school managementon 23.07.2004 stating that the details regarding the firstrespondent's pass in higher secondary were not sufficient and furtherdirected it to produce the particulars of admission given in thecollege where she was admitted in B.A. Degree. Again on 17.08.2004,the fourth Appellant had returned the proposal of the schoolmanagement. 3.Though the first respondent took efforts to get details of heradmission from Stella Maris College, where-from she passed thedegree, she could not get the same, as those records were notpreserved beyond ten years. The first respondent had passed B.A.Degree by undertaking the course from June, 1987 to April, 1990through Stella Maris College and got B.Ed. Degree in AnnamalaiUniversity through correspondence course and passed the same in 1993with optional subjects as English and Special English. She also gotM.A. Degree from Annamalai University through correspondence coursehaving passed the same in December, 1995 and joined M.Ed. during1996-97 and passed the examination in May, 1997. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.Approval was refused on the ground that the first respondenthas not passed higher secondary (+2) examination, which is the basicqualification for getting admission for Bachelor's Degree. The firstrespondent challenged the order of said refusal on the ground thatTamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974prescribed qualification for appointment as B.T. Assistant (JuniorGrade) with B.A./B.Sc. with B.Ed./B.T. Degrees and nowhere itprescribed that there should be a pass in Higher Secondary. Further,it was submitted that she was given to understand that one shouldsecure an aggregate of 70 marks out of 200 by adding both Englishwith optional Advanced English paper and she secured admission in theregular college (Stella Maris) without any dissent. 5.The learned Single Judge held that the required qualificationas prescribed in Annexure V-A of the Tamil Nadu Recognized PrivateSchools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 and Rule 15(6-A) is only B.A./B.Sc.or its equivalent and B.T. or B.Ed. from any University in the Stateand therefore, a pass in +2 is not the required qualification asprescribed by the said rules and set aside the impugned Order of theDistrict Education Officer. The learned Judge referred to hisdecision reported in 2006 (2) MLJ 408 (B.S.Geethabai v. State ofTamil Nadu) which arose on similar facts and held that even if acandidate does not possess +2 qualification and passed B.A. and B.Ed.Degrees through Open University Stream, selection of appointmentcannot be denied on the ground that the petitioner studied B.A.(English) and B.Ed. through Open University stream of MadrasUniversity and Annamalai University respectively.6.The learned counsel for the Appellant contended that even ifthe first respondent had higher Degrees, she having not secured 70%in one subject, which is the minimum marks in the Higher SecondaryExamination, cannot be declared to have passed in higher SecondaryExamination. Therefore, as the basic qualification is lacking in hercase, no approval can be granted regarding her appointment.7.There is no dispute that to secure an admission in B.A. Degreecourse, a pass in Higher Secondary is must. In the present case, thefirst respondent while securing admission in Stella Maris College,had admittedly submitted her mark sheet along with the applicationfor admission. The said college had admitted her and she had pursuedher studies for three years and the Madras University had alsogranted B.A. Degree. It is only at the stage of getting approval ofher appointment as B.T. Assistant in a private school, the DistrictEducational Officer had raised objection with her so calledineligibility to be admitted in the Degree Course. She cannot beaccused of any fraud or misrepresentation. It was the fault on thepart of the college authorities i.e. Stella Maris College in givingadmission to the first respondent for the degree course although she https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ did not have the requisite qualifying marks as a result of which, thefirst respondent pursued her studies in B.A. Degree for three yearsand now it would not be proper to refuse approval at this stage,particularly when she was not at fault while she got admission in thesaid college. There is nothing on record to show that she projectedher higher secondary examination marks other than what she possessed.In spite of placing her statement of marks before the collegeauthorities, for some reason or the other, it had thought it fit toadmit her and the first respondent has chosen to continue in the saiddegree and now it would be inadvisable to make her suffer for thesame. It is to be noted that the college authorities would not havemissed to see the qualifying marks when she was admitted and may be,as averred by the first respondent, aggregate of English and AdvancedEnglish (optional) would have been taken into consideration, whichaspect cannot be ignored. In such a situation, even assuming that thefirst respondent had no requisite basic qualifying marks in highersecondary, her appointment cannot be disapproved, as it was thebounden duty of the college authorities to have scrutinized highersecondary certificate before admitting her to degree course.8.In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal andanother, 2009 (1) SCC 610, the Honourable Supreme Court has held,referring to its earlier pronouncements in Shri Krishnan v.Kurukshetra University, 1976 (1) SCC 311 and Sanatan Gauda v.Berhampur University, 1990 (3) SCC 23 that when the petitioner waspermitted to continue the course and has completed the course in2007, after four years, to hold that he is not entitled to admissionwill be irretrievable loss and further it would be unfair and unjustto deny the petitioner the benefit of admission, which was initiallyaccepted and recognized by the Appellant University.9.The above principle squarely applies to the facts andcircumstances of the present case. The college authorities havingaccepted higher secondary certificate of the first Respondent, andgiven her admission in B.A. Degree course, whereby she had completedher basic Degree Course and further got Post Graduate Degree in M.AM.Ed. Therefore, it would be unjust and unreasonable now to rejectapproval of her appointment on the ground that she has not passed +2examination. In such view of the matter, we see no reason tointerfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the sameis confirmed.10.In the result, the writ appeal fails and the same isdismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1/1008 is also dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11.We make it clear that owing to the peculiar facts andcircumstances of the case, it merited aforesaid consideration andthis will not be a precedent in any other case similarly situated.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrartarTo1.The Secretary,State of Tamil NaduDept. of School Education,Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.2.The Director of School Education,College Road, Chennai-600 006.3.The Chief Educational Officer,Villupuram, 605 602, Villupuram District.4.The District Educational Officer,Villupuram, 605 602,Villupuram District.5.The Correspondent,St.Ann's High School,Thensiruvallur Post,Pukkiravari (via)Kalllakurichi,Villupuram 606 204+1cc to Mr.Issac Mohanlal, Advocate Sr 18933+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 19410CK(CO)km/7.5.W.A.NO.369/2008