IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.1.2009
C O R A M :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
W.P.No.11546 of 1999
S.Devi .. Petitioner
-vs-
1. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by
Secretary to Government,
Department of Education,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. Chief Educational Officer,
Office of the District Educational
Officer, Erode.
3. The Director,
O/o.The Directorate of Teachers'
Education, Research and Training,
Chennai-600 006. .. Respondents
(R3 impleaded as per order of Court
dated 15.12.2003 in WPMP.1532/2000)
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records from the third respondent relating to his proceedings in O.M.No.265/04/98, dated 27.2.1999, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner on par with other candidates eligible for appointment as Secondary grade (Middle Level) Teacher.
For petitioner :: Ms.P.V.Rajeswari
For respondents :: Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya, AGP
*****
O R D E R
Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the 3rd respondent dated 27.2.1999 wherein by which the third respondent refused to evaluate the Karnataka Teacher Training Certificate produced by the petitioner on par with the educational qualification prescribed by the State Government. The writ petition was admitted on 7.7.1999. This court in the same day, directed one post of Secondary Grade Teacher to be kept vacant until further orders. Subsequently, the said direction came to be made absolute on 13.10.1999. On behalf of the second respondent, a counter affidavit dated 6.9.1999 had been filed.
3. The petitioner had passed S.S.L.C. Examination in 1990 and secured 329 out of 500 marks. Subsequently, she had also passed H.Sc. Course and secured 588 out of 1200 marks. Thereafter she wrote an improved examination in September 1992. After writing the examination, she had secured 599 out of 1200 marks . The petitioner joined Noori Teacher Training Institute, Andersonpet, Kolar, Karnataka State during 1992-94. She had secured a first class in May 1994 in the Teachers’ Certificate Examination conducted by the Karnataka Secondary Examination Board. She had also registered her name with the District Employment Exchange, Erode on 13.8.1994. Her Registration Number is W/H520/94. The petitioner’s name was sponsored for the post of Middle Level Teacher, the second respondent by a letter dated 2.12.1998, invited the petitioner for an interview to be held on 16.12.1988.
4. After perusal of our records, the petitioner was informed by a communication dated 27.2.1999 that since she had secured less than 60% which is the minimum mark required for joining a Teacher Training Course, the same will not be treated on par with the certificate issued by the State Government. The petitioner sent a representation pointing out that two of her batch-mates Mr.Chinna Raja and Ms.Puviarasi were selected for the posts of Middle Level Teachers and are working at Coimbatore and Kollathur respectively. Since she did not get any reply, she had filed the present writ petition.
5. In the counter affidavit, the second respondent had stated the petitioner’s certificate can be evaluated only if she had secured 50% of the mark in the qualifying examination and since she had not secured 50% of the marks in the Higher Secondary examination, her certificate cannot be evaluated. For this purpose, reliance was placed upon the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.772 Education, dated 25.5.1987, the Government letter dated 8.5.1987 as well as the proceedings of the Director of School Education dated 27.5.1987.. Even in the subsequent Government order dated 22.12.1987, the candidates who had passed Teacher Training certificate after studying 10th standard will be considered for evaluation only up to the year 1987-1988 subsequently, from the year 1987-88 onwards the candidates must possess H.Sc., school leaving certificate and since the petitioner in the Higher Secondary Examination during March 1982 and had secured only 588/1200 and as it is less than 50%, her certificate cannot be evaluated .
6. However, Ms.P.V.Rajeswari, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the S.S.L.C. Examination she had secured 66% and on the basis of improvement marks in the H.Sc., examination, she had secured 49.66%. If that is rounded off to 50%, then she is eligible to get her certificate evaluated. She also brought to the notice of this court that the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.906, Education Department dated 16.6.1987 wherein, the minimum education qualification required for admission to diploma course in teacher education was only a mere pass in the H.Sc., examination. She also placed further reliance upon G.O.Ms.No.1251, Education dated 14.12.1992 wherein, the Government has issued the revised procedure for appointment of Secondary Grade Teachers in the schools in Tamil Nadu. In para 3 and 3.1 of the said order, it is directed as follows:
“The Government have carefully examined the proposal of the Director of School Education and have decided to accept it. Accordingly, the Government directed the following procedure should be adopted in the matter of selection of Secondary Grade Teachers and Specialist Teachers on similar grade and scales of pay in Government/Municipal and Panchayat Union schools with immediate effect.
(i) All candidates who possess the Diploma in Teacher Education awarded by the competent Board of examinations including those of other States shall be permitted to appear for Screening Test to be conducted by the Director of Government Examinations subject to the condition that they should possess minimum General Educational Qualification prescribed by the Government of Tamil Nadu for admission to two year Diploma in teacher Education Course viz., Xth standard for those admitted to the course prior to the academic year 1987-1988 and XII standard for those admitted to the course from the academic year 1987-88 onwards.
In the light of the subsequent orders passed by the Government, the learned counsel for the petitioner alternatively submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get her Teacher Training Certificate evaluated.
7. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well merited. When once the State permit the improvement marks to be considered for all practical purposes as the mark to which a candidate is entitled to possess, the petitioner having got 596 out of 1200 which is 49.66% it can be considered as equal to 50% . Even otherwise, by the subsequent orders of the State Government , the minimum marks eligible for admission to diploma course in Teacher Training having been reduced to a mere pass in the H.Sc. Examination., the petitioner is entitled to get her certificate evaluated by the third respondent.
8. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands allowed the impugned order of the second respondent dated 27.2.1999 stands set aside. Since the rejection of the certificate by the respondents was only on the ground that she did not have minimum eligibility marks to enter in to a Teacher training course, the Teacher Training Certificate produced by the petitioner is to be treated as equivalent to of the certificate given by the State Government.
9. As this court had already reserved to be kept vacant pending the out come of the writ petition, the respondents are directed to give an appointment order to the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in any one of the schools run under their control. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Department of Education,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Office of the District Educational
Officer, Erode.
3. The Director,
O/o.The Directorate of Teachers’
Education, Research and Training,
Chennai 600 006