Mohsin Unissa vs Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
- SCC(1996) 8 SCC 270
- Neutral1996 INSC 463
- AIRAIR 1997 SC 259
- SCR[1996] 3 SCR 1049
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an examination requirement for regularization of service has been satisfied during a prior period of temporary employment, and that satisfaction has been upheld as valid by a final court order, the employer cannot subsequently terminate the employee's service on the ground of failure to pass the examination in a later attempt, even if that later attempt was marred by alleged malpractice. The prior valid passage of the examination requirement remains the operative fact for the purposes of regularization. Where an employee has been required to pass an examination as a condition precedent to regularization and has done so during temporary service, the subsequent regular appointment does not reopen or nullify the prior valid satisfaction of that condition merely because the employee fails in a re-examination taken after regularization.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. Appellant was temporarily appointed in the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission itself in the year 1975-76, for regular recruitment, she was selected and appointed in the Finance Department as a Junior Assistance in August 1990. For regularization of her service passing the Tamil language test was a pre-condition. Initially, she had appeared in the year 1977. While she was temporarily working, she had passed the exam. She was asked to pass the same examination again after her regular appointment, It would appear that she had requested a companion who was sitting by her side to keep an eye on her answer book and also it was taken that she committed malpractice in copying the paper. On that ground the paper written by her in the year 1977 was also cancelled along with the examination in which she is imputed to have committed malpractice. When she challenged the order, the High Court held that since the examination passed by her in 1977 was valid in law, the cancellation thereof on the ground of her committing malpractice in the second examination is not valid in law. That order has become final.
Under these circumstances, the only question is:
whether the appellant's service could be terminated for her failure to pass the examination. No doubt, she did not pass the examination after her regular appointment but she has passed the examination when she was temporarily in service and that order having been allowed to become final, it is no longer open to the respondent to terminate her services for failure to pass the examination. The respondent is directed to regularize her service giving her past benefits of temporary service with effect from 1975-76 for purpose by perusal. However seniority would be determined, she being a direct recruit, w.e.f. the date of her appointment in August 1990.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free