STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. MARIAMMA PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved against the order of the state Administrative Tribunal dated 19. 11. 2002 passed in O. A. No. 1343 of 1991. At the outset, we want to state that though the order of the Tribunal was dated 19. 11. 2002, this writ petition came to be filed only on 08. 08. 2005. We refer to the said inordinate delay in filing the writ petition, since the same was raised as a point of issue by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent. While granting the relief, we will take note of the said factor for giving appropriate directions.

(2.) THE brief facts which are required to be stated are that the first respondent was appointed as Post Graduate Malayalam language teacher in the Government Higher Secondary School, Gudalur on 16. 02. 1979 by g. O. Ms. No. 720 dated 28. 04. 1981. THE Government of Tamil Nadu framed the Rules for the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational service. THE Rules prescribe among other things, the qualifications required for appointment of various categories of teachers in the Higher Secondary Schools. As per Rule 7 of the said Rules, no person will be eligible for appointment to the categories specified in column (1) of the annexure to the Rules by the method specified in column (2), unless he or she possess the qualifications specified in the corresponding entries in column (3) on the first day of July of the year in which the selection for appointment is made. Rule 7 (b) prescribes that persons whose mother tongue is other than Tamil or who has not acquired knowledge of tamil language in the High School course or who has not passed the second class language test in Tamil would be eligible for appointment to any category of the service. Since the above said Rule was introduced by G. O. Ms. No. 720 dated 28. 04. 1981 and was brought into force from 01. 07. 1978, Rule 11 provided a saving clause. THE said Rule provided that those persons who did not possess the qualifications prescribed for such category in the Annexe and who were holding such posts on the date of issue of the Special Rules can be regularised only after acquiring the said qualifications and after obtaining the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, with a further condition that they acquire the said qualifications within a period of five years from first July 1978. It also provided that if they fail to acquire the said qualifications within the specified period, they should be replaced by suitable and qualified candidates.

(3.) AS far as the claim of the first respondent that her service as from the date of her initial entry, namely 16. 02. 1979 should be counted by virtue of the subsequent B. Ed. Qualification acquired by her on 03. 07. 1982 is concerned, the same cannot be acceded to. In the first place, the savings clause under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational service Rules makes it clear that unless the required qualification of B. Ed. is acquired within a period of five years from 01. 07. 1978, the very right to get regularisation in the service for those teachers who entered service prior to the coming into force of the Rules would automatically cease to exist. In any event, when G. O. Ms. No. 276 dated 09. 09. 1999 is considered, the claim made on behalf of the persons like that of the first respondent was considered and the state Government restricted the relaxation for counting the service prior to the date of acquisition of the B. Ed. qualification only for the purpose of granting pension alone and hence the claim of the first respondent cannot be granted. In such circumstances, merely because the third respondent initially passed a wrong order on 25. 05. 1989, that cannot be a ground to cpimtenance the claim of the first respondent. The corrected order dated 04. 10. 1990 regularising the services of the first respondent as from 04. 07. 1982 was therefore fully justified.