✦ High Court of India · 11 Sep 2024

High Court · 2024

Case Details High Court of India · 11 Sep 2024

Court

High Court of India

Decided

11 Sep 2024

Bench

Not available

Length

1,536 words

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India

W.P.No.23510 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 11.09.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESHW.P.No.23510 of 2024and WMP No.25710 of 2024 M.Manimegalai ... Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Commissioner Employment and Training Guindy Chennai-32.2.The Principal Government Industrial Training Institute Dharmapuri District. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in connection with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No.1171/A/2020 dated 27.6.2024 and to quash the same and further direct the respondents to retire the petitioner from service by considering the earlier declaration of probation and to settle the benefits within reasonable time and grant such other further relief.1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23510 of 2024For Petitioner : Mr.S.SivakumarFor Respondents : Mr.M.Bindran Additional Government Pleader ORDER This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 27.06.2024 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to retire from service by considering the earlier declaration of probation made in favour of the petitioner and to settle all the monetary and service benefits.2.The case of the petitioner is that after completion of Higher Secondary Course, the petitioner completed both Lower and Higher Grade in Tamil and English Typewriting. The petitioner also registered her name in the Employment Exchange. She also obtained a diploma in Computer Application.3.The petitioner was considered for appointment to the post of Typist. She joined in that post in the year 2010. G.O.Ms.No.130 dated 22.07.2008 was brought into force whereby, a candidate is expected to pass in certificate course in Computer on Office Automation (COA) awarded by the Technical Education. The probation will normally be declared only if a person clears this certificate course.2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23510 of 20244.The very same Government Order also provide that there are some exceptions available to persons who are aged over 50 years or having completed 25 years of qualifying service and they are exempted from certificate course. The petitioner made a request by pointing out to this Government Order since the petitioner had crossed 50 years. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent through proceedings dated 30.11.2015, declared the probation with effect from 03.06.2014.5.Thereafter, the petitioner made a request to the 2nd respondent to upgrade her as a selection grade Typist and the same was pending. There was also an objection made by the audit department regarding the non-granting of selection grade to the petitioner.6.The grievance of the petitioner is that two days before her date of superannuation, the impugned proceedings dated 27.06.2024, came to be issued and declaration of probation made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the petitioner was relieved from service. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.7.When the writ petition came up for hearing on 13.08.2024, this Court directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to take written instructions as to 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23510 of 2024why such an extreme step was taken against the petitioner two days prior to the date of superannuation. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be posted today under the caption “for orders”.8.The learned Additional Government Pleader produced the written instructions received from the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has taken a stand that as per Section 31(1) the petitioner has to pass the prescribed test within the period of probation. However, the petitioner did not clear the certificate course in COA. Hence, an opportunity was given to the petitioner and her probation that period was extended up to 26.11.2016. Inspite of the same, the petitioner failed to clear the departmental test. As per Section 31(4), the maximum period of probation can be extended to acquire the test qualification is fixed as five years. If the qualification is not acquired within this period, the probation is liable to be terminated. In view of the same, a stand has been taken that the probation that was declared by the 2nd respondent on 30.11.2015, was not as per rules and therefore, the probation of the petitioner was terminated through impugned proceedings dated 27.06.2024. Accordingly, the respondents have sought for the dismissal of this writ petition.9.The short issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 27.06.2024, is liable to be interfered by this 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23510 of 2024Court.10.The petitioner was selected and appointed as Typist with effect from 26.11.2010. The probation period is for two years. The petitioner is expected to clear the certificate course in COA. The relevant provision viz., Section 31(1) provides that the candidate is expected to clear the test within the period of probation or within the