D. Selvaraj v. The Prl.Secretary To Govt.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 30.06.2023 Pronounced on : 03.10.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN WP(MD)No.18267 of 2020 and WMP(MD)No.15252 of 2020 D.Selvaraj ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Educational Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600009.

2.The Director, O/o. the Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai - 600006.

3.The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, O/o. the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli - 627008.

4.The Chairman/ Moderator Commissary, Tirunelveli Diocesan Trust Association (TDTA) Colleges, Bishop Stowe, No.17, North Ground Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli - 627002.

1/7

5.Sarah Tucker College (Autonomous), Rep.by the Secretary, Perumalpuram, Tirunelveli - 627007.

6.Sarah Tucker College (Autonomous), Rep. by the Principal, Perumalpuram, Tirunelveli - 627007.

7.St.Johns College, Rep.By the Secretary, Tiruenelveli - 627002.

8.St.Johns College, Rep. by the Principal, Tirunelveli - 627002.

9.C.Vijila Athisayakani ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the records pertaining to the order of appointment dated 14.12.2017 issued by the 7th respondent in favor of the 9th respondent in the post of Lab Assistant in St.Johns College, Tirunelveli, as well as the consequential order of approval made by the 3rd respondent in Pa.Mu.No.3599/Aa2/2019-4 dated 13.12.2019 and quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents 5 and 7 to promote the petitioner as Lab Assistant with retrospective effect by determining the petitioner's commencement of service in the post of Lab Assistant based on the petitioner seniority with all monetary and consequential service benefits. (Prayer amended vide court order dated 22.06.2023). 2/7

For petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, Addl Government Pleader for R1 to R3 No appearance for R4 Mr.P.P.Alwin Balan for R5 & R6 Mr.H.Arumugam for R7 & R8 Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, Senior Counselled for M/s.Isaac Chambers for R9

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.The petitioner was appointed as Gardener in Sarah Tucker College, Tirunelveli on 11.08.1993. It was a sanctioned post. His appointment was duly approved. The petitioner was promoted as Record Clerk on 01.04.1999. The promotion was also duly approved. The next promotional avenue for the petitioner was to the post of Lab Assistant. When vacancy arose, the college management appointed the ninth respondent on 18.12.2017. This was also duly approved by the third respondent vide proceedings dated 13.12.2019. Contending that the mandate set out in Rule 11(4)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Private 3/7

Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976 has been breached, the present writ petition came to be filed.

3.It is not in dispute that the aforesaid Rule has been upheld by the Hon'ble First Bench in the decision reported in 2002 (3) CTC 65 (M.Reethammal v. State of Tamil Nadu). The petitioner otherwise has a formidable case. But one impediment alone comes in the way. Qualification for the post of Lab Assistant is pass in SSLC. The petitioner has not passed SSLC. He claims that since he cleared pre-foundational course conducted by the Madurai Kamaraj University on 01.04.1999, he should be considered as having the qualification of SSLC. He relied on a catena of decisions of this Court. Unfortunately for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in WA(MD)Nos.497 to 500 of 2022 dated 05.07.2022 had held that the benefit of qualifications can be claimed only up to 20.11.2017 when G.O Ms.No.

144, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department was passed. This issue has been referred to a larger Bench vide order dated 13.07.2023 in WA(MD)No.462 of 2014. Of course, this Court need not wait till the larger Bench pronounces its opinion. The present legal position is adverse to the petitioner. I am not in a position to grant the relief sought for.

to assail any appointment. This is a fundamental principle of service jurisprudence. Since the petitioner does not have eligibility qualification, the petitioner cannot question the appointment of the ninth respondent. 4.This writ petition is dismissed. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting private respondent states that on account of the pendency of the litigation, salary has not been disbursed. Since the appointment of the ninth respondent as Lab Assistant has already been approved, there cannot be any impediment for releasing his salary. The department is directed to release the salary arrears of the ninth respondent forthwith and without any delay. 5.This writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

03.10.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No skm 5/7

To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Educational Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600009.

2.The Director, O/o. the Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai - 600006.

3.The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, O/o. the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli - 627008.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

6/7

skm WP(MD)No.18267 of 2020 and WMP(MD)No.15252 of 2020 03.10.2023 7/7