T. Subramonia Thangam vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors

M.M. Sundresh, J

The appellant's name was sponsored by the employment exchange to the post of Post Graduate (Assistant) in Zoology. He was provisionally selected and called for certificate verification. He was asked to appear before the counseling on 31.08.2010, vide proceedings dated 26.08.2010. An appointment order was also issued on 31.08.2010 and consequently, he was posted as Post Graduate (Assistant) in Zoology, which post he joined.

A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 07.07.2011 to show cause as to why his selection shall not be cancelled, on the premise that the M.Sc., Degree in Marine Biology secured by him is not equivalent to M.Sc., Degree in Zoology. After considering the explanation offered by the appellant, the appointment order was terminated. Challenging the same, the appellant filed the writ petition.

The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition after taking note of the decision of the Equivalence Committee, which held that the qualification of the appellant is sufficient to that of the qualification prescribed. Thus, based upon the same, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, but denied the backwages on the ground of 'no work, no pay'.

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that for no fault of him, he was not given the backwages. He was ready and willing to work.

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that they are also not at fault and though the Full Bench of this Court has held that equivalence will relate back to the date of appointment, as there was no employment in currency, the learned Single Judge rightly declined the backwages.

The decision of the learned Single Judge has became final as against the respondents. Therefore, the only question for consideration is the entitlement of backwages. In the case on hand, the appellant was terminated from services on the ground that the qualification acquired by him was not equivalent to the one prescribed. If this is the case, he ought not to have been appointed at all. The Full Bench of this Court has held that the declaration made with respect to equivalence of the qualification prescribed will relate back to the date of appointment. In such view of the matter, the appellant cannot be faulted. However, he has not physically worked.

In such view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it will only be fair and just if the respondents are directed to pay 50% of the backwages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. We reject the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that the respondents were not at fault, as only because of their action, the appointment was made followed by termination. It is not a question of candidate being rejected having found not suitable, but a case where an appointment order was made after due scrutiny and thereafter, terminated on the premise that the qualification acquired was not equivalent to the one prescribed.

In fine, this writ appeal stands disposed of, by directing the respondents to pay 50% of the backwages to the appellant, from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.