R MATHINA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 6. 12. 2005 by which the petitioner was dismissed from Government service on the basis that she has produced the bogus SSLC certificate. That order was passed after the charge was framed against her and explanation was submitted. However, according to the petitioner the order of dismissal was passed only on surmises without any evidence to show that the SSLC certificate produced by the petitioner is bogus. A reference to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent would show that as against that order, the petitioner can file an appeal before the 1st respondent.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in fact the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent on 22. 2. 2006 and the 1st respondent has not passed any order. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner was employed as Child Welfare organiser from 1978 for which the educational qualification required is a pass in VIII standard. However, when she was posted to the next post of the Rural Welfare Officer (Women) for which the required qualification was SSLC pass and it was regarding that post, that the SSLC certificate was scrutinised by the respondents who found that it was a bogus certificate and an order of dismissal was passed.

(3.) THE learned counsel would submit that even assuming that the petitioner is not eligible for the post of Rural Welfare Officer (Women) for which SSLC pass is the required qualification, as far as the previous post which was held by the petitioner is concerned, viz. , the Child Welfare Organiser, for which the minimum qualification required is VIII standard pass, which post, in fact the petitioner has been holding from 1978 onwards, a direction can be given to the respondents to revert the petitioner to the Child Welfare Organiser post instead of giving effect to the impugned order of dismissal.