The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Education Department & Ors v. X. Roselin Jancy
(2018) 1 MLJ 251
In the High Court of Madras
W.A.(MD) 1336/2017 and C.M.P.(MD) 9471/2017
Before Justice M. Venugopal and Justice Abdul Quddhose
Decided on November 08, 2017

Relevancy of the case: Maintaining records in electronic form

Statutes & Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 11, 14, 79A, 92)
• The Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1955 (Rule 8, 9, 47)
• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 3, 34, 35, 65A, 65B, 85B)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• Ranks with the details of seniority for promotion to primary school headmaster were required to be maintained. The list was maintained from the year 1995 and suddenly it was shuffled in the year 2008.
• The compact disc was introduced due to widespread complaints in respect of bogus rank number.
• The petitioners rank was demoted to 10^th position form 2^nd position due to this action. The process of preparing the compact disk was not conveyed to the respondent and other concerned teachers.
• The records were not maintained in a correct manner and this lead to the confusion of positions in the list of seniority.

Opinion of the Bench

• Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 has empowered the Central Government to appoint an ‘Examiner of Electronic Evidence’ to provide an expert opinion of ‘Electronic Evidence’ before any Court or Authority.
• As per ingredients of Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, electronic form of evidence means any information of “probative value that is either stored or transmitted in electronic form and includes Computer evidence, digital audios, digital video, cell phones, digital fax machines.”
• The definition of the word ‘evidence’, as per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was amended to include electronic records.
• The word ‘Electronic Record’ was also introduced in Sections 34 and 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with regards to maintaining books of accounts in the electronic form.

Final Decision

• The appellant, without any prior notice to the respondent and other concerned teachers, could not prepare a ‘Compact Disc’ when the respondent was purportedly dislodged from 2nd to 10th position.
• To prevent an aberration of justice, the court remitted back the entire subject matter in issue for fresh consideration by the Second Appellant in a fair, just, impartial and dispassionate manner.
• Based on the orders passed by the second respondent, the third respondent is directed to prepare a revised seniority list, as the case may be.
• The writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.