Qualification relates back to the examination date, entitling the instructor to retrospective regularisation.

The petitioner, a Vocational Instructor, challenged the proceedings of the Joint Director of School Education dated 19 March 2021, by which her claim for regularisation from 23 September 1994 under G.O.Ms.No.834 was rejected on the ground that she was not fully qualified on that date.

The petitioner had appeared for her postgraduate examination conducted by Annamalai University in May 1994. Although the qualifying certificate was issued only on 25 October 1995, it recorded that she had passed the examination held in May 1994.

She contended that her qualification therefore related back to May 1994 and that she was qualified when G.O.Ms.No.834 dated 23 September 1994 was issued.

She also relied on the Division Bench decision in W.P.No.11389 of 2003, which protected the vested regularisation rights of double part-time instructors and extended deemed regularisation benefits to otherwise qualified single part-time instructors.

Whether the petitioner could be treated as qualified on 23 September 1994 when her university certificate was issued subsequently but recorded that she had passed the examination conducted in May 1994.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to regularisation in the B.T. time scale from 23 September 1994 under G.O.Ms.No.834 and the principles laid down in W.P.No.11389 of 2003.

Whether the impugned order dated 19 March 2021 rejecting her claim was liable to be quashed.

The Court applied G.O.Ms.No.834 dated 23 September 1994, under which eligible and fully qualified single and double part-time Vocational Instructors were to be regularised.

It relied on the Division Bench ruling in W.P.No.11389 of 2003, which held that G.O.Ms.No.834 could not retrospectively take away vested regularisation rights and that otherwise qualified single part-time instructors were entitled to deemed regularisation from the date on which a junior double part-time instructor was regularised, together with notional increments, though without payment of the notional increment itself.

The Court further applied the principle that where a later-issued examination certificate records successful completion of an examination held earlier, the qualification relates back to the date of the examination or result, rather than the date of issuance of the certificate.

The Court treated the certificate’s issuance date of 25 October 1995 as evidentiary of a qualification already acquired through the examination held in May 1994.

Since the certificate expressly stated that the petitioner had passed that examination, the later issuance of the certificate did not postpone the date on which she became qualified.

Accordingly, she was qualified before the operative date of G.O.Ms.No.834, namely 23 September 1994.

The Court therefore found that the respondents had incorrectly rejected her claim merely by relying on the date printed on the certificate.

Applying the earlier Division Bench principles concerning regularisation of vocational instructors, the Court held that the petitioner fell within the class entitled to regularisation under G.O.Ms.No.834.

The impugned proceedings dated 19 March 2021 were quashed.

The respondents were directed to regularise the petitioner’s service in the B.T. time scale notionally with effect from 23 September 1994 and to revise her pension calculations within eight weeks from receipt of the order.

The Court clarified that the petitioner was entitled to pension arrears for the relevant period, but not to retrospective payment of the entire salary difference for that period.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.