S.Rajeswari v. School Education Chennai–600006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.3.2009CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P.No.46493 of 2006S.Rajeswari.. PetitionerVs.1. The Director of School Education Chennai–600006.2. The District Educational Officer Erode, Erode District.3. The Secretary S.S.V.Girls High School Kodumudi-638 151 Erode District. .. RespondentsPRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India forissue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the recordspertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in hisproceedings Mu.Mu.No.6022/D.1(9)/06, dated 2.9.2006, to quash thesame and to direct the respondents to approve the appointment of thepetitioner as Tamil Pandit from the date of appointment and to conferall the consequential benefits.For Petitioner:Mr.C.SelvarajuSenior Counselfor M/s.S.ManiFor Respondents:Mr.SureshGovernment Advocatefor respondents 1 and 2No appearance for 3rd respondent ORDERThe petitioner has passed her S.S.L.C. in State Board andacquired Pulavar (Tamil) Certificate, by undergoing four years coursethrough Annamalai University. She has also acquired Diploma in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Teaching Tamil through Annamalai University in 1980, which is statedto be a one year course. After registering her name in theemployment exchange in 1982, she has worked in various privateschools as Tamil Pandit. It was in the year 1997 that the petitionerwas appointed as a Tamil Pandit, on temporary basis, by the thirdrespondent/Management, which is an aided private school governed bythe Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. 2. Subsequently, when a regular vacancy to the post of TamilPandit arose due to the retirement of an incumbent on 5.5.2005, thethird respondent, after following the procedure and conducting theinterview, selected and appointed the petitioner as Tamil Pandit on30.5.2005 in the third respondent/School and she joined on 2.6.2005.The third respondent has sent a proposal for approval of appointmentof the petitioner to the second respondent. It appears that thesecond respondent, by order dated 6.1.2006, has rejected theproposal, against which the third respondent has preferred an appealbefore the Joint Director of School Education on 27.1.2006. Thefirst respondent, taking the role of the Joint Director of SchoolEducation, has passed the impugned order dated 2.9.2006, rejectingthe proposal of the third respondent/Management for approval of theappointment of the petitioner as Tamil Pandit in its school. Underthe impugned order, it is categorically admitted that the petitioneris having the following qualification:(i) SSLC Pass;(ii) Oriental Title of Annamalai University;(iii) M.A. (Tamil); and(iv) Diploma in Teaching Tamil, which is a one yearcourse.However, the rejection was on the ground that, as per the Tamil NaduRecognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules and the Annexuretherein, the petitioner ought to have obtained Pandit's TrainingCourse Certificate or Secondary Grade Training Certificate and in theabsence of either of these certificates, the petitioner was stated tobe not qualified. 3. The case of the petitioner, as submitted by the learned seniorcounsel, is that while the Pandit's Training Certificate course is asix months course, the petitioner has completed Diploma in TeachingTamil, which is one year course, from Annamalai University. He wouldalso bring to the notice of this Court that, in fact, the Government,in the earlier proceedings dated 9.6.1964, has given instructionsstating that Diploma in Teaching course of the Annamalai Universityhas to be treated as equivalent to the Pandit's Training Coursecertificate awarded by the Commissioner for Government Examination,Madras. Therefore, according to the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ senior counsel, when the Government itself clarified that Pandit'sTraining Course Certificate is equivalent to Diploma in Teachingcourse offered by the Annamalai University and inasmuch as thepetitioner is having Diploma in Teaching Tamil, the petitioner shouldbe treated as qualified. He would also rely upon a judgment of theDivision Bench of this Court dated 13.9.2007 made in W.A.No.486 of2005, wherein, under similar circumstances, the Division Bench hastaken note of the said clarification of the Government dated 9.6.1964and concluded that the Diploma in Teaching is equivalent to Pandit'sTraining Course Certificate.4. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate wouldsubmit that the decision of the Division Bench was in respect of anappointment made in the year 1988 and in the year 2003 there has beenan amendment to the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools(Regulation) Rules and as per the amendment there is change incircumstances and therefore, the judgment of the Division Bench wouldnot be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.5. I have considered the rival contentions and perused therecords.6. While, admittedly, the petitioner's qualification, asenumerated in the impugned order itself, shows that the petitionerhas undergone Diploma in Teaching Tamil in Annamalai University,which is a one year course, the short question to be considered is asto whether the said Diploma in Teaching Tamil can be treated asequivalent to that of the Pandit's Training Course Certificate, as itis required under the relevant Rules.7. It is true that before the amendment came into effect, thepost was called as Tamil Pandit and the qualification required,before the amendment, as per Annexure V framed in accordance withRule 15(6) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation)Rules was as follows:"5.Tamil Pandits (1) M.A.(Tamil) or B.A.(Tamil) or M.O.L.(Tamil) or B.O.L. (Tamil); and B.Ex., or B.T., or L.T., or Secondary Grade Training or (2) S.S.L.C. Completed; and Oriental Title of Madras, Madurai or Annamalai University; and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Pandits Training Certificate or Secondary Grade Training Certificate. (Provided that persons who have passed Pulavar Panditham Examinations of the Madurai Tamil Sangam to be held up to April 1977 only, with Pandits Training or Secondary Grade Training are also eligible for appointment as Tamil Pandits in Schools). Provided further that persons appointed as Tamil Pandit in any School prior to the 1st April, 1976 shall be eligible for appointment in any other school even after 1st April, 1976."8. After the amendment, the post is called Junior Grade TamilPandit instead of Tamil Pandit and the qualification required is asunder: "5.Junior Grade (1) B.A.