BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06/12/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P.(MD) No.10040 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.(MD) No.10743 of 2005 A.Velu ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. 2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Thanjavur. 3.The Asst. Elementary Educational Officer, Peravurani at Avanam & Post, Peravurani Taluk, Thanjavur District. ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent in Aathimu No.123/A1/2003 dated 12.12.2003 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to continue to pay the incentive increments with effect from October, 1995 to the petitioner. !For Petitioner ... Mr.V.Sitha Ranjandas ^For Respondents ... Mr.So.Paramasivam Government Advocate (CS) :ORDER
This Writ Petition has been focussed to call for the records of the third
respondent in Aathimu No.123/A1/2003 dated 12.12.2003 and to quash the same and
further to direct the respondents to continue to pay the incentive increments
with effect from October, 1995 to the petitioner.
2. Heard both sides.
3. A re’sume’ of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the
disposal of this Writ Petition would run thus:
The Writ petitioner herein, presently a retired head master, who worked in
Educational Department under Tamil Nadu Government, while he was in service it
so happened that he through Correspondence course studied B.Ed. as well as M.A.
and got both the degrees. In recognition of his acquisition of academic
qualification he was granted two incentive increments vide order dated
29.03.1993 of the Assistant Educational Officer, Peravurani, with effect from
16.11.1992. However, subsequently, the Assistant Educational Officer,
Peravurani, vide order dated 16.10.1995 cancelled the two incentive increments
i.e. 4 increments ordered in his favour on the main ground that the petitioner
completed the M.A. degree course and B.Ed. Decree course during one and the same
period of time. The petitioner preferred appeal but it was kept in cold
storage.
4. Thereupon the petitioner preferred O.A.No.865 of 1999 before the State
Administrative Tribunal, Madras. The Tribunal directed the respondents to
consider the appeal on merits and to pass orders within a period of ten weeks.
Whereupon the authority concerned rejected by his Cryptic order dated
12.12.2003 that since the Writ Petitioner had did his both the aforesaid courses
during the same period of time, no such increments could be given. Challenging
such stand taken by the third respondent this Writ Petition has been filed.
5. The point for consideration is as to whether the authorities concerned
were justified in withdrawing the two incentives ie. four increments granted in
favour of the Writ Petitioner for the reasons set out supra?
6. The learned counsel for the Writ petitioner would submit that at the
first instance the petitioner duly applied for B.Ed. course so as to under go
that course through correspondence under the Madras University Distant
Education. As he failed in one subject i.e., Psychology he completed it during
the year 1992. Even before that during August, 1989, he applied for M.A. Course
through correspondence and completed it by May 1992; the Assistant Educational
Officer, Peravurani, in recognition of that passed orders dated 29.03.1993
granting two incentives i.e., four increments, but it was subsequently withdrawn
on the main ground that the petitioner was not entitled to get increments as he
had completed the two academic courses during one and the same period.
7. Drawing the attention of this Court to the communication dated
28.10.2002 sent by the Director, Institute of Correspondence Education,
University of Madras, to the District Elementary Educational Officer, Thanjavur,
the learned counsel for the petitioner would develop his arguments to the effect
that as per the said communication there is no express embargo in undergoing two
courses simultaneously even though by way of convention it is not entertained.
An excerpt from the communication of the said Director is extracted hereunder
for ready reference:
“With reference to your letters cited, I am to inform you that there is no
specific ruling in the laws of this University preventing the students from
undergoing two courses simultaneously. However, it is only a convention not to
permit students to undergo for two different courses simultaneously in the
Institute of Correspondence Education where the requirement of required
attendance is not required.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. It is therefore clear that the petitioner has not committed any
illegality or fraud. In fact he showed academic interest and enthusiasm in
studying two courses. No doubt Courts should discourage fraudulent acts as well
as misconducts on the part of the Government Servants. But in this case the
Government Servant completed the two degree courses showing enthusiasm, and that
might have certainly helped him to perform his function as headmaster,
efficiently. In such a case, the Department could have taken a lenient view. I
could see no illegality or fraud involved in the act of the Writ Petitioner.
9. In such a case this Court could elucidate the misery of the Writ
Petitioner and accordingly quashed the order of the third respondent in Aathimu
No.123/A1/2003 dated 12.12.2003 and the Writ Petition is allowed. The
consequential arrears of pay shall be paid to the petitioner within three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The connected W.P.M.P.(MD)
No.10743 of 2005 is closed. No costs.
sj
To
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Thanjavur.
3.The Asst. Elementary Educational Officer,
Peravurani at Avanam & Post,
Peravurani Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
