Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1837 (MAD)

Jeyakumar v. Director of Elementary Education

2014-07-02

R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.20516/E4/2006, dated 19.07.2006 and quash the same as illegal and direct the first respondent to promote the petitioner for the post of Headmaster of Primary School by calculating his period of service from the date of his appointment in the Aided School, that is on 18.07.1986. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in Hindu Primary School at T.Karisalkulam, Vembakottai, Alangulam Post, Virudhunagar District, on 18.07.1986. Thereafter, he had passed the degree in B.Ed., in 1992 and M.Ed., in 1995 as well. Since he had worked for more than ten years, he was given with promotion as Selection Grade with effect from 18.07.1986. He also registered his name in the Employment Exchange, Virudhunagar, in the year 1989 for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and Tamil Pandit in the Government Schools, with the prior permission of the Management of the Aided school. Meanwhile, he had acquