S RAJAMANI Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the case of the Petitioner that he studied upto 11th standard (Old S.S.L.C) and was appointed as Drawing Master in the year 01.07.1980. It was a regular appointment due to the retirement of another teacher. The audit objected to the payment of salary as Secondary Grade Teacher to the Petitioner citing G.O. Ms. No. 1366, Education Department dated 05.08.1996, by which the minimum qualification for Drawing Master was SSLC, which has not been completed by the Petitioner. Therefore, he made a representation on 13.05.2008 to fix the salary. Earlier, he filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD). No. 6226 of 2009 for a direction to the Respondents therein to consider his representation dated 30.05.2008. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court dated 15.07.2009. Pursuant to that, the present impugned order dated 19.10.2009 is passed, whereby, the Petitioner's request to exempt from from passing SSLC has been declined on the ground that as per G.O. Ms. No. 1366, Education Department, he has not completed his SSLC within the prescribed period of three years.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would only contend that the said Government Order fixing qualification can always only be prospective and it cannot be retrospective since he was appointed way back in the year 1980. The Government Order itself was implemented in the year 1986, cannot be cited as against him at this length of time. In this connection, he submits that the issue in question is squarely covered by a decision reported in the case of R. Sankaran v. the Secretary, Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort. St. George, Chennai-600 009 and Ors. reported in 2004 WLR 204. Following that, a latest judgment was also passed by this Court in W.P(MD). No. 9454 of 2010 dated 30.07.2010.

(3.) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the third Respondent stating that G.O. Ms. No. 1366, Education Department, would categorically indicate that the appointment is not become invalid, whereas, the appointees who have not got the eligible criteria was granted three years time to acquire the prescribed qualification. Therefore, within the prescribed period of three years, the Petitioner has not acquired the qualification. Hence, the scale of pay which has been paid wrongly to the Petitioner was ordered to be stopped and the audit department rightly made their objections in this regard. Therefore, the impugned order is valid in law.