Union Of India v. M Subalakshmi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN W.P.No.42231 of 2025 & WMP.No.47281 of 2025 1.Union of India Rep by the Government of Puducherry through the Director of School Education, Puducherry 2.The Under Secretary to Government (Education) Chief Secretariat, Puducherry ... Petitioners

Versus

1.M.Subhalakshmi 2.Jenny V.P 3.Jothilakshmi.S 4.Sundaralakshmi.S 5.Anandhi.P 6.Santhi R 7.Krishnasamy.N 8.Kalaichelvi.K 9.Vijaya.K 10.Maheswari.B 11.Ganesh.T 12.Hemalatha.V 13.Kalpana.K .. Respondents 1/6

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed in O.A.No.310/1654/2015 dated 15.03.2024 on the file of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench and quash the same.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Raveekumar Government Pleader (Pondy)

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.) Challenging the order of Central Administrative Tribunal directing the petitioners to consider the candidature of the applicant/first respondent for promotion to the post of TGT, with effect from 28.08.2015, the date on which the private respondents/2 to 13 herein were promoted and extend all the consequential benefits, including seniority and difference of wages to the first respondent herein within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

2. The first respondent was working as primary school teacher joined the service on 12.03.2007. She possess B.Lit.(Tamil) and passed the B.Ed degree in February 2014 itself. As on 21.05.2014, the first respondent was 2/6

placed at Seniority No.5711 and private respondents are junior to the first respondent. On 27.04.2015, a circular was issued calling for service particulars of Teachers who were eligible for promotion, before 13.05.2015. According to the first respondent, she is qualified to be promoted on the date of circular and convocation certificate was received by her on 14.01.2015 even though she has applied earlier. The contention of the petitioners before the Tribunal is that as on 01.01.2015, the crucial date prescribed for determining the eligibility, her case was not considered since she has only produced provisional certificate on 14.01.2015 and at the time of application, degree certificate has not been produced. The Tribunal vide impugned order has found that the final degree certificate of the first respondent for completion of B.

Ed is dated 25.02.2014 and held that the applicant is senior to the persons viz., the private respondents, thereby, directed the petitioners to consider the candidature of the applicant/first respondent for promotion to the post of TGT, with effect from 28.08.

the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Challenging the same, the present writ petition.

3. The learned Government Pleader (Pondy) submitted that the provisional certificate will always be issued prior to the issuance of the degree certificate, however, the Tribunal has overlooked the fact that the even though the provisional certificate was issued on 14.01.2015, the final degree certificate was issued as early as on 25.02.2014, therefore, submitted that the action of the Tribunal amounts to violation of the recruitment rule and the said order is liable to be set aside.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed on record.

5. Though the provisional certificate was issued on 14.01.2015, the fact that final degree certificate of the first respondent for completion of B.Ed dated 25.02.2014 was annexed as Annexure A-7, whereby, she is declared as having been awarded the B.Ed degree and placed in the first division, these facts are not disputed. The crucial date is 01.01.2015, on that 4/6

date, she has also qualified the degree in B.Ed., therefore, merely, because final degree certificate for completion of B.Ed is not appended while sending the particulars through the Headmaster of the first respondent's school, it cannot be said that she is not eligible for promotion when the juniors are already promoted. Such view of the matter, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal directing the petitioners for considering the candidature of the first respondent for promotion to the post of TGT, with effect from 28.08.2015, the date on which the private respondents/2 to 13 herein were promoted and extend all the consequential benefits, including seniority and difference of wages.

6. Accordingly, we do not find any merits in this petition and this petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. It is needless to state that it is well open for the petitioners to take appropriate action, if the degree certificate is found to be false later.

[N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.] 12.11.2025 Index: Yes/No dhk 5/6

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J., AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J., dhk To

1. The Presiding Officer Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

12.11.2025 6/6