N SIVAPANDY Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner for the issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the charge memo issued by the respondent against the petitioner in Na.Ka.No.H2/121685/2003 dated 19.01.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to comply with the order dated 13.06.2003 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.6236 of 2001 and to get the petitioners Secondary Grade Teacher Training Certificate, issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, evaluated by the competent authority and to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment that is 02.06.1999 and to grant all the service and other attendant benefits with in a time frame.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1985, he completed his SSLC in the Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Thirumangalam, Madurai District. Thereafter, he acquired the Plus Two qualification in the year, 1987. Followed by the completion of his +2, he had undergone Teacher Training Course in BVN Teacher Training Institute, Robertsonpet, KGF in the Karnataka State. Accordingly, he acquired the qualification in the Teacher Training Course and registered the same in May 1991 with the office of the District Employment Exchange, Madurai.

(3.) After a period of 8 years service that is in the year 1999, the name of the petitioner was sponsored by the employment exchange for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Assistant in the Kallar Reclamation Department. However, on 02.06.1999 by the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.97724/98 H2 of the Special Deputy Collector (Kallar Reclamation), Madurai, the petitioner was given appointment as Teacher in the Kallar Higher Secondary School, Pappapatti, Madurai District. Pursuant to his appointment, the Head Master of the aforesaid school sent a proposal in Na.Ka.No.172/2000 dated 12.09.2000 to the Special Deputy Collector (Kallar Reclamation) for the regularization of the service of the petitioner. The further case of the petitioner is that though at the relevant point of time, the service of 185 teachers were regularized, the service of the petitioner was not been regularized. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that as he completed his Teacher Training Course in the State of Karnataka, his certificate was not evaluated and thereby his service was not regularized.