CoramTHE HONOURABLE MR v. The Joint Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai-2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDate : 14.12.2007CoramTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAOANDTHE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.SUGUNAW.P. No.26939 of 2003andW.P.M.P.No.32906 of 2003M.Gowri AmmalPetitionervs.1. The Joint Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai-2. 2. The Director of Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 3. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, City Civil Court Complex, Chennai 600 104. RespondentsWrit Petition praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarifiedmandamus calling for records pertaining to (1) the order of Honourable Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunaldated 5.8.2003 in O.A.No.701 of 1991 and(2) Memo No.2443/H7/89 dated 24.1.1992 of the Joint Secretary,Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the first respondent hereinand quash both the orders and consequently to direct therespondents to allow the petitioner to continue to work as Typistin the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department with allattendant monetary benefits.For petitioner : Mr.R.Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel for M/s. K.V. Srinivasaragavan For R1 : Mr.A.ArulFor R2 : Mrs.Geetha Thamaraiselvan, G.A. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER(Order of the court was made by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.)The petitioner is aggrieved of the order passed by theTribunal dismissing the application filed by the petitioner againstthe order of cancellation of her provisional selection and deletionof her name from the approved list of Typist in the Tamil NaduMinisterial Service on 24.1.1992. 2. The petitioner's application was cancelled for recruitmentto the post of Typist/Steno-Typist included in Group IV services1989 as in column 5(a) of her application it was mentioned that shestudied B.A. III year of Open University, Madras and that on thedate of her application, she did not pass B.A. Degree examinationin full. But, her application was admitted provisionallyconsidering that the II year Foundation Course examination passedby her is equivalent to the PUC examination of the MadrasUniversity. But, when it was sought for clarification from theRegistrar of Madras University as to whether passing of first andsecond year Foundation Course of B.A. Degree examination of MadrasUniversity in correspondence course after passing the II yearcourse of SSLC can be considered as equivalent to PUC Examination,it was replied by the Madras University that a pass in the Firstand Second Year Foundation Courses of B.A. Degree examination ofthe Madras University cannot be considered as equivalent to a passin the Pre-University Course Examination. Therefore, consideringthat she was not having the qualification viz., P.U.C or H.S.C.,a qualification higher than the minimum general educationalqualification and therefore, exceeded the age limit of 30 years ason 1.7.1989 prescribed for the post. Therefore, her provisionalselection as Typist in the Unit of Director of Adi-Dravidar andTribal Welfare, Madras was cancelled and her name as been deletedfrom the approved list of Typist in the Tamil Nadu MinisterialService. 3. Aggrieved of the above, the Original Application was filedcontending as follows:- The petitioner belongs to the BackwardClass. The petitioner passed her SSLC Examination in the year 1974with 59%. Subsequently, she joined the Correspondence Course ofMadras University for obtaining B.A. Degree. She wrote the TNPSCGroup IV Examination for the post of Typist in Tamil NaduMinisterial Service on 29.12.1989. Thereafter, it was intimated bythe Tamilnadu Public Service Commission (the Commission in short)to the petitioner through proceedings dated 28.4.1990 that her namewas provisionally selected for the post of Typist in the Department https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare. Thereafter, appointment orderwas issued on 22.5.1990 as Typist temporarily in the Adi Dravidarand Tribal Welfare Department in the timescale pay of Rs.950-1660and she was posted as Typist in the Government Adi Dravidar WelfareHigh School, Elathoor, Arakkonam Taluk. Thereafter, by memo dated22.8.1990, the Under Secretary to the Commission directed thepetitioner to send her original mark sheets to prove that shepassed her second year Foundation Course in B.A. Degree on orbefore 15.9.1990 failing which her selection for the post of Typistwill be cancelled without further notice. A reply was given by thepetitioner through letter dated 6.9.1990 with the originalcertificates in respect of three year B.A. Degree course.Thereafter, her services were regularised vide proceedings dated31.12.1991 from 25.5.1990 as Typist. But, the petitioner wasinformed that she has to undergo probation for a period of twoyears within a continuous period of three years and her senioritywill be fixed by separate orders. Whileso, the petitionerreceived a communication on 24.1.1992 from the Commission statingthat her provisional selection as Typist in the unit of Director ofAdi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare is cancelled and her name isdeleted from the approved list of Typists in the Tamil NaduMinisterial Service on the ground that passing the Second YearB.A. Degree course from Madras University Foundation Course is notequivalent to PUC or HSC as stated by the Registrar of Universityand thus she did not possess the higher qualification than theminimum qualification and thereby exceeded the age limit prescribedfor backward class.4. It was contended before the Tribunal that the order isarbitrary, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution ofIndia. It was further contended that at the time of submission ofapplication to the Commission in the year 1989, the petitioner hadcompleted the three year B.A. Degree in Correspondence Course inMadras University and the above facts were mentioned in theapplication through her letter dated 6.9.1990 and on the basis ofthe above, she was allowed to write the examination and thereafter,she was provisionally selected and intimated on 22.5.1990, and shejoined duty as Typist. Therefore, when she has got the B.A.Degree, the required educational qualification, she is entitled tothe benefits under rule 12(d) of the General Rules for the TamilNadu State and Subordinate Services, viz., 2 years relaxation inage limit prescribed for the persons belonging to backward class.As on the date of submission of her application to the above post,she crossed 30 years and therefore, she is entitled to relaxationfor two years. 