Supreme Court of India
A.DHARMARAJ versus THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PUDUKKOTTAI & ORS. on 18 February 2022
A.DHARMARAJ
v.
THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PUDUKKOTTAI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1301 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 18, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA JJ.]
Service Law – Promotion – Appellant was granted permissionto pursue B.A. (English) under distance education from January2012 to December 2014 – While pursuing B.A. (English), Appellantwas granted permission to pursue M.A. (Tamil) a two year distanceeducation course between Academic Years 2013-2015 – Appellantsuccessfully completed B.A. (English) in Dec 2014 and M.A. (Tamil)in 2015 – Appellant was promoted to the post of B.T. Assistant(English) on 06.08.2016 – Respondent No.5 challenged thepromotion of appellant & others – Ground of challenge was that byobtaining two degrees simultaneously, the appellant becameineligible for promotion – Rule 14 was pressed into service whichprovides that teachers who obtained B.A./B.Sc and B.Ed., duringthe same academic year were not eligible for recommendations –Single Judge of High Court allowed the writ petition & set asidethe promotion of appellant –Division Bench upheld the order ofSingle Judge – Held: It cannot be said that appellant obtained thedegree of B.A. (English) and M.A. (Tamil) during the same academicyear – Also, degree of M.A. (Tamil) cannot be equated with B.A./B.Sc./B.Ed – Therefore Rule 14 not applicable to facts of the caseon hand stricto senso – Assuming that the subsequent degree obtainedby appellant namely M.A. (Tamil) is ignored, in that case also,considering his degree in B.A. (English) the appellant could havebeen promoted to the post of B.T. Assistant (English) – Degree ofB.A. (English) was sufficient as per the eligibility criteria forpromotion to the post of B.T. Assistant (English) – Order of promotionof appellant to the post of B.T. Assistant (English) accordinglyrestored.
1125
A
B
C
DE
F
G
H
1126SUPREME COURT REPORTS
AAllowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The promotion of appellant to the post of B.T.Assistant (English) was set aside by the High Court on the groundthat the appellant obtained two degrees namely B.A. (English)and M.A. (Tamil) simultaneously and therefore as per Rule 14Bhe was ineligible for promotion. However, considering Rule 14,it can be seen that the bar was against teachers who have obtainedB.A./B.Sc./B.Ed degree simultaneously during the same academicyear. In the present case it cannot be said that the appellantobtained the degree of B.A. (English) and M.A. (Tamil) duringthe same academic year. The appellant pursued his B.A. (English)Cduring January, 2012 to December, 2014. He pursued his M.A.(Tamil) which was a two years distance education course betweenthe academic years 2013-2014 to 2014-2015. Therefore, as suchRule 14 is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand strictosenso. The degree of M.A. (Tamil) cannot be equated with B.A./DB.Sc./ B.Ed. Assuming that the subsequent degree obtained bythe appellant namely M.A. (Tamil) is ignored, in that case also,considering his degree in B.A. (English) he could have beenpromoted to the post of B.T. Assistant (English). Both the degreessecured by the appellant cannot be ignored. The degree of B.A.(English) was sufficient as per the eligibility criteria for promotionEto the post of B.T. Assistant (English). Under the circumstancesboth, the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the HighCourt materially erred and ignored the aforesaid aspect inquashing the promotion of the appellant to the post of B.T.Assistant (English). [Paras 5, 5.1 and 6][1128-D-H; 1129-A]
FCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1301 of2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2019 of the High Courtof Madras, Madurai Bench in W.A. (MD) No. 834 of 2018.
GP. S. Sridharraj, Ravinder Kumar Yadav, Advs. for the Appellant.C. Solomon, Ms. Nayan Maggo, S. Nagarajan, Advs. for theRespondents.
H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
2
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.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgmentand Order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the HighCourt of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in Writ Appeal (MD) No.834of 2018 by which the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissedthe said appeal preferred by the appellant herein and has confirmed thejudgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing andsetting aside the promotion of the appellant to the post of B.T. Assistant(English), the original appellant before the High Court has preferred thepresent appeal.
