AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.—The petitioners are aggrieved against the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 19.11.2002 passed in
O.A. No. 1343 of 1991. At the outset, we want to state that though the order of the Tribunal was dated 19.11.2002, this writ petition came to be
filed only on 08.08.2005. We refer to the said inordinate delay in filing the writ petition, since the same was raised as a point of issue by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent. While granting the relief, we will take note of the said factor for giving
appropriate directions.
The brief facts which are required to be stated are that the first respondent was appointed as Post Graduate Malayalam language teacher in the
Government Higher Secondary School, Gudalur on 16.02.1979 by G.O.Ms. No. 720 dated 28.04.1981. The Government of Tamil Nadu framed
the Rules for the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational service. The Rules prescribe among other things, the qualifications required for
appointment of various categories of teachers in the Higher Secondary Schools. As per Rule 7 of the said Rules, no person will be eligible for
appointment to the categories specified in column (1) of the annexure to the Rules by the method specified in column (2), unless he or she possess
the qualifications specified in the corresponding entries in column (3) on the first day of July of the year in which the selection for appointment is
made. Rule 7(b) prescribes that persons whose mother tongue is other than Tamil or who has not acquired knowledge of Tamil language in the
High School course or who has not passed the second class language test in Tamil would be eligible for appointment to any category of the
service. Since the above said Rule was introduced by G.O.Ms. No. 720 dated 28.04.1981 and was brought into force from 01.07.1978, Rule 11
provided a saving clause. The said Rule provided that those persons who did not possess the qualifications prescribed for such category in the
Annexe and who were holding such posts on the date of issue of the Special Rules can be regularised only after acquiring the said qualifications
and after obtaining the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, with a further condition that they acquire the said qualifications
within a period of five years from first July 1978. It also provided that if they fail to acquire the said qualifications within the specified period, they
should be replaced by suitable and qualified candidates.
As far as the language teachers are concerned, the qualifications are as under:
(a) A Bachelor''s degree in the Language in respect of which recruitment is made or its equivalent standard;
(b) A Post Graduate Degree in Language in respect of which recruitment is made or its equivalent Standard; and
(c) B.T. Or B.Ed. Degree of a University in the State or a teaching degree of equivalent standard.
The first respondent admittedly did not possess the B.Ed. Qualification on the date when she entered services, namely 16.02.1979. She
acquired the said qualification of B.Ed. on 03.07.1982. Thereafter, the third petitioner herein passed orders on 25.05.1989 regularising the
services of the first respondent with effect from the afternoon of 16.02.1979, i.e. the date on which she entered service. However, by a subsequent
order dated 04.10.1990, the third petitioner passed a modified order holding that since the first respondent acquired the B.Ed. Qualification only
on 03.07.1982, her regularisation would take effect only from 04.07.1982 and not from 16.02.1979 as ordered in proceedings dated
25.05.1989. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.10.1990, the first respondent filed O.A. No. 1343 of 1991 before the State Administrative
Tribunal. The Tribunal by the order impugned in this writ petition directed the petitioners to pay the arrears due to the applicant from the date of
her regularisation. A perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal shows that the said order came to be passed without making any specific
reference to either the order dated 25.05.1989 or the modified order dated 04.10.1990. After the order of the Tribunal dated 19.11.2002 passed
in O.A. No. 1343 of 1991, since the petitioners failed to implement the said order, the first respondent filed a contempt application in November
2003. Thereafter, after waiting for one year, she filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 14372 of 2005 for a direction to the petitioners to implement the
order of the Tribunal dated 19.11.2002. The said writ petition was also ordered on 28.04.2005 by specifying a time limit of four weeks for
implementation. In the mean time, the petitioners filed review petition before the Tribunal itself along with an application for condoning delay of 334
days for reviewing the order dated 19.11.2002. The said application was pending before the Tribunal. It is only thereafter the writ petition came to
be filed on 08.08.2005. In this writ petition, the contention of the petitioners is based on an earlier Division Bench order of this Court dated
24.03.1998, wherein, the very issue as to from which date the regularisation of the services of Post Graduate teachers after the introduction of the
Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service Rules should be conferred came up for consideration. The Division Bench after upholding the
Rule, while rejecting the challenge made to the Rules on its constitutionality held as under in paragraph No.6:
...Taking into account all these aspects, we modify the order of the Tribunal by issuing a direction to the State Government or the competent
authority exercising powers under the relevant rules, to consider the question of relaxation of the relevant rules to enable the regularisation of the
services of the Post Graduate Assistants in the subject in question from the date of their initial appointment with attendant service benefits, such as
for pension, increment, selection grade, special grade without any claim of right of seniority or any claim for arrears prior to the date of relaxation.
