A.DHARMARAJ versus THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PUDUKKOTTAI & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 1125 · Decided: 18-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1125
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 1125
1125
A.DHARMARAJ
v.
THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PUDUKKOTTAI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1301 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 18, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA JJ.]
Service Law – Promotion – Appellant was granted permission
to pursue B.A. (English) under distance education from January
2012 to December 2014 – While pursuing B.A. (English), Appellant
was granted permission to pursue M.A. (Tamil) a two year distance
education course between Academic Years 2013-2015 – Appellant
successfully completed B.A. (English) in Dec 2014 and M.A. (Tamil)
in 2015 – Appellant was promoted to the post of B.T. Assistant
(English) on 06.08.2016 – Respondent No.5 challenged the
promotion of appellant & others – Ground of challenge was that by
obtaining two degrees simultaneously, the appellant became
ineligible for promotion – Rule 14 was pressed into service which
provides that teachers who obtained B.A./B.Sc and B.Ed., during
the same academic year were not eligible for recommendations –
Single Judge of High Court allowed the writ petition & set aside
the promotion of appellant –Division Bench upheld the order of
Single Judge – Held: It cannot be said that appellant obtained the
degree of B.A. (English) and M.A. (Tamil) during the same academic
year – Also, degree of M.A. (Tamil) cannot be equated with B.A./
B.Sc./B.Ed – Therefore Rule 14 not applicable to facts of the case
on hand stricto senso – Assuming that the subsequent degree obtained
by appellant namely M.A. (Tamil) is ignored, in that case also,
considering his degree in B.A. (English) the appellant could have
been promoted to the post of B.T. Assistant (English) – Degree of
B.A. (English) was sufficient as per the eligibility criteria for
promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant (English) – Order of promotion
of appellant to the post of B.T. Assistant (English) accordingly
restored.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The promotion of appellant to the post of B.T.
Assistant (English) was set aside by the High Court on the ground
that the appellant obtained two degrees namely B.A. (English)
and M.A. (Tamil) simultaneously and therefore as per Rule 14
he was ineligible for promotion. However, considering Rule 14,
it can be seen that the bar was against teachers who have obtained
B.A./B.Sc./B.Ed degree simultaneously during the same academic
year. In the present case it cannot be said that the appellant
obtained the degree of B.A. (English) and M.A. (Tamil) during
the same academic year. The appellant pursued his B.A. (English)
during January, 2012 to December, 2014. He pursued his M.A.
(Tamil) which was a two years distance education course between
the academic years 2013-2014 to 2014-2015. Therefore, as such
Rule 14 is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand stricto
senso. The degree of M.A. (Tamil) cannot be equated with B.A./
B.Sc./ B.Ed. Assuming that the subsequent degree obtained by
the appellant namely M.A. (Tamil) is ignored, in that case also,
considering his degree in B.A. (English) he could have been
promoted to the post of B.T. Assistant (English). Both the degrees
secured by the appellant cannot be ignored. The degree of B.A.
(English) was sufficient as per the eligibility criteria for promotion
to the post of B.T. Assistant (English). Under the circumstances
both, the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High
Court materially erred and ignored the aforesaid aspect in
quashing the promotion of the appellant to the post of B.T.
Assistant (English). [Paras 5, 5.1 and 6][1128-D-H; 1129-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1301 of
2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2019 of the High Court
of Madras, Madurai Bench in W.A. (MD) No. 834 of 2018.
P. S. Sridharraj, Ravinder Kumar Yadav, Advs. for the Appellant.
C. Solomon, Ms. Nayan Maggo, S. Nagarajan, Advs. for the
Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1127
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment
and Order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in Writ Appeal (MD) No.834
of 2018 by which the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed
the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein and has confirmed the
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing and
setting aside the promotion of the appellant to the post of B.T. Assistant
(Engl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.