@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M. Venugopal, J.@mdashThe Petitioners have preferred the present Writ Petition praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in calling for the records of the 2nd Respondent pertaining to the communication dated 17.11.2009 in R. No. 54374/Trg/2009/S2 and to quash the same. Further, the Petitioners have sought for issuance of an order by this Court in directing the 2nd Respondent to issue the Course Completion Certificate to them in respect of Condensed Sanitary Inspector Course conducted by the Respondents 2 and 3 as per the result notification issued by the 3rd Respondent vide Notification R. No. 1972/T2/2007 dated 07.01.2008 and Notification dated 18.12.2008.
Factual Background:
The Petitioners are presently working as Sanitary Supervisors in the 4th Respondent Municipality. The 2nd Respondent/The Director, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai 6 sent a communication to the Municipalities and Corporations inviting applications from persons working as Sanitary Supervisor/Field Assistant in Municipality/Corporation, who are interested in undergoing six months training for the Condensed Sanitary Inspector Course. The Petitioners gave their consent letter dated 05.12.2005 [through the 4th Respondent/Municipality] to undergo the six months training for the said course. As a matter of fact, in the communication sent by the Municipality to the Regional Director Municipal Administration, their educational qualification was clearly mentioned.
2. Based on the consent letter furnished by the Petitioners for undergoing the training course, the 2nd Respondent sent a communication dated 10.04.2007 calling upon them to report to the 3rd Respondent on 25.04.2007. The Petitioners reported before the 3rd Respondent on 25.04.2007, as directed by the 2nd Respondent, have paid a sum of Rs. 3700/- towards the Registration, Course Fee and Field visit. Also, on that date itself, they had produced the following documents: 1. Proof of Date of Birth; 2. Educational Qualification; 3. Relieving order from the concerned officer; 4. Physical Fitness Certificate.
3. Based on the verification of details, the 3rd Respondent permitted the Petitioners to join the training course. According to the Petitioners, they underwent training from 25.04.2007 to 25.10.2007 and successfully completed the course. Their categorical stand is that even at the time of joining the course, the Respondents had not insisted upon the Petitioners to possess a qualification of pass in S.S.L.C. to join the course.
4. The Petitioners availed earned leave from their service with the 4th Respondent Municipality for underwent the six months training. They also prayed for their accommodation at Chennai during the course period and made own arrangements for their food requirements and they spent nearly Rs. 50,000/- each towards the food and accommodation. On 25.10.2007 they completed their six months training course successfully conducted by the Respondents 2 and 3.
5. The Petitioners cleared all the three papers in the Part I examination. As regards the Part I examination, the 2nd Petitioner passed the examination in the first attempt and he had passed papers 1 and 3 alone and failed in paper 2 in the first attempt. Later, in the supplementary examination conducted by the 2nd Respondent, he had appeared for the paper 2 and passed the examination and thus, the Petitioners had passed all the papers in the Part I and II examination conducted during the training course. As such, they had successfully completed the Condensed Sanitary Inspector Course conducted by the Respondents 2 and 3.
6. The stand taken by the Petitioners is that on obtaining the Course Completion Certificate, they are eligible for promotion to the post of Sanitary Inspector in the 4th Respondent Municipality and other monetary benefits. However, the 2nd Respondent failed to issue the Course Completion Certificate on the completion of the training. Their personal visit to the 2nd Respondent had not yielded any result. As such, they submitted the representation dated 05.03.2009 to the 2nd Respondent through the 4th Respondent. But, the Course Completion Certificate was not issued in their favour.
7. Earlier, the Petitioners filed W.P. No. 6747 of 2009 seeking the relief of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent to issue the course completion certificate to them. This Court, on 24.07.2009, had directed the 2nd Respondent to consider their representation dated 05.03.2009 and to dispose of the same on merits within a period of four weeks. The order of this Court was communicated to the 2nd Respondent dated 14.08.2009 and requested the 2nd Respondent to pass orders. The 2nd Respondent, by a communication dated 17.11.2009 through the 4th Respondent/Municipality, informed the Petitioners that they were not eligible for the Course Completion Certificate as they had not acquired pre-requisite qualification (i.e., S.S.L.C. Pass) for the course underwent by the them.
8. The Respondents 2 to 4 were fully aware of the Petitioners Educational qualification and allowed them to undergo the training course. Therefore, it is not open to the 2nd Respondent to refuse the issuance of certificate.