2. The appellant herein was promoted to the post of B.T. Assistant(English) vide order of promotion dated 06.08.2016. Prior thereto theappellant was granted the permission to pursue his B.A. (English) underdistance education during January, 2012 to December, 2014. He pursuedhis distance education in B.A. (English) and successfully completed thesame in the month of December, 2014. When the appellant was pursuinghis education in B.A. (English), the appellant was granted permission topursue M.A. (Tamil) which was a two year distance education coursebetween the Academic Years 2013-2015. He appeared in the examinationfor M.A. (Tamil) in May, 2014 and May, 2015 and successfully completedthe same. That thereafter the Respondent no.5 herein challenged thepromotion of the appellant and others vide Writ Petition No. 15019 of2016 on the ground that by obtaining two degrees simultenously theappellant has rendered himself ineligible as the appellant did not fulfil theeligibility criteria. Rule 14 was pressed into service which provided that“the teachers who have obtained B.A./B.Sc and B.Ed., during the sameacademic year shall not be eligible for recommendations”. The petitionwas opposed by the appellant and another. It was the case on behalf ofthe appellant before the learned Single Judge that Rule 14 cannot beapplicable to the facts of the case on hand, as the appellant pursuedB.A. (English) and M.A. (Tamil) in different academic years. It wassubmitted that only in a case where B.A./B.Sc/B.Ed. degrees areobtained in the same academic year the same is not permissible. By theimpugned judgment and order dated 23.03.2018, the learned Single Judgeallowed the said writ petition and set aside the promotion of the appellantto the post of B.T. Assistant (English).
A
BC
DEF
G
H
A2.1 The appellant preferred a writ appeal before the DivisionBench of the High Court. By the impugned Judgment and Order, theHigh Court has dismissed the said appeal and has not interfered withthe impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge,setting aside the promotion of the appellant to the post of B.T. Assistant(English).B
A
3. Though served nobody has appeared on behalf of the contestingrespondents more particularly original writ petitioners.
4. We have heard Shri P.S. Sridharraj, learned counsel appearingon behalf of the appellant and Shri C. Solomon, learned counsel appearingCon behalf of the respondent – State Authorities.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties and on perusal of the judgment and order passed bythe learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, it appears thatthe promotion of the appellant to the post of B.T. Assistant (English) hasDbeen set aside by the High Court on the ground that the appellant obtainedtwo degrees namely B.A. (English) and M.A. (Tamil) simultaneouslyand therefore as per Rule 14 he was ineligible for promotion. However,considering Rule 14, it can be seen that the bar was against teacherswho have obtained B.A./B.Sc./B.Ed degree simultaneously during thesame academic year. In the present case it cannot be said that theEappellant obtained the degree of B.A. (English) and M.A. (Tamil) duringthe same academic year. The appellant pursued his B.A. (English) duringJanuary, 2012 to December, 2014. He pursued his M.A. (Tamil) whichwas a two years distance education course between the academic years2013-2014 to 2014-2015. Therefore, as such Rule 14 is not applicable toFthe facts of the case on hand stricto senso. The degree of M.A. (Tamil)cannot be equated with B.A./B.Sc./B.Ed.
5.1 Assuming that the subsequent degree obtained by the appellantnamely M.A. (Tamil) is ignored, in that case also, considering his degreein B.A. (English) he could have been promoted to the post of B.T.GAssistant (English). That both the degrees secured by the appellant cannotbe ignored. It is not in dispute that the degree of B.A. (English) wassufficient as per the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of B.T.Assistant (English).
6. Under the circumstances both, the learned Single Judge aswell as the Division Bench of the High Court have materially erred andH
A.DHARMARAJ v. THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,PUDUKKOTTAI & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
ignored the aforesaid aspect in quashing the promotion of the appellantto the post of B.T. Assistant (English).
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above thepresent appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed bythe Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal (MD) No.834 of2018 and also the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judgein Writ Petition No. 15019 of 2016 are hereby quashed and set aside.Consequently, the writ petition before the learned Single Judge standsdismissed. The order of promotion promoting the appellant to the post ofB.T. Assistant (English) dated 06.08.2016 stands restored.
Present appeal is allowed accordingly. However, there is no orderas to costs.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Neha Sharma, LCRA)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H