A.N. Mythili vs The Director, Department of Government Examinations

S. Nagamuthu, J.—The petitioner was appointed as kindergarten teacher on 08.04.2004 on consolidated pay in Sri P.R.M. Meyyappa Chettiar Middle School at Virachilai, Pudukkottai District. Her service was brought into the time scale of pay from 01.06.2006. She continues to work as kindergarten teacher in the said school.

While so, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 172, School Education Department, dated 31.10.2002, declaring that the teachers appointed, as kindergarten teachers, without a Diploma Certificate in Teacher Education, shall be permitted to appear for the examination in Diploma in Teacher Education as private study candidates. Accordingly, the petitioner had applied to the respondents to write the said examination viz., Diploma in Teacher Education. In October, 2007, she wrote the first year examination and in February, 2008, she wrote the second year examination. Admittedly, the duration of course was two years, but results were not published either for the first year examination or for the second year examination so far as the petitioner is concerned. Subsequently, the second respondent, by his proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 4203060/C2/09, dated 13.11.2009, cancelled the said examinations in respect of the petitioner, holding that the petitioner was not qualified to appear as a private study candidate.

According to the impugned order, it is essential that a candidate should have worked in the time scale of pay for a period of three years to get eligible to appear as a private study candidate, but since the petitioner was brought into the time scale of pay only on 01.06.2006, he was not qualified to write the first year examination in October, 2007 and second year examination in February, 2008. It is, on this ground, the examinations written by the petitioner were cancelled. That order is now under challenge in this writ petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. I have also perused the records carefully.

Taking me through the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 172, dated 31.10.2002, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no such prescription in the Government Order that a teacher should have worked in the time scale of pay of a kindergarten teacher for a period of three years to get eligible to appear, as a private study candidate, in Diploma in Teacher Education examination. But, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that in the notification, dated 21.05.2009, issued by the Director of Government Examinations, for the Diploma in Teacher Education Examinations, it was specifically mentioned that a candidate who had worked as a kindergarten school teacher for three years in time scale of pay alone is eligible for applying as a private study candidate. Therefore, according the learned Additional Government Pleader, as per the said notification, the petitioner was not eligible to write the examinations in the year 2007 and therefore, the examinations written by the petitioner were cancelled.

I have considered the above submissions.

Here is a question as to whether a Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 172, School Education Department, dated 31.10.2002, will prevail over the notification issued by the Director of Government Examinations or the notification issued by the Director of Government Examinations will have supremacy over the Government Order. It is well known that the Government order will prevail over the notification issued by the Director of Government Examinations. Of-course it is true that the notification issued by the Director of Government Examinations runs counter to the Government Order, but one has to go only by the Government Order and not by the notification. If it is so concluded, it is certain that the petitioner was eligible to appear for the examinations, since there was no such time of three years prescribed under the Government Order, as it is projected by the learned Additional Government Pleader. In such view of the matter, the cancellation of the examinations written by the petitioner is illegal and so the same is liable to be set aside.

In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the respondents to publish the results of the petitioner in the first year examination written in October, 2007 and the second year examination written in February, 2008 for Diploma in Teacher Education, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.