The Petitioners'' contentions:
9. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the impugned order of the 2nd Respondent dated 17.11.2009 in refusing to issue the Course Completion Certificate to them is ultra virus and illegal one.
10. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners urges before this Court that the 2nd Respondent, having admitted and permitted the Petitioners to join the course and also after being aware of the respective educational qualification, is estopped by the principles of promissory estoppel from denying the issuance of the Course Completion Certificate to them.
11. Yet another contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the 2nd Respondent''s refusal to issue the certificate in question is illegal when no such requirement of having passed S.S.L.C. was prescribed at the time of calling applications and all the employees were working as Sanitary Supervisors. Moreover, when the post of Sanitary Supervisor dose not require the pass in S.S.L.C., the impugned order of the 2nd Respondent dated 17.11.2009 is grossly an invalid one.
Respondents'' submissions:
12. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents 1 to 3 that the 1st Petitioner serving as Sanitary Supervisor in the 4th Respondent Municipality was selected for undergoing training as Sanitary Inspector for a period six months in the institute of Public Health, Ponnammallee based on the report furnished by the Commissioner of the 4th Respondent/Tirupattur Municipality after verification of the educational qualification before admission to the training course by the 3rd Respondent.
13. According to the Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents 1 to 3, on verification of educational certificate, it was found that the Petitioners had not acquired the minimum general educational qualification viz., S.S.L.C. Moreover, as per the training rules, the minimum general qualification of S.S.L.C. is necessary for admission to the said training. Since the training would be given in subject relating to General Science about Bacteria, Virus, Anatomy, Physiology and Microbiology and communal diseases caused by them and prevention of Epidemic diseases by way of chlorination of the drinking water and other stagnated water by adding chlorine based on the standardised formula which need mathematics.
14. The Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents 1 to 3 submits that the 1st Respondent addressed a communication to clarify whether the Petitioners could be admitted for training without passing the minimum general qualification with Mathematics and Science. However, the 3rd Respondent permitted the Petitioners for the training course subject to the qualification received from the 1st Respondent.
15. It is to be pointed out that as per the 2nd Respondent''s Communication dated 10.04.2007 calling upon the Petitioners to report to the 3rd Respondent on 25.04.2007, as directed, they paid a sum of Rs. 3,700/- towards Registration, Course Fee and Field visit.
16. A crystal clear cut stand taken on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 3 is that the 1st Respondent in Letter No. 27682/N1/2007-2 dated 10.07.2007 had clarified and permitted the 2nd Respondent to admit candidates for Sanitary Inspector Training Course who do not possess the minimum educational qualification subject to the condition that the candidates be put on notice that their admission to the above training course would not confer any right for appointment as Sanitary Inspector or Field Assistant as the case may be. Furthermore, the clarification issued by the 1st Respondent was informed to the Petitioners by the 3rd Respondent during the training classes as well as a copy of the clarification was displaced at the Departmental Notice Board for information to other candidates.
17. The Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents 1 to 3 strenuously contends that the impugned order of the 2nd Respondent dated 17.11.2009 in refusing to issue Course Completion Certificate to the Petitioners is in order and also the same is in accordance with the clarification issued by the Government.
18. Besides the above, the Secretary to Government, H & FW Department, Secretariat, Chennai in Letter No. 45385/N1/2010-3 dated 19.06.2012 had clarified and permitted the 2nd Respondent to issue Course Completion Certificate to the Petitioners by recording a condition that it would not entitle the individuals to claim for promotion as they had not possessed the basic educational qualification.
19. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners cites the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in K. Sakthi Rani V. The Secretary of The Bar Council of Tamilnadu, Chennai 600 104 and 3 others, 2010-2-L.W.-746 at page 780 & 781, in paragraph 79, it is held as follows:
79. Insofar as the application of legitimate expectation is concerned, it is a well settled principles of law that the said principle is not a very strong right, but it based upon various other factors and it can be invoked incidentally. The doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked where there is an irreparable loss to the party and public interest does not suffer. In the present case on hand, as observed earlier, we are dealing with the unintended anamoly since the petitioners had completed the course and there is no question of allowing anyone else with the post graduate qualification from the Open University either to be admitted into the law course or to be enrolled in the State Roll.
Also, in the aforesaid decision at page 781 & 782, in paragraphs 82 and 83, it is observed and laid down as follows:
82. The Honourable Apex Court in
38. The principle underlying legitimate expectation which is based on Article 14 and the rule of fairness has been restated by this Court in Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO21. It was observed in paras 8 and 9: (SCC pp. 633-34)
8. A person may have a ''legitimate expectation'' of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The expectation may arise either from a representation or promise made by the authority, including an implied representation, or from consistent past practice. The doctrine of legitimate expectation has an important place in the developing law of judicial review. It is, however, not necessary to explore the doctrine in this case, it is enough merely to note that a legitimate expectation can provide a sufficient interest to enable one who cannot point to the existence of a substantive right to obtain the leave of the court to apply for judicial review. It is generally agreed that ''legitimate expectation'' gives the applicant sufficient locus standi for judicial review and that the doctrine of legitimate expectation to be confined mostly to right of a fair hearing before a decision which results in negativing a promise or withdrawing an undertaking is taken. The doctrine does not give scope to claim relief straightaway from the administrative authorities as no crystallised right as such is involved. The protection of such legitimate expectation does not require the fulfilment of the expectation where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. In other words, where a person''s legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by taking a particular decision then the decision-maker should justify the denial of such expectation by showing some overriding public interest.
9. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not trammelled by any statute or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for discernible reasons, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. The meaning and true import and concept of arbitrariness is more easily visualised than precisely defined. A question whether the impugned action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the facts and circumstances of a given case. A basic and obvious test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness.
(Emphasis supplied)
39. MRF made a huge investment in the State of Kerala under a promise held to it that it would be granted exemption from payment of sales tax for a period of seven years.... The action of the State cannot be permitted to operate if it is arbitrary or unreasonable. This Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N. observed that where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14. Equity that arises in favour of a party as a result of a representation made by the State is founded on the basic concept of ''Justice and fair play''. The attempt to take away the said benefit of exemption with effect from 15-1-1998 and thereby deprive MRF of the benefit of exemption for more than 5 years out of a total period of 7 years, in our opinion, is highly arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable and deserves to be quashed.
83. Applying the above said principles to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the doctrine of legitimate expectation also would be applicable to the present case on hand, since the petitioners'' expectation to get enrolled is a legitimate one after allowing them to complete the law course.
20. It is to be noted that well settled principle of law is that a person knowing the true facts cannot take advantage of the principle of Estoppel as per decision in
21. It cannot be gainsaid that there can be no Estoppel where truth is accessible. Moreover, ''Estoppel'' is a complex legal notion, concerning several essential factors, like the statement to be acted upon, action on the faith of it, resulting detriment to the actor. Indeed, to bring the subject matter in issue within the ambit of ''Estoppel'' as defined u/s 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the following are very much necessary: (a)there must be a representation by a person or his authorised agent to another in any from a declaration, act or omission; (b)the representation must have been of the existence of a fact and not of promises de futuro or intention which might or might not be enforceable in contract; (c)the representation must have been meant to be relied upon; (d)there must have been belief on the part of the other party in its truth; (e) there must have been action on the faith of that declaration, act or omission, that is to say, the declaration, act or omission must have actually caused another to act on the faith of it, and to alter his former position to his prejudice or detriment; (f)the mis-representation or conduct or omission must have been the proximate cause of leading the other party to act to his prejudice; (g)the person claiming the benefit of an estoppel must show that he was not aware of the true state of things. If he was aware of the real state of affairs or had means of knowledge, there can be no estoppel; (h)only the person to whom representation was made or for whom, it was designed can avail himself of it.
22. There can be no estoppel in the absence of representation or conduct amounting to such. Also, there can be no estoppel where a party has not been misled and has not been induced to do something detrimental to his interest owing to the action of the other party as per the decision in
23. After all, Estoppel is based on equity and good conscience. Further, it is a question of fact and is a rule of civil action, in the considered opinion of this Court. No wonder, the Estoppel must be cleared, unambiguous and certain and that the principle of Estoppel would have no application when both sides are equally acquainted with true facts. In order to constitute the bar of Estoppel, the act or omission of the person must be intentional. The aim of Estoppel is to prevent fraud and secure justice between the parties by promotion of honesty and good faith. At this stage, this Court aptly points out the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in
24. The Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents 1 to 3 brings it to the notice of this Court that the Secretary to Government, Health And Family Welfare (N1) Department, Chennai, in Letter No. 27582/N1/2007-2 dated 10.07.2007, has informed the 2nd Respondent/Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai 6 as follows:
Sub: Training Public Health and Preventive Medicine Conducting of condensed Sanitary Inspector Course Training to 121 candidates working as Sanitary Supervisor/Field Assistants in Municipalities/Corporations Orders issued Instructions issued.
