A.DHARMARAJversusTHE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PUDUKKOTTAI & ORS.

                        [2022] 1 S.C.R. 1125                             1125


                         A.DHARMARAJ                                     A
                                  v.
THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PUDUKKOTTAI & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 1301 of 2022)
                                                                         B
                       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         C
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                 D
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 –
                                                                         E
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       F
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        G
promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant (English) – Order of promotion
of appellant to the post of B.T. Assistant (English) accordingly
restored.


                                                                         H
                                1125
1126             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 1 S.C.R.


 A             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
 B     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)
 C     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./
 D     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
 E     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]
 F             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.

 G             P. S. Sridharraj, Ravinder Kumar Yadav, Advs. for the Appellant.
            C. Solomon, Ms. Nayan Maggo, S. Nagarajan, Advs. for the
       Respondents.



 H
      A.DHARMARAJ v. THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,                             1127
                 PUDUKKOTTAI & ORS.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                A
      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             B
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
(English), the original appellant before the High Court has preferred the
present appeal.                                                                 C

       2. The appellant herein was promoted to the post of B.T. Assistant
(English) vide order of promotion dated 06.08.2016. Prior thereto the
appellant was granted the permission to pursue his B.A. (English) under
distance education during January, 2012 to December, 2014. He pursued
his distance education in B.A. (English) and successfully completed the         D
same in the month of December, 2014. When the appellant was pursuing
his education in B.A. (English), the appellant was granted permission to
pursue M.A. (Tamil) which was a two year distance education course
between the Academic Years 2013-2015. He appeared in the examination
for M.A. (Tamil) in May, 2014 and May, 2015 and successfully completed          E
the same. That thereafter the Respondent no.5 herein challenged the
promotion of the appellant and others vide Writ Petition No. 15019 of
2016 on the ground that by obtaining two degrees simultenously the
appellant has rendered himself ineligible as the appellant did not fulfil the
eligibility criteria. Rule 14 was pressed into service which provided that
“the teachers who have obtained B.A./B.Sc and B.Ed., during the same            F
academic year shall not be eligible for recommendations”. The petition
was opposed by the appellant and another. It was the case on behalf of
the appellant before the learned Single Judge that Rule 14 cannot be
applicable to the facts of the case on hand, as the appellant pursued
B.A. (English) and M.A. (Tamil) in different academic years. It was             G
submitted that only in a case where B.A./B.Sc/B.Ed. degrees are
obtained in the same academic year the same is not permissible. By the
impugned judgment and order dated 23.03.2018, the learned Single Judge
allowed the said writ petition and set aside the promotion of the appellant
to the post of B.T. Assistant (English).
                                                                                H
1128             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 1 S.C.R.


 A            2.1 The appellant preferred a writ appeal before the Division
       Bench of the High Court. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the
       High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has not interfered with
       the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge,
       setting aside the promotion of the appellant to the post of B.T. Assistant
       (English).
 B
             3. Though served nobody has appeared on behalf of the contesting
       respondents more particularly original writ petitioners.
             4. We have heard Shri P.S. Sridharraj, learned counsel appearing
       on behalf of the appellant and Shri C. Solomon, learned counsel appearing
 C     on behalf of the respondent – State Authorities.
              5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
       respective parties and on perusal of the judgment and order passed by
       the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, it appears that
       the promotion of the appellant to the post of B.T. Assistant (English) has
 D     been 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
 E     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
 F     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.
              5.1 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.
 G     Assistant (English). That both the degrees secured by the appellant cannot
       be ignored. It is not in dispute that the degree of B.A. (English) was
       sufficient as per the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of B.T.
       Assistant (English).
             6. Under the circumstances both, the learned Single Judge as
       well as the Division Bench of the High Court have materially erred and
 H
      A.DHARMARAJ v. THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,                          1129
           PUDUKKOTTAI & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

ignored the aforesaid aspect in quashing the promotion of the appellant      A
to the post of B.T. Assistant (English).
      7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the
present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal (MD) No.834 of
2018 and also the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge      B
in Writ Petition No. 15019 of 2016 are hereby quashed and set aside.
Consequently, the writ petition before the learned Single Judge stands
dismissed. The order of promotion promoting the appellant to the post of
B.T. Assistant (English) dated 06.08.2016 stands restored.
       Present appeal is allowed accordingly. However, there is no order     C
as to costs.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                       Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Neha Sharma, LCRA)

                                                                             D




                                                                             E




                                                                             F




                                                                             G




                                                                             H