•\
I
' +
MOHSIN UNISSA
A
\'
TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
MARCH 29, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G. B. PATTANAIK, JJ.J
B
Se1vice Law :
Tantil Nadu Public Se1vice Conunission:--Finance DepartJnent-Junior
Assistant-Appointment-Regula1isation-Tamil language test-Employee
passed the test while she was working tempormily-Held the candidate having C
passed Tamil language test while wmking temporarily, her se1vices cannot be
tenninated for failure to pass the test after regular appointment-The Com-
mission would regulmise her sc1vice giving her past benefits of temporary
seJvice w. e.f 1975-76-Scnimity would be detennined w.e.f the date of regular
appointment in August, 1990.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7019 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.7.89 of the Madras High
Court in W.A. No. 1298 of 1988.
E
R. Mohan, R.A. Perumal and R. Nedumaran for the Appellants.
K. Venkataramani, A. Mariarputham and Ashok Mathur for the
Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
F
Appellant was temporarily appointed in the Tamil Nadu Public G
Service Commi.'5ion itself in the year 1975-76, for regular recruitment, she
was selected and appointed in the Finance Department as a Junior Assis-
tant in August 1990. For regularisation of her service passing the Tamil
language test was a pre-condition. Initially, she had appeared in the year
1977. While she was temporarily working she had passed the exam. She H
1049
1050
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] 3 S.C.R.
A was asked to pass the same examination again after her regular appoint-
ment. It would appear that she had requested a companion who was sining
by her side to keep an eye on her answer book and also it was taken that
she committed malpractice in copying the paper. On that ground the paper
written by her in the year 1977 was also cancelled along with the examina-
B
tion in which she is imputed to have committed malpractice. When she
challenged the order, the High Court held that since the examination
passed by her in 1977 was valid in law, the cancellation thereof on the
ground of her committing malpractice in the second examination is not
valid in law. That order has become final.
C
Under these circumstances, the only question is : whether the
appellanl's service could be terminated for her failure to pass the examina-
tion. No doubt, she did not pass the examination after her regular appoint-
ment but she has passed the examination when she was temporarily in
service and that order having been allowed to become final, it is no longer
open to the respondent to terminate her services for failure to pass the
D
examination. The respondent is directed to regularise her service giving her
past benefits of temporary service with effect from 1975-76 for purpose by
perusal. Hol'(evcr seniority would be determined, she being a direct recruit,
w.e.f. the date of her appointment in August 1990.
E
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
R.P.
Appeal allowed.
Lex