AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nainar Sundaram, J.—The petitioner in W.P. No. 8410 of 1987 is the appellant in this writ appeal. The respondents in the writ petition are
the respondents in the writ appeal. We propose to refer to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition. The facts of the case have been
set down in paragraphs 2 to 8 of the affidavit of the petitioner filed in support of the writ petition, and it is better that the said paragraphs stand
extracted as follows:
I submit that I obtained Tamil Vidwan Certificate from the Madras University in July, 1970 after successfully completing my course in Lady
Wellington College, Madras. I enrolled myself in the Employment Exchange in the same year. On 15-12-1970, I was appointed as Grade II Tamil
Pandit in the Government High School, Uthukuli, Erode, on temporary basis by the third respondent. Then on 8-10-1971 the third respondent
herein issued proceedings in R.141-82/71 by which I was considered to be fully qualified for promotion to Tamil Pandit Grade I and accordingly
from 25-2-1971. I was promoted as Tamil Pandit�Grade I in the same School. But, as my appointment was temporary, on 26-4-1973, I was
ousted from service by the proceedings of the third respondent in Rc. No. 128-5A/73. Therefore from that date, I lost my job of Tamil Pandit
Grade I.
Subsequently the third respondent by his proceedings in Rc 176/52/75 dated 20-5-1973 issued orders for re-appointing me in service.
Accordingly, I was taken back to service as Tamil Pandit Grade I and I was appointed in the same school with effect from 1-6-1973. Since then I
am serving continuously as Tamil Pandit Grade I. On 21-9-1973, the third respondent transferred me from Government High School, Uthukuli to
Government High School, Mudis. Then again I was transferred on 21-3-1974 from Mudis to Government High School, Ramanathapuram/Pollachi
and on 1-1-1975 Government High School in Peruntholuvu. I served for about 7 years and half years (7� years) in Peruntholuvu till 9-12-1982
From 10-10-1982 to 5-11-1984. I served in Government High School, Vijayapuram. Then from 6-11-1984, I am working in Government Higher
Secondary School, Thiruppur. All these transfers were made by the third respondent and in all these transfers were made by the third respondent
was designated only as Tamil Pandit Grade I.
While serving in Government High School, Vijayapuram, I received a communication�Na.Ka. No. 3/84 dated 12-9-1984 from the Headmaster
of the Government High School, Peruntholuvu. In the said communication, it had been mentioned that the order dated 8-10-1971 issued by the
third respondent promoting me from Tamil Pandit Grade II to Tamil Pandit Grade I, was cancelled by the proceedings of the third respondent in
Na.Ka. No. 50512/A5/77 dated 11-7-1984. I was at a shock to know as to how and why the said order come to be passed. In order to know
the details, I obtained a copy of the (order of the) third respondent and in the said proceedings, it has been stated that as I had not secured
adequate marks in the S.S.L.C., I was not eligible for promotion as Tamil Pandit Grade I and hence the earlier order dated 8-10-1971 promoting
and absorbing as Tamil Pandit Grade I issued by him was cancelled. The order further stated that from 25-2-1971 my post as Grade I would
stand converted to Tamil Pandit Grade II, that my service as Tamil Pandit Grade II, is confirmed with effect from 21-3-1974. The order further
contained a clause that whatever excess salary that had been paid to me from 23-2-1971 for the Post of Grade I Tamil Pandit would be calculated
and would be deducted from my salary. Based on this order, the Headmaster of Peruntholuvu Government High School had issued on order
stating that I should pay a sum of Rs. 13,192.45 being the excess salary received by me from 25-2-1971 to 21-3-1984 for the post of Tamil
Pandit Grade I held by me.
I was totally shocked by the order dated 11-7-1984 passed by the third respondent. In fact, I have been appointed as Tamil Pandit Grade II on
15-12-1970. It was only the third respondent who after satisfying himself, about my qualification had promoted me as Tamil Pandit Grade I with
effect from 25-2-1971 by his proceedings dated 8-10-1971. By his order dated 26-4-1973, I had been ousted from service. Again it is only the
third respondent who reappointed me as Tamil Pandit Grade I with effect from 1-6-1973 by his proceedings dated 28-5-1973. Thus, on three
occasions, the third respondent had the opportunity to verify my educational qualification and it was only after satisfying himself that I was fully
eligible for holding the post of Tamil Pandit Grade I, he had appointed me in the post of Tamil Pandit Grade I. While so it is not understandable as
to bow after I had completed 13 years of service, the third respondent had chosen to pass order dated 11-7-1984 affecting any opportunity to put
forth my case. So, aggrieved by the order of the respondents, I filed an appeal petition before the second respondent on 9-10-1984.
I submit that though the respondent had passed the order reverting me and for making deduction of excess payment no further action was taken to
that effect. In fact, the third respondent issued orders of transferring me Government High School, Vijayapnram to Government Higher Secondary
School, Thiruppur as Tamil Pandit Grade I by his proceedings dated 18-10-1984. Therefore, I was under the bona fide impression that the 2nd
respondent based on my appeal petition dated 9-10-1984 had passed order not to give effect to the third respondent''s order dated 11-7-1984.