To the extent indicated above, the order of the Tribunal is modified and the writ petitions are ordered only to that extent and in other respects, shall
stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, WPMP No.1340 of 1998 is dismissed.
Thus the Division Bench left it to the State Government to consider the question of relaxation of the relevant rules for regularisation from the date of
initial appointment for the limited extent of service benefits without any scope for claiming arrears prior to the date of regularisation. Subsequent to
the order of the Division Bench dated 24.03.1998 passed in W.P. Nos. 2911 of 1998 etc., the State Government came forward with G.O.Ms.
No. 276 dated 09.09.1999 in and by which the State Government by way of relaxation to the Rule provided for counting the service rendered by
a Post Graduate teacher before acquiring the regular qualification of B.Ed. for the limited purpose of calculating the said service for pension alone.
In the above stated background, when the case on hand is examined and when we consider the submission of the learned Special Government
Pleader, we are convinced that the impugned order of the Tribunal ordered in such an abstract manner directing the petitioners to pay the arrears
to the first respondent without considering any of the above referred to Government Orders and the relevant Rules cannot be sustained.
As far as the claim of the first respondent that her service as from the date of her initial entry, namely 16.02.1979 should be counted by virtue of
the subsequent B.Ed. Qualification acquired by her on 03.07.1982 is concerned, the same cannot be acceded to. In the first place, the savings
clause under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service Rules makes it clear that unless the required qualification of B.Ed.
is acquired within a period of five years from 01.07.1978, the very right to get regularisation in the service for those teachers who entered service
prior to the coming into force of the Rules would automatically cease to exist. In any event, when G.O.Ms. No. 276 dated 09.09.1999 is
considered, the claim made on behalf of the persons like that of the first respondent was considered and the State Government restricted the
relaxation for counting the service prior to the date of acquisition of the B.Ed. qualification only for the purpose of granting pension alone and hence
the claim of the first respondent cannot be granted. In such circumstances, merely because the third respondent initially passed a wrong order on
25.05.1989, that cannot be a ground to continence the claim of the first respondent. The corrected order dated 04.10.1990 regularising the
services of the first respondent as from 04.07.1982 was therefore fully justified.
Having regard to all the above factors, the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The same is liable to be set aside. However,
even while setting aside the said order of the Tribunal as we stated in the opening paragraph of this order, since there was considerable delay
involved in the filing of this writ petition at the instance of the petitioners after the impugned order of the Tribunal and taking note of various other
factors which in our considered opinion caused sufficient prejudice to the first respondent, we are of the view that such prejudice caused to the first
respondent can be offset by directing the petitioners to pay a reasonable compensation by way of cost. We already referred to the subsequent
development that had taken place after the order of the Tribunal dated 19.11.2002. Since the petitioners failed to implement the order of the
Tribunal passed in November 2002, she approached the Tribunal by filing a contempt petition. The Petitioners themselves moved the Tribunal by
filing a review application with a petition to condone the delay of 334 days. Even thereafter, since nothing had happened, the first respondent was
obliged to move this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P. No. 14372 of 2005. The said writ petition was also ordered by this Court on
28.04.2005 directing the petitioners to implement the order of the Tribunal within four weeks. That also was not complied with by the petitioners.
Thereafter, only on 08.08.2005, the present writ petition came to be filed. Even in this writ petition, though there was considerable delay in filing
the writ petition, there was absolutely no explanation offered as to why the petitioners failed to challenge the order of the Tribunal in time. When
the first respondent was constantly pursuing her remedy after the passing of the order by the Tribunal in November 2002, it cannot be said that the
failure of the petitioners in not filing the writ petition in time was due to any unavoidable circumstances. Even though the first respondent was
constantly reminding the petitioners as to the relief granted by the Tribunal in November 2002, the petitioners displayed total inaction by not
preferring the writ petition in time. The inaction displayed on the part of the petitioners had caused prejudice to the first respondent inasmuch as
even after getting a favourable order in November 2002, she was forced to approach the Tribunal again by way of a Contempt Application and
thereafter, by way of filing a writ petition in this Court, which would have definitely caused sufficient monetary expenses to the first respondent who
is stated to have now retired from the services as a Post Graduate Teacher.
Taking note of all the above factors, we are of the view that even though the petitioners are entitled to succeed in the writ petition, they are also
bound to offset the prejudice caused to the first respondent by paying substantial cost, which we quantify at a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. Since the failure
to prosecute out the litigation diligently was due to the lethargic attitude displayed by the concerned personnel and officers who handled the
proceedings before the Tribunal as well as in this Court, whatever cost ordered by this Court should be recovered from the concerned personnel,
since such cost should not be at the expenses of the said exchequer. We have awarded cost in order to ensure that such lethargic attitude is not to
be displayed in future. The writ petition stands allowed. The petitioners shall pay the cost to the first respondent within six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.