A S MEGANATHAN Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER NAMAKKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is directed against the order of the respondent dated 24.05.2004, by which the petitioner was relieved from the post of Village Administrative Officer.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Village Munsif of Singalandapuram Village, Rasipuram Taluk, erstwhile Salem District and now Namakkal District. It is stated that due to the abolition of the post of Village Munsif, the petitioner has lost his job on 14.11.1980. In G.O.Ms.No.1287 Revenue dated 6.7.1988, the Government directed that the ex-Village Munsifs are to be temporarily appointed as Village Administrative Officers. Since the petitioner's claim was not considered, he approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.6040 of 1992, which came to be allowed on 24.08.1993 with direction to the revenue authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner to appoint him as a Village Administrative Officer, if the petitioner is otherwise qualified by making necessary entries in the separate register on the basis of length of service. It was in those circumstances, the respondent has appointed the petitioner as a Village Administrative Officer of Pudukombai village, Namakkal Taluk on 08.10.1998, in which post he joined and was working till his date of retirement on superannuation, at the age of 58 years viz., 31.05.2004. However, 5 days before his retirement, viz., on 24.05.2004, the petitioner was relieved from service as per the impugned order on the ground that he did not possess the minimum general educational qualification. Before passing such order, the petitioner was not given any opportunity. It is stated that the petitioner has not suppressed any fact and the marks obtained by him in the S.S.L.C., examination have been disclosed and the impugned order is challenged on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, especially when the petitioner was employed for more than five years.

(3.) A reference to the S.S.L.C. certificate of the petitioner shows that in March, 1964 when he appeared for all the five papers, in Mathematics paper he got 21 marks, and subsequently, he appeared in October, 1970, in which his marks in Mathematics was 15 while in General Science, it was 30. He appeared in March 1972 supplementary examination and secured 75 marks in Mathematics. The case of the petitioner is that originally, in March, 1964, in General Science he has secured 35 marks and on the second time in October, 1970, in which as per the Regulation then existing, he was to appear in all papers and in that the General Science marks became 30 and by the time in 1972, when he wrote the supplementary examination, there was a compartmentalized system, and he wrote only Mathematics examination. Since he obtained 35 marks in General Science in March, 1964 and in Mathematics he got 75 in 1972, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time when the petitioner was given appointment, the certificate was produced and it was only after having satisfied about such certificate, and having known that originally in March, 1964 the petitioner obtained 35 marks in General Science and in March, 1972 in the supplementary examination he acquired 75 marks in Mathematics, he was appointed and therefore, there is no suppression of material facts on the part of the petitioner.