extended period of probation. Section 31(4) provides for the maximum period upto which the probation can be extended. If the person appointed by direct recruitment has not cleared the test even within the maximum period of five years, his probation shall be terminated.11.In the case in hand, the petitioner was regularised in service by proceedings dated 01.03.2014. Thereafter, the probation was extended for three years through proceedings dated 02.04.2014. Admittedly, the petitioner did not clear the certificate course in COA. 12.At this juncture, this Court must take note off G.O.Ms.No.130 dated 22.07.2008. This Government Order prescribes the computer qualification for Typist. Clause (iv) specifically provides that persons who are aged over 50 years or have completed 25 years of qualifying service can be exempted from passing the Certificate Course conducted by the Directorate of Technical Education.5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23510 of 202413.In the case of the petitioner, this Government Order was taken note by the 2nd respondent while issuing the proceedings dated 30.11.2015. The relevant portion in the said proceedings dated 30.11.2015, is extracted hereunder: ghh;it 7?y; fhq[k; jpUkjp/vk;/kzpnkfiy. jl;lr;rh; mth;fspd; tpz;zg;gj;jpy; jw;nghJ jhd; 50 taJ fle;J tpl;ljhft[k; murhiz vz;/13 gh;rdy; kw;Wk; eh;thf rPh;jpUj;jj;Jiw ehs; 22/07/2008?id Kd;dpWj;jp office Automation njh;t[ vGJtjpypUe;J tpyf;F mspj;J jFjpfhz; gUtk; Koj;jjhf Miz tH';fpLkhW nfhug;gl;lijj; bjhlh;e;J.mt;thnw murhiz vz;/13 gh;rdy; kw;Wk; eh;thf rPh;jpUj;jj;Jiw ehs; 22/07/200?d;go jdpah; 50 taij fle;j epiyapy; Director of Technical Education K:yk; elj;jg;gLk; office Automation njh;tpy; njh;r;rp bgWtjpypUe;J tpyf;F mspf;fg;gl;Ls;sgoahy; ,th; jdJ gzpapy; njh;e;j ehs; Kjy; jFjpfis gUtk; ,uz;lhz;Lfs; vd;gjhy; jkpH;ehL khepy kw;Wk; rhh;epiy gzpfSf;fhd bghJ tpjp vz;/27(gp)apd;go 03/06/2014 K/g Kjy; jFjpfhz; gUtj;jpid jpUg;jpfukhf Koj;jjhf fUjg;gLfpwhh;/6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23510 of 202414.It is clear from the above that the 2nd respondent took into consideration the fact that the petitioner has crossed the age of 50 and therefore granted the exemption from clearing the test and probation was declared.15.The petitioner would have attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2024. While so, on 27.06.2024, the impugned proceedings came to be issued by the 2nd respondent by cancelling the probation and terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Typist.16.The impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent is liable to be interfered by this Court for the simple reason that the declaration of probation had taken place on 30.11.2015, by relying upon G.O.Ms.No.130 dated 22.07.2008 and if according to the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled for declaration of probation, nothing prevented the respondents to issue a proper notice to the petitioner when the petitioner was in service and give an opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter, pass an order. For some curious reason, the 2nd respondent waits till the end of the service of the petitioner and two days before the date of superannuation, the present order has been passed by the 2nd respondent. The order passed by the 2nd respondent is in violation of principles of natural justice since the right that was acquired by the petitioner by virtue of the proceedings dated 30.11.2015, has been taken away and it 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23510 of 2024has resulted in civil consequences. Therefore, such an adverse order could not have been passed without putting the petitioner on notice.17.The respondent has also taken a stand that the earlier order dated 30.11.2015 was not in accordance with rules. This stand taken by the 2nd respondent may not be sustainable since the 2nd respondent specifically placed reliance upon Clause (iv) of G.O.Ms.No.130 dated 22.07.2008 and granted exemption to the petitioner and declared the probation of the petitioner. Therefore, the 2nd respondent after having passed such an order, cannot turn around at the end of the tenure of the petitioner and reverse the earlier order passed on 30.11.2015.18.In the light of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 27.06.2024 and accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. In view of the same, the petitioner is deemed to have continued in service and had retired after reaching the age of superannuation on 30.06.2024. As a consequence, the petitioner is entitled for all the service and monetary benefits including retirement benefits. The necessary consequential orders shall be passed by the 2nd respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23510 of 202410.In the result, this writ petition stands allowed with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.11.09.2024Index : Yes/NoNeutral Citation : Yes/NoSpeaking Order : Yes /NoKPTo1.The Commissioner Employment and Training Guindy, Chennai-32.2.The Principal Government Industrial Training Institute Dharmapuri District. 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23510 of 2024N.ANAND VENKATESH. J.,KP W.P.No.23510 of 202411.09.202410/10

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Constitution of India