Chennai: Quite often, this court is confronted with situations where justice and law do not come to terms and such situations may impose judicial dilemma on the institutions.
However, such dicey situation is to be surmounted by this institution by ultimately adopting a justice-oriented approach in order to reach out and uphold the fundamental rights of the citizen, observed the Madras High Court while setting aside an order of the state government, which declared the appointment of a woman Assistant Professor as invalid.
Allowing a petition from Annie D. Ambrose alias J. Rukmani, Justice V. Parthiban directed the government to regularise the service of the petitioner and grant her all service benefits including retirement and pensionary benefits.
The petitioner was appointed as assistant professor and served in various colleges since 1981. While so, in 1995, the government discharged her from service on the ground that her M.Sc degree in Human Genetics and Anthropology in Zoology as an ancillary subject was not found to be equivalent to M.Sc. Zoology. However, by an interim order, she continued to serve as Assistant Professor and retired on June 30, 2010. Since she could not get her service benefits she has filed the present petition.
The judge said the petitioner had a basic degree in B.Sc., Zoology and Zoology as taught as one of the ancillary subjects in the postgraduate course. Moreover, she had obtained M. Phil degree in Zoology and subsequently, obtained a Doctorate in Zoology. Once the petitioner obtains higher degree viz., in the same subject in which she was considered for appointment, this court does not see what was the justification for the government to consider her qualification as non-equivalent to M.Sc Zoology.
The government, while considering the claim of the petitioner, has misdirected itself in comparing only the postgraduate degree obtained by her without considering the M.Phil degree obtained by her in Zoology. “The government clearly fell into error in adopting an approach that the postgraduate obtained by her was not equivalent to M.Sc Zoology. Such narrow approach by the government without considering her higher qualification in the same subject did not subserve good administration, particularly in view of the fact that she was appointed and continued in service for nearly three decades as Assistant Professor/Lecturer without any complaint against her in regard to her capacity and capability to work as Lecturer,” the judge added.
The judge said at the time when the petitioner originally came to be regularised, the government itself has provided for the grant of relaxation in age and educational qualification if a need arises. Once such contingency stipulated in the G.O, it was a fit case that the government ought to have taken follow up action in getting necessary relaxation in favour of the petitioner, the judge pointed out.
The judge said the authorities have utilised the service of the petitioner for nearly three decades and there were no complaints against the capability of the petitioner to teach the Zoology subject and several hundreds of students in the subject had been benefited by the teaching of the petitioner, cannot abandon the petitioner high and dry at the end of her service career on the ground that her postgraduate qualification was not equivalent to M.Sc Zoology. Such insensitive, wooden approach by the government was rather deplorable and cannot be countenanced both in law and facts, the judge added.