(Tamil) or B.Litt TamilPandits (Tamil) or B.O.L.(Tamil); and B.Ed., or Pandits Training or Secondary Grade Training or its equivalent (2) A pass in S.S.L.C. and Oriental Title of Madras, Madurai or Annamalai University; and Pandits Training Certificate or Secondary Grade Training Certificate. Provided that persons who have passed Pulavar Panditham Examinations of the Madurai Tamil Sangam held up to April 1977 with Pandits Training or Secondary Grade Training are also eligible for appointment as Tamil Pandits in Schools)." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. A reading of the required qualifications for the Junior GradeTamil Pandits before and after the amendment makes it clear that therequirement is a pass in S.S.L.C and Oriental Title of Madras,Madurai or Annamalai University and Pandits Training Certificate orSecondary Grade Training Certificate. Even after the amended Rules,the petitioner conforms to the two requirements of passing of S.S.L.Cand Oriental Title of Annamalai University, apart from the additionalqualification of M.A. in Tamil and instead of Pandit's TrainingCourse Certificate, he is having Diploma in Teaching Tamil.Therefore, before and after the amendment of the relevant Rules,there was no much difference to distinguish the judgment of theDivision Bench of this Court.10. It is also relevant to point out, at this juncture, that theGovernment in Dir.Rc.No.2062/G2/64, dated 9.6.1964, has clearlystated that Diploma in Teaching of the Annamalai University should betreated as equivalent to the Pandit's Training Course Certificateawarded by the Commissioner, in the following words:"The Diploma in teaching of the Annamalai University betreated as equivalent to the Pandit's Training CourseCertificate awarded by the Commissioner for GovernmentExamination, Madras for purposes of appointment to postof Pandits"11. It is not the case of respondents 1 and 2 that the saiddirective issued by the Government in 1964 has been superseded by thesubsequent amendment to the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools(Regulation) Rules, especially in respect of Annexure V-A framed asper Rule 15(6-A) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools(Regulation) Rules.12. In such view of the matter, there is absolutely no difficultyto conclude that the requirement of Pandit's Training CourseCertificate should be treated as satisfied if a person is havingDiploma in Teaching of the Annamalai University. The clarificationgiven by the Government on 9.6.1964 is not only fairly reasonable,but also based on an appreciable reason that the Diploma in Teachingof Annamalai University is a course of one year duration, while thePandit's Training course certificate is of six months duration. TheGovernment has only equated a better qualified candidate with that ofthe required qualification.13. A Division Bench of this Court, presided over byP.D.Dinakaran,J. and R.Regupathi,J., by judgment dated 13.9.2007 madein W.A.No.486 of 2005 has held that, as per the said clarification ofthe Government, the Diploma in Teaching should be equated to that ofPandit's Training Course Certificate. The relevant portion of thesaid judgment reads as under: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "6.2. Even otherwise, the qualifications required to thepost of Tamil Pandit has been clearly specified inAnnexure V of Rule 15(6) of the Rules and theappellant/writ petitioner fully satisfies thequalification of the Tamil Pandit as provided underClause-I(5)(2) of Annexure V because on the date of hisappointment as Tamil Pandit, he has completed S.S.L.C.and possessed the qualification of Vidwan 2(a) Sanskritwith Tamil from Madurai University in September, 1972,B.Litt. from Madurai Kamaraj University in September,1980 and Diploma in Teaching Tamil from AnnamalaiUniversity in January, 1982, in view of the proceedingsof the Government in RC.No.2062/G2/64 dated 9.6.1964,whereunder it is clarified that the diploma in teachingof the Annamalai University be treated as equivalent tothe Pandit's Training Course Certificate awarded by theCommissioner for Government Examination, Madras, for thepurpose of appointment to post of Pandits. Therefore,the reason that weighed the first respondent, viz., thatthe appellant/writ petitioner does not even possess thequalification required to the post of Tamil Pandit, isnot correct.6.3. Once it is concluded that the appellant/writpetitioner fully satisfies the qualifications prescribedto the post of Tamil Pandit, which had already beenapproved by the educational authorities as early as in1988, there is no justification to refuse the approvalof promotion to the appellant/writ petitioner tot hepost of Head master in the third respondent school onthe erroneous ground that his appointment to the post ofTamil Pandit itself is not correct."It is, therefore, clear that the issue has been fairly settled by thejudgment of the Division Bench of this Court.14. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed andthe impugned order of the first respondent dated 2.9.2006 is setaside, with a direction to the first respondent to grant approval tothe proposal of appointment of the petitioner as Tamil Pandit in thethird respondent/ School with effect from the date of her https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appointment, with all other benefits, and such order shall be passedby the first respondent within a period of four weeks from the dateof receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently,M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2006 are closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.sasiTo:1. The Director of School Education Chennai–600006.2. The District Educational Officer Erode, Erode District.+ 1 CC To Mr.S.Mani, Advocate SR NO.9572+ 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO.9433W.P.No.46493 of 2006BVN {CO}TP/30.3.2009.