Ref :
1) G.O.Ms. No. 53, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 12.2.2007.
2) From the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine letter R. No. 11549/Trg/2006/S2 dated 25.5.2007.
#####
In the circumstances reported by you in the reference second cited, the Government permit you to admit the candidates for Sanitary Inspector training course who do not possess the minimum educational qualification, subject to the condition that the candidates be put on notice that their admission to the above training course will not give them any right for appointment as Sanitary Inspector (or) Field Assistant.
2. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine is requested to take action accordingly and send a report to the Government." With a copy being marked to the Municipal Administration and Water Supplies (M.E.3) Department, Chennai- 9.
25. Further, the 2nd Respondent, in his communication in R. No. 111549/Training/2006/S2 dated 25.05.2007 addressed to the 1st Respondent has stated the following:
The Government have permitted the Director of Public Health and Executive Medicine to conduct the condensed Sanitary Inspector Course training for six months to the 121 Sanitary Supervisors and Field Assistants working in the Municipalities/Corporations under the control of Commissioner of Municipal Administration. Accordingly orders were issued for 121 candidates sponsored by the Commissioner of Municipal Administration for training.
But as the time of verification of Original Certificates at the Training Institute, it is found that some candidates do not possess the minimum educational qualification and they were not allowed to join the course.
In this connection, the opinion of the Government Pleader was sought since the Government Orders was issued based on the interim directions and Honourable High Court on Writ Petition NO. 31795/2006.
The Government Pleader in his position (copy enclosed) has stated "The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine who is the 4th respondent in the above Writ Petition is bound by the order of this Honourable Court and in terms of G.O. issued by the Government and he has to admit the candidates for training. In any event, the said candidates can be put on notice that the admission to training course will not give them any right for appointment as Sanitary Inspector or Field Assistant.
Therefore, I, request that Government to issue necessary instructions in this regard.
26. One cannot brush aside an important fact that ''Legitimate Expectation'' is different from wish/desire/hope. In fact, the Legitimate Expectation is not a demand on the ground of right. To put it succinctly, ''Expectation'' is no anticipation. Also, it is no assertable expectation. Even it cannot be a substantive right enforceable by itself, as opined by this Court. The denial of claim made by a person on the basis of Legitimate Expectation does not by itself confer an absolute right to claim relief. After all the ''Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation'' is an adjunct of procedural fairness.
27. At this stage, this Court, to prevent an aberration of justice and to promote substantial cause of justice, cites the following decisions:
(a) In the decision The
(b) In the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in The
(c) In the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in
(d) In the decision
(e) In the decision
In the present case, the alleged alteration of the situation by the college is nothing else but an usurpation of the powers of autonomy as if status of autonomy had already been given. As an affiliated college, the petitioner is bound to adopt the curriculum issued by the University and follow a syllabus permitted by it. Till it is designated as an autonomous college, it has no power to transgress or violate the Regulations or statutes of the University. Even after the status of autonomy is conferred on a college it cannot straightaway change the syllabus. The syllabus has to be prescribed only by the Board of Studies. The Board of Studies has to be constituted in accordance with section 9 of Chapter XXVI of the statute. The only body that is empowered to prescribe syllabus for an autonomous college is the Board of Studies and unless and until such a Board of Studies is constituted in accordance with the Statute, the college cannot alter the syllabus. It is not open to the college to invoke the doctrine of estoppel after having committed an illegality. On the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the requirements of the doctrine of promissory estoppel are fulfilled. While, on the one hand, there is no promise or assurance on the part of the University, on the other, there is no such alteration of situation as would enable the college to claim the benefit of the rule. The only alteration is arrogation of powers to which the college was not entitled.
