T.Murugananthan, v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.08.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD)No.7147 of 2013 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2013 T.Murugananthan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Govt.
School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Joint Director of School Education, (Vocational Education), DPI Compound, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.
3.The Teachers Recruitment Board, rep. by its Member Secretary, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.
4.The Chief Educational Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in connection with the impugned Show Cause notice issued by him in his Proceedings Na.Ka.No.1502/V1/E2/2010 dated 10.04.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the first and second respondents to consider the petitioner's qualification at the time of initial appointment itself and thereby regularise the petitioner's service within the time limit.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu for M/s.Victory Associates For R1 to R4 : Mrs.S.Srimathy, Special Government Pleader 1/4
ORDER
The show cause notice dated 10.04.2013 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Computer Instructor and was continuing as such on consolidated pay. The consolidated pay salary was periodically increased. The Government took a policy decision to allot one post of computer instructor in each Government Higher Secondary School and accordingly, these temporary computer instructors, who were appointed on consolidated pay salary are considered for the purpose of grant of permanent absorption. During the course of providing such a benefit of regularisation, the Government also issued instructions that a teacher must possess Teachers Eligibility Test, which is a requisite minimum educational qualification contemplated under the National Council for Teachers Education regulations. As far as the writ petitioner is concerned, it was found that he has not passed the Teachers Eligibility Test. In view of the fact that the writ petitioner has not completed the Teachers Eligibility Test, the authorities competent issued the show cause notice in proceedings dated 10.04.2013.
3. The impugned show cause notice states that the Supreme Court of India in C.A.No.1408 of 2013, dated 28.01.2013 categorically directed that "only those candidates who had secured more than 50% qualifying marks in the Special Recruitment Test shall be treated as qualified and recruited as Computer Instructors and they shall be so absorbed and their service shall be so regularised in accordance with law". Thus, the computer instructor, who was engaged on consolidated pay salary can be regularised and brought under regularisation if they have secured more than 50% qualifying marks along with all other qualifications prescribed under the rules.
4. The writ petitioner had secured less than 50% marks and therefore, the competent authority issued the show cause notice. On receipt of the show cause notice, the writ petitioner has to submit his explanations/objections, if any. Contrarily, the present writ petition is filed. No writ petition can be entertained against the show cause notice in a routine manner. Power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the show cause notice is undoubtedly limited. No writ proceedings can be entertained unless it is established that the show cause notice, which is impugned, is issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or an allegation of mala fides are raised or if the same is in violation of statutory rules in force. Even in case of raising an allegations of mala fides, the authority against whom such an allegation is raised, has to be impleaded as a party respondent in the writ proceedings in his personal capacity. In the absence of any one of these legal grounds, no writ petition can be 2/4
entertained against show cause notice.
5. In the present case on hand, the show cause notice states that the writ petitioner has not secured the minimum requisite qualification and not secured 50% of marks. It is for the writ petitioner to establish that he is fully qualified or possessing the requisite marks as contemplated under the rules. Contrarily, such facts and circumstances cannot be adjudicated in the writ proceedings as the present writ petition is filed challenging the very show cause notice itself.
6. This being the factum, it is left open to the writ petitioner to submit his explanations/objections, if any, to the impugned show cause notice, dated 10.04.2013 and in the event of receiving any such explanations from the writ petitioner, the respondents are directed to consider the materials available on record as well as the explanations, if any, submitted by the writ petitioner and to take a decision and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Govt.
School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Joint Director of School Education, (Vocational Education), DPI Compound, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.
3.The Teachers Recruitment Board, rep. by its Member Secretary, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.
3/4
4.The Chief Educational Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
W.P.(MD)No.7147 of 2013 14.08.2019 KK/SAR/26.08.2019/4P-5C/ 4/4