KUPPUSAMY Vs. COMMISSIONER, GUZILIAMPARAI PANCHAYAT UNION (REGULAR)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. The deceased appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.138 of 1995 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedasandur, against the respondent for declaration and injunction. The trial Court, after the trial, decreed the suit filed by the deceased appellant/plaintiff. Against which, the respondent/defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.53 of 1999 before the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul. After hearing the appeal, the Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Against which, the deceased appellant/plaintiff has filed the second appeal raising the following substantial questions of law before this Court:

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the deceased appellant/ plaintiff would submit that there was a paper publication in daily Thinathanthi, dtd. 22/7/1991 called for the post of Noon Meal Organiser, wherein, the qualification was mentioned as 10th standard failed or passed and the age limit was mentioned as within 25 to 30. On seeing the paper publication, the deceased appellant/plaintiff applied for the said post and after conducting personal interview and verification of the documents, he was selected for the post of Noon Meal Organiser and appointment order was issued to him, on 9/12/1991. Pursuant to which, he joined in that post and worked as a Noon Meal Organizer in Methaipatti Union School Centre. All of sudden, without giving an opportunity, the deceased appellant/plaintiff was removed from service on 26/12/1991. Challenging the same, he filed a suit for declaration declaring the removal order dtd. 26/12/1991 passed by the respondent, is null and void and restraining the respondent not to disturb him from working as a Noon Meal Organiser in the said school. The Trial Court decreed the said suit. Against which, the respondent/defendant filed an appeal before the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul. The said appeal was allowed. Challenging the same, the deceased appellant/plaintiff has filed the present appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, the sole appellant/plaintiff died therefore, now the legal heirs of the deceased appellant are prosecuting this appeal.

(3.) The contention of the respondent/defendant is that as per G.O.Ms.No.918, Backward Classes Welfare, Nutritious Meal Programme and Social Welfare Department, dtd. 3/11/1989, the educational qualification fixed for the post of Noon Meal Organiser in Nutritious Meal Centres was either SSLC passed or failed under old regulations or SSLC passed or failed under new regulations. As the deceased appellant did not appear for SSLC, he was not having the prescribed qualification. Since his appointment was purely temporary, his service can be terminated at any time, even without any reason. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the said fact and decreed the suit. Whereas, the lower appellate Court rightly appreciated that even not appearing for SSLC examination in old pattern, cannot be equated with SSLC failed in new pattern. Therefore, there is no merit in the second appeal and the substantial question of law, which has been formulated by this Court, is not applicable to the present case on hand and there is no estoppel against the law. Therefore, the deceased appellant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and hence, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed.