/2022 INSC 0159/
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.1301 of 2022
A. Dharmaraj           ..Appellant
Versus
The Chief Educational Officer, 
Pudukkottai & Ors.           ..Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T 
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
1

the   post   of   B.T.   Assistant   (English),   the   original   appellant
before the High Court has preferred the present appeal. 
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 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   2013­2015.
He   appeared   in   the   examination   for   M.A.   (Tamil)   in   May,
2014 and May, 2015 and successfully completed 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
2

who   have   obtained   B.A./B.Sc   and   B.Ed.,   during   the   same
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
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).
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).
3

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   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 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 appellant obtained the degree of B.A. (English) and
M.A. (Tamil) during the same academic year.  The appellant
4

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 2013­2014 to 2014­2015.  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.  
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. 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   ignored   the   aforesaid   aspect   in
quashing the promotion of the appellant to the post of B.T.
Assistant (English).
5

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   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 as to costs.
 
…………………………………J.
               (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
  (B. V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
February 18, 2022.
6