@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
P. Jyothimani, J.@mdashThe writ petition is directed against the order of the Respondent dated 24.05.2004, by which the Petitioner was relieved from the post of Village Administrative Officer.
2. The Petitioner was appointed as Village Munsif of Singalandapuram Village, Rasipuram Taluk, erstwhile Salem District and now Namakkal District. It is stated that due to the abolition of the post of Village Munsif, the Petitioner has lost his job on 14.11.1980. In G.O. Ms. No. 1287 Revenue dated 6.7.1988, the Government directed that the ex-Village Munsifs are to be temporarily appointed as Village Administrative Officers. Since the Petitioner''s claim was not considered, he approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 6040 of 1992, which came to be allowed on 24.08.1993 with direction to the revenue authorities to consider the claim of the Petitioner to appoint him as a Village Administrative Officer, if the Petitioner is otherwise qualified by making necessary entries in the separate register on the basis of length of service. It was in those circumstances, the Respondent has appointed the Petitioner as a Village Administrative Officer of Pudukombai village, Namakkal Taluk on08.10.1998, in which post he joined and was working till his date of retirement on superannuation, at the age of 58 years viz., 31.05.2004. However, 5 days before his retirement, viz., on 24.05.2004, the Petitioner was relieved from service as per the impugned order on the ground that he did not possess the minimum general educational qualification. Before passing such order, the Petitioner was not given any opportunity. It is stated that the Petitioner has not suppressed any fact and the marks obtained by him in the S.S.L.C., examination have been disclosed and the impugned order is challenged on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, especially when the Petitioner was employed for more than five years.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent, it is stated that while it is true that the Petitioner originally was a Village Munsif till 1980 and lost his job because of the abolition of the said post and that the Petitioner also approached the Tribunal and as per the orders of the Tribunal, the Petitioner was appointed as Village Administrative Officer on 08.10.1998, a perusal of the records shows that the Petitioner did not possess the required educational qualification. It is also stated that the Petitioner was continuously working as a Village Administrative Officer from 08.10.1998 and he was to retire on 31.05.2004. It is stated that on the proposal received for the purpose of regularization of the services of the Petitioner on 16.02.2004, it was revealed that he was not qualified for the post of Village Administrative Officer, since he has secured 30 marks in General Science instead of35 marks, which is required under the Government Order, that is, a pass in S.S.L.C. examination. It is stated that since as per the Government Order the Petitioner was found to be not eligible, he was relieved from service. It is stated that due opportunity was given to the Petitioner to explain his views as per the proceedings dated 19.04.2004and the Petitioner appeared on 20.05.2004 and produced the S.S.L.C. Certificate, which is the only proof of his educational qualification. It is stated that the Petitioner was absorbed only on temporary basis as Village Administrative Officer and his permanent appointment was subject to regularization and during the time of regularization, it was found that the Petitioner was not qualified as per the Government Order, and he was relieved from service. It is stated that the Petitioner had served only for 5 years and seven months and therefore he would not be eligible for minimum pension, even if he was permitted to retire on 31.05.2004, because as per the records he has not passed the S.S.L.C. Examination.
4. A reference to the appointment order issued to the Petitioner on 08.10.1998 by the Respondent shows that the Petitioner was temporarily appointed and the appointment was not subject to any condition of producing any records to satisfy the qualification. Therefore, it is clear that as per the Government Order the appointment of the Petitioner and others made as per the said appointment order is presumed to have been made only based on the satisfaction of the Respondent that the Petitioner was qualified for the post of Village Administrative Officer. It is stated that for the purpose of appointment of Village Administrative Officer, under the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, the minimum qualification required is that the person should have obtained 35% marks in S.S.L.C. Examination. A reference to the impugned order which has been passed after five years from the date of appointment of the Petitioner as Village Administrative Officer, shows that the Petitioner was directed to produce the certificate and the Petitioner in fact produced the S.S.L.C. certificate and it was in those circumstances four days before his date of retirement, he came to be relieved from service.
5. A reference to the S.S.L.C. certificate of the Petitioner shows that in March,1964 when he appeared for all the five papers, in Mathematics paper he got 21 marks, and subsequently, he appeared in October,1970, in which his marks in Mathematics was 15 while in General Science, it was 30. He appeared in March 1972 supplementary examination and secured 75 marks in Mathematics. The case of the Petitioner is that originally, in March,1964, in General Science he has secured 35 marks and on the second time in October,1970, in which as per the Regulation then existing, he was to appear in all papers and in that the General Science marks became 30 and by the time in 1972,when he wrote the supplementary examination, there was a compartmentalized system, and he wrote only Mathematics examination. Since he obtained 35 marks in General Science in March,1964 and in Mathematics he got 75 in 1972, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that at the time when the Petitioner was given appointment, the certificate was produced and it was only after having satisfied about such certificate, and having known that originally in March,1964 the Petitioner obtained 35 marks in General Science and in March,1972 in the supplementary examination he acquired 75 marks in Mathematics, he was appointed and therefore, there is no suppression of material facts on the part of the Petitioner.
6. A reference to the counter affidavit does not show that the Petitioner has suppressed and got appointment by illegal means by misleading the Respondent as if he has got35 marks in general Science. It is only after producing the entire S.S.L.C. Book, he has got appointment in the year 1998 and that in the absence of any mistake on the part of the Petitioner, the point raised by the Respondent that the Petitioner is not qualified has no meaning. Whether the Petitioner will be able to get his pension or not is a separate question, but that cannot be put against the Petitioner, even if there is a mistake on the part of the Respondent. Law is well settled that as long as the Petitioner has not suppressed any material fact at the initial point of time while getting appointment, any further order cannot be passed detrimental to the interest of the Petitioner. If the Respondent has committed any mistake in verifying the records of the Petitioner, it is the Respondent, who has to be blamed and not the Petitioner. In such view of the matter, the impugned order stands set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
