Supreme Court of India
MOHSIN UNISSA versus TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION on 29 March 1996
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
' +
MOHSIN UNISSA
A
\'
TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
MARCH 29, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G. B. PATTANAIK, JJ.J
Se1vice Law :
Tantil Nadu Public Se1vice Conunission:--Finance DepartJnent-Junior Assistant-Appointment-Regula1isation-Tamil language test-Employee passed the test while she was working tempormily-Held the candidate having C passed Tamil language test while wmking temporarily, her se1vices cannot be tenninated for failure to pass the test after regular appointment-The Com-mission would regulmise her sc1vice giving her past benefits of temporary seJvice w. e.f 1975-76-Scnimity would be detennined w.e.f the date of regular appointment in August, 1990. D
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.7.89 of the Madras High Court in W.A. No. 1298 of 1988.
E
R. Mohan, R.A. Perumal and R. Nedumaran for the Appellants.
K. Venkataramani, A. Mariarputham and Ashok Mathur for the Respondents.
F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
Appellant was temporarily appointed in the Tamil Nadu Public G Service Commi.'5ion itself in the year 1975-76, for regular recruitment, she was selected and appointed in the Finance Department as a Junior Assis-tant in August 1990. For regularisation of her service passing the Tamil language test was a pre-condition. Initially, she had appeared in the year 1977. While she was temporarily working she had passed the exam. She H
1050
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] 3 S.C.R.
A was asked to pass the same examination again after her regular appoint-ment. It would appear that she had requested a companion who was sining by her side to keep an eye on her answer book and also it was taken that she committed malpractice in copying the paper. On that ground the paper written by her in the year 1977 was also cancelled along with the examina-tion in which she is imputed to have committed malpractice. When she B challenged the order, the High Court held that since the examination passed by her in 1977 was valid in law, the cancellation thereof on the ground of her committing malpractice in the second examination is not valid in law. That order has become final.
C
C Under these circumstances, the only question is : whether the appellanl's service could be terminated for her failure to pass the examina-tion. No doubt, she did not pass the examination after her regular appoint-ment but she has passed the examination when she was temporarily in service and that order having been allowed to become final, it is no longer open to the respondent to terminate her services for failure to pass the D examination. The respondent is directed to regularise her service giving her past benefits of temporary service with effect from 1975-76 for purpose by perusal. Hol'(evcr seniority would be determined, she being a direct recruit, w.e.f. the date of her appointment in August 1990.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
E
Appeal allowed.
R.P.