In the meantime the third respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 34828/A5/84 dated 7-5-1985 had passed on order to the effect that I
have been promoted to Tamil Pandit Grade I with retrospective effect from 1-1-1981.
It is submitted that here again, there was no proper follow up action as mentioned already right from the date of my re-appointment on 1-6-1973. I
have been officiating only in the Tamil Pandit Grade I and I have been received the salary pertaining to that post. Therefore, I was made to believe
that the order dated 11-7-1984 passed by the third respondent had not at all been given effect to and it had been cancelled as it had been passed
on wrong appreciation of facts.
On 17-8-1987, the Headmaster of the Government Higher Secondary School, Thiruppur, served on me an order passed by the third respondent
by his proceedings in Na.Ka. 40952/B2/84 dated 8-7-1987. In the said order, it was stated that the excess salary of Rs. 13,192-45 paid to me
for the post of Tamil Pandit Grade I for the period from 25-(sic)-1971 to 21-3-1984 has been ordered to be recovered from my salary with
immediate effect from July, 1987 in 40 monthly instalments. In that order my appeal petition dated 9-10-1984 and the proceedings of the 2nd
respondent dated 19-3-1987 have also been mentioned. It is further stated in the order that no appeal petition, in this regard should be entertained
and forwarded to the office of the third respondent. I submit that the above order of the third respondent is totally unsustainable.
On the allegations extracted as above, the petitioner came to this Court by way of writ petition, putting forth the following, prayer:
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records in Mu.Mu.40952/B2/84 dated 8-7-1987 on the file of the third respondent�Chief
Educational Officer, Coimbatore, quash the same and pass such further or other order or orders as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper.
The learned single Judge, while considering the question of admission of the writ petition, found that the petitioner had not qualified for the post
of Tamil Pandit Grade I and dismissed the writ petition, giving liberty to the petitioner to settle at Departmental level the question of retrospective
recovery from salary. This writ appeal in directed against the order of the learned single Judge. Mr. M.V. Venkataseshan, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submits that on the facts of the case, the principle of equitable estoppel would apply and debar the recovery as per the impugned
proceedings. We find that this submission has to be accepted as a tenable one, when we take note of the principle countenanced by
pronouncements of Courts. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the factual averments put forth by the petitioner, are not
disputed. What the respondents claim is that the petitioner was not qualified for the post of Tamil Pandit Grade I and hence the recovery is
justifiable. The petitioner did not suppress any particulars regarding her qualifications at any point of time. It was neither a case of suggestion falsi
or suppresio veri. The second respondent has not even pleaded that he was under a misapprehension about the prescribed qualifications for the
post of Tamil Pandit Grade I. By proceeding after proceeding the second respondent gave the petitioner postings as Tamil Pandit Grade I. The
petitioner all these years discharged her duties only as Tamil Pandit Grade I, or in other words, work of a Tamil Pandit Grade I alone was
extracted from the petitioner and she has been paid for that work. She was not at all responsible for the said position. Having made her work as
Tamil Pandit Grade I, during the relevant years and compensated her for her work, it will not be permissible to seek for recovery of any excess
payment, on the ground that the petitioner lacked the qualifications for Tamil Pandit Grade I. The principle of equitable estoppel will certainly come
in the way of implementing the impugned proceedings for recovery. This principle has found expression in a number of pronouncements dealing
with analogous situations and it would suffice the purpose, if we merely refer to some of the citations as follows :
(i) C.G. Kothainayaki Vs. Director of Secondary Education, .
(ii) Uma Shanker Misra Vs. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad and Others, .
(iii) M. Pitchaimani v. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Rep., by its Secretary, Government, Estate, Madras-2 and another (W.P. No.
6733 of 1982 order dated 14-12-1982).
(iv) Selvi T. Anandhi v. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary and two others W.P. No. 1765 of 1983, order dated
23-12-1983).
(v) R. Rabiraj v. The Principal, Institute of Road and Transport Technology, Erode-16 (W.P. No. 9015 of 1985, order dated 9-9-1985).
(vi) R. Santhanam v. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by its Secretary to the Department of Cooperative and Audit, Madras-9 and another (W.P.
No. 9675 of 1985, order dated 17-9-1985).
(vii) C.G. Mercylin v. The Chatrman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras 600 035 (W.P. No. 1907 of 1980, order dated 8-7-1986).
Confirmed in the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Madras-35 v. C.G. Mercylin (W.A. No. No. 441 of 1987, order dated 10-4-1967).
(viii) Indrani v. The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Minjur (1987 Writ L.R. 676).
In the last of the citations, the learned Judges of the Bench of this Court observed:
In the circumstances, therefore, on the ground of equitable estoppel, having appointed her as a Secondary Grade Teacher as early as in 1961,
accepting the qualifications she possessed then, and allowing her to work as a Secondary Grade teacher, no question of recovery of the money
paid could arise at all.
Thus the principle of equitable estoppel coming to the aid of the petitioner, we have to countenance her case for quashing the impugned
proceedings. The petitioner has not sought any relief specifically in respect of her service position and by this judgment we have not touched that
aspect at all. As a result, this writ appeal is allowed; the order of the learned single Judge to W.P. No. 8410 of 1987 is set aside; and that writ
petition will stand allowed. No costs.