CONT P/331/2022 of M.Umamaheswari Vs Kakarla Usha on 12 October 2026

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the records.

2. The petitioner by the present contempt petition had claimed that the respondents have acted in wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 08.03.2019 in W.P.No.23639 of 2009, wherein this Court had directed the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner from the date of appointment along with consequential benefits by applying G.O.Ms.No.35,

School Education Department, 09.02.2007 within a period of eight weeks.

3. At the outset, it is to be noted that G.O.Ms.No.35 was issued on 09.02.2007, and the benefit thereunder are not given retrospective effect but only given prospective effect. However, the petitioner claims that since he had acquired the necessary qualification for appointment in the year 2002, the benefit conferred under the aforementioned Government Order should be given from the date of his appointment and his services should be regularised from the year 2002.

4. While the petitioner places his claim on G.O.Ms.No.35, the respondents, on the other hand contended that the petitioner was appointed as a vocational teacher (computer training) during the year 2002 by the Parents Teacher Association and not by way of regular appointment.

5. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents further submits that in order to be appointed as a vocational teacher (computer training), the Government Order, at the relevant point of time, which was in force viz., G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 04.01.2000 as modified vide G.O.Ms.No.175 of 2001, which required a candidate to possess the prescribed qualification in addition to a degree; and that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification on the said date.

6. The learned Additional Advocate General thus submits that the petitioner was granted the benefit of regularisation only after he possessing the qualification of B.Ed, as specified in G.O.Ms.No.140, School Education- II, dated 19.05.2010.

7. Contradicting the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the petitioner possessing the requisite qualification, having obtained a Diploma from Bureau of Data Processing Systems Limited in the year 1997.

8. Further, it is also contended that in addition to possessing the aforesaid qualification, the petitioner was also awarded a Diploma in the month of December 2005 by Faculty of Engineering and Technology of Annamalai University, vide certificate dated 04.10.2006.

9. I have taken note of the respective submissions urged.

10. Though the petitioner claims of he having been appointed on the basis of qualification, he had secured by way of a certificate from Bureau of Data Processing Systems Limited and as such, his services were entitled to be regularized and confirmed from the date of his initial appointment, firstly, it is to be noted that the certificate obtained by the petitioner from the Bureau of Data Processing Systems Limited is not a certificate in the relevant subject prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.7. Further, the eligibility condition prescribed in the aforesaid G.O requires that one is required to have a certificate of Diploma from Annamalai University or its equivalent. It is not shown to this Court that the Diploma Certificate issued by Bureau of Date Processing Systems Limited and the course offered by the said Institute is equivalent to course offered by the Annamalai University, or considered as equivalent qualification by the State of Tamil Nadu.

11. In view of the above, the reliance is placed on the said certificate would not advance the case of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner also cannot seek the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.35 as the said G.O is not given retrospective effect, but is only prospective effect from the date of the issuance of the aforesaid G.O.

12. Thus, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit under the order of this Court with effect from the date of his initial appointment in the year 2002 to allege that the respondents having acted in utter violence of the order of this Court, for them to proceeded with the contempt petition.

13. Accordingly, this Contempt Petition fails and is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedy by approaching the concerned authority seeking regularisation of his services on fulfilling the required conditions prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.7 as modified in G.O.Ms.No.175. Consequently, connected sub application is closed. No order as to costs. 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dh To

1. Tmt. Kakarla Usha Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2. K.Nanthakumar, I.A.S., Commissioner, Directorate of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

3. D.Jaganathan,I.A.S., Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai - 600 006.

4. Rajendran, Headmaster, Corporation Higher Secondary School, 118, K.R.Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai - 600 033.

T.VINOD KUMAR J. dh/msv CONT P No. 331 of 2022 and SUB APPL No. 890 OF 2026 12-10-2026