5. The Tribunal held that there is exemption of age limit forthe persons belonging to backward class provided they have higherqualification than the minimum qualification prescribed for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ post. The minimum educational qualification is SSLC. The applicanthad passed SSLC and completed 30 years as on 1.7.1989. Therefore,she ought to have acquired the educational qualification higherthan the minimum qualification to claim the relaxation of the agelimit. But, she acquired B.A. Degree examination in the year 1990.Therefore, on the date of notification, viz., 1.7.1989, she hadstudied second year B.A and therefore, pass in second year B.A isnot higher qualification than the minimum required qualification ofSSLC. Therefore, the Tribunal held that cancellation ofprovisional selection of the petitioner and deletion of her namefrom the approved list is perfectly in order. Against which thepresent writ petition is filed. 6. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and thecounsel appearing for the respondents. 7. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for thepetitioner that when once the Commission has accepted theapplication of the petitioner even though it was mentioned in theapplication in column 5(a) that she passed second year B.A. Degreeexamination from Madras University under Correspondence Course,allowed her to sit for the examination, included her name in theprovisional selection list, appointed as Typist and thereafterregularised her services with a condition to complete the probationwithin a period of two years within three years, terminating herservices on the ground that by mistake, they considered the pass insecond year B.A. Degree is equivalent to PUC and when they gotclarification from the Registrar, Madras University that passingsecond year is not equivalent to PUC or HSC, is contrary to law.Therefore, the Tribunal has committed illegality in dismissing theOriginal Application. 8. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that as on24.1.1991, the petitioner had acquired the higher qualificationwhereas she joined the service in 1990, but, as per ProvisionalCertificate dated 22.10.1990, she passed B.A. Degree course held inMay 1990 and hence, the benefit provided under Rule 12(d) of theGeneral Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services isavailable for the petitioner to claim the two years age relaxationshe being a candidate belonging to backward class. Therefore, theorder passed by the Tribunal is liable to be dismissed. 9. The respondent filed their counter affidavit stating thatthe petitioner submitted her application to the Commission on17.4.1989 for admission to the competitive examination forrecruitment to the post of Typist included in Group IV servicespursuant to the Commission's notification dated 7.3.1989. It wasmentioned in the application that she has passed SSLC and studiedB.A. Degree third year under Open University System in Madras https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ University and she also possesses technical qualification ofTypewriting and also belongs to backward class. It is furthercontended in the counter that the petitioner exceeded the minimumage limit of 30 years on 1.7.1989. According to Rule 12(d) of theGeneral Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services forthe Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, the age limitprescribed shall not be applicable to candidates belonging tobackward class who have acquired a qualification higher than theminimum general educational qualification. 10. On consideration of the above facts and circumstances ofthe case, the contention of the respondents is that the petitionerhas misrepresented her educational qualification as on the date ofsubmission of application on 17.4.1989. On the other hand, takinginto consideration the passing of the second year B.A. Degreethrough Correspondence Course as equivalent to PUC she waspermitted to sit for written examination. Her name was alsoincluded in the provisional list and thereafter she was appointed.Subsequently her services were regularised with a condition thatshe has to complete two years probation within three years. In themeanwhile, on the reply from the Registrar, Madras University for aquery that passing second year B.A. Degree is not equivalent to PUCand on the ground that she crossed 30 years on the date ofapplication, the Commission came to the conclusion that thepetitioner is over-aged on the date of making application and thebenefit of relaxation of age limit is not applicable to the case ofthe petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order came to be passed. 11. We are of the view that the respondents have not properlyconsidered rule 12(d) before passing the impugned order. As statedearlier, in 12(2)(d), relaxation of age limit to the backwardclass is provided if they acquire more qualification than theminimum required qualification for the post of Typist. Though thepetitioner has stated in her application that she appeared for thethird year examination through Correspondence Course from MadrasUniversity, as on the date of cancellation of her provisionalselection, she had acquired the B.A. Degree and she was appointedwith a condition to undergo probation for two years within aperiod of three years. Thereafter, her services were regularisedTherefore, she is entitled to two years relaxation from theprescribed age limit of 30 years. 12. Therefore, we hold that the respondents have not properlyapplied rule 12(d) proviso 2 to the facts and circumstances of thecase and passed the impugned order which is liable to be set aside.Accordingly, it is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. In thefacts and circumstances of the case, no costs. In view of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ setting aside of the order of cancellation of appointment of thepetitioner, she is deemed to have continued her services from thedate of cancellation and entitled to all benefits. The connectedMiscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.ssk.To1. The Joint Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai-2. 2. The Director of Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 3. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, City Civil Court Complex, Chennai 600 104. 1 cc to the Government Pleader, Sr. 745501 cc to Mr.A. Arul, Advocate, SR. 744561 cc to Mr.K.V. Srinivasaraghavan, Advocate, Sr. 74124W.P.No.26939/2003NG (CO)kk 3/1