Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
MOHSIN UNISSA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/03/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (4) 230 1996 SCALE (3)510
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
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.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.