28. In this connection, a clear stand taken on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 3 is that the 2nd Respondent, in his counter in paragraph 5, has clearly averred that the Petitioners have been duly informed by the 3rd Respondent as to the clarification issued by the 1st Respondent dated 10.07.2007 in Letter No. 27582/N1/2007-2 to the effect that ''The Government has permitted the 2nd Respondent to admit the candidates for Sanitary Inspector training course who do not possess the minimum educational qualification, subject to the condition that the candidates be put on notice that their admission to the above training course will not give them any right for appointment as Sanitary Inspector (or) Field Assistant''. Also that, according to the 2nd Respondent, the said clarification issued by the 1st Respondent has been informed to the Petitioners by the 3rd Respondent during the training classes as well as the copy of the clarification being displayed at the Departmental Notice Board for information of the other candidates. Admittedly, the Petitioners have not passed the old S.S.L.C. The minimum general qualification of pass in S.S.L.C. with mathematics and science is a must for a candidate being admitted for Sanitary Inspector Training Course and even though the Petitioners have not suppressed about their not passing the S.S.L.C. in their consent letter when the minimum educational qualification prescribed is S.S.L.C. as per the training rules viz., general qualification of S.S.L.C. for admission to the said training, the Petitioners cannot later on turn around and say that merely because they were permitted to undergo six months training and later completed their six months training course on 25.10.2007, the same would not enure to the benefits because of the reason that the 3rd Respondent permitted them to undergo the training course subject to the clarification received from the 1st Respondent. More so, the 2nd Respondent office had addressed the 1st Respondent office to clarify whether the Petitioners could be admitted for training without passing the minimum general qualification of S.S.L.C. with mathematics and science. When the true position is that for undergoing the six months Sanitary Inspectors training, the minimum educational qualification is S.S.L.C. Just because the Petitioners were permitted to undergo training course subject to the clarification, being received from the 1st Respondent, it would not give any premium or lever on their part to come with a plea that the ''Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation'' would come into operative play in their favour, in the considered opinion of this Court.
29. Moreover, it is not established on the side of the Petitioners to the subjective satisfaction of this Court that the Respondents had given any precise and unambiguous promise or made any representation to the Petitioners to the effect that ''Non passing of S.S.L.C. as a pre-requisite qualification would suffice for them to join the training course and to complete the same''. As a matter of fact, when the training relates to General Science about Bacteria, Virus, Anatomy, Physiology and Microbiology and communal diseases caused by them and prevention of Epidemic diseases by way of chlorination of the drinking water and other stagnated water by adding chlorine based on the standardised formula which need mathematics, the qualification of S.S.L.C. Pass is necessary for admission to the Sanitary Inspector Training Course, in the considered opinion of this Court. Also that, even though the Petitioners had completed the Condensed Sanitary Inspector Course (six months duration) and passed the examination as per Notifications dated 07.01.2008 and 18.12.2008, the same would not confer any right for appointment as Sanitary Inspector or Field Assistant just because they were admitted to the training course because of the reason that they do not possess the minimum qualification viz., pass in S.S.L.C. As such, the contra plea taken by the Petitioners is that the 2nd Respondent having admitted and permitted the Petitioners to join the Sanitary Inspectors Training Course and that too being aware of the respective educational qualifications is estopped by the Principles of Promissory Estoppel, is not accepted by this Court. That apart, this Court, on going through the impugned order dated 17.11.2009 of the 2nd Respondent to the effect that ''It is informed that Pre-requisite qualification is primary clause to award any certificate to which candidate undergone any training or course etc.,'' holds that the same does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity in the eye of law. But, in view of the fact that the 2nd Respondent, in communication R. No. 54374/Trg./S3/2010 dated 20.06.2012 addressed to the Special Government Pleader of this Court, has, inter alia, stated that ''The Government in Letter No. 45385/N1/2010-3 dated 19.06.2012 have issued instructions to issue course completion certificate in respect of both the Petitioners duly mentioning the clause that it will not entitle the individuals to claim for promotion as they do not possess the basic educational qualification'' etc., this Court quashes that portion of the impugned order in R. No. 54374/Trg/2009/S2 dated 17.11.2009 issued by the 2nd Respondent viz., ''The individuals mentioned in the address entry are not eligible for obtaining the certificate, therefore the request of the individuals for certificate could not be complied'' and directs the 2nd Respondent to issue the Course Completion Certificate to the Petitioners as per instructions issued by the Government in Letter No. 45385/N1/2010-3 dated 19.06.2012 of the Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai -9 (if not already issued), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
