K.N. Muniraj vs The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, The Chair Person, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, The District Revenue Officer and The Sub-Collector

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the order dated 11.08.2005 and to conduct a De-Nova enquiry by

following the principles of natural justice.

The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:

(i) The petitioner served as Village Officer in the year 1980 in Panchampatti Village, Hosur Taluk and due to the abolition of the Village Officer

post, he was not given posting as Village Administrative Officer post pursuant to the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Since the petitioner has

not passed S.S.L.C. at that time, he was given Village Assistant Post in the year 1991 and he served in the said post till 2000.

(ii) The petitioner passed S.S.L.C. in the year 1996 and immediately be made a representation to the District Collector to give him the Village

Administrative Officer post as per G.O.Ms. No. 1287 Revenue Department dated 06.07.1988. However, he was given appointment as Village

Administrative Officer only from 14.06.2000. The petitioner was given posting at Ammapalayam village, Gopi Taluk in Erode District, even though

he is a resident of Hosur in Dharmapuri District. In the year 2004, the petitioner was transferred to Vaniputtur-B village in the same Gopi Taluk of

Erode District.

(iii) The petitioner''s mother tongue is Telugu as his native place is within the Hosur Taluk, in Dharmapuri District which is a border district. The

petitioner is a linguistics minority and the petitioner attended the Departmental test for passing second class Tamil language test seven times,

conducted by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The petitioner finally attended the said test in September 2005. Since the petitioner has not

passed the language test, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the fourth respondent stating that as per Rule 12(a)(b) of State and

Subordinate Services Rules, the petitioner ought to have passed the Tamil language test and the petitioner having not passed the test, why the

petitioner shall not be terminated from the service. The petitioner sent a reply and stated that he has attended the test in May 2005 and he is

awaiting the results in September 2005 and therefore two months time may be given to pass the second class language test. However, the 4th

respondent without giving the time, inspite of the said fact, terminated the petitioner from service from 11.08.2005. The said order is challenged in

this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner produced the order passed by the District Revenue Officer wherein a similarly placed person who filed

appeal against the similar order, was given time to attend the examination to be held on December 2005 and therefore, the order of the Special

Collector was stayed till the publication of the result by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and due to the stay granted, the said person,

named S.V.Chennaiah was allowed to rejoin the duty. The learned counsel, therefore submitted that the petitioner ought to have also been given

time to pass the test atleast till the publication of the results.

In the above writ petition, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents were directed to get instructions on 14.11.2 005

and it was adjourned to 12.12.2005, 08.03.2006, 15.03.2006, 20.03 .2006, 27.03.2006 and finally on 10.04.2006, i.e., today.

The learned counsel for the petitioner produced the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Bulletin published on 01.04.2006 wherein the

petitioner is shown to have passed the second class Tamil language test conducted in December 2005 and was successful in viva voce conducted

on 14.03.2006 to 16.03.2006. In view of the said fact, now there is no impediment to reinstate the petitioner in service as the petitioner satisfy

Rule 12(a)(b) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules.

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that inspite of the time granted to the petitioner, he having not

passed the Tamil language test, the impugned order was passed. I have considered he rival submissions of respective counsels. It is a fact, that the

petitioner has not passed the Tamil language test in time. However, the petitioner requested the 4th respondent to grant time till the publication of

the results. The 4th respondent ought to have given the time till the publication of the result, so that the petitioner''s termination could have been

avoided. However, the 4th respondent without waiting for the publication of the results, terminated the service of the petitioner and therefore, the

petitioner is out of employment from 11.08.2005. The petitioner having passed the second class language test conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public

Service Commission, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Bulletin published the petitioner''s name in the Gazette dated 01.04.2006.

Hence, the petitioner is entitled to continue in service and he is entitled to be reinstated with full backwages and attendant benefits. The order of the

4th respondent is unsustainable and to be declared as arbitrary.

Taking note of the said subsequent development, i.e., the petitioners''s pass in the Tamil language test as stated supra, the impugned order is

unsustainable and the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to restore the petitioner in service with full backwages and

attendant benefits within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is ordered with above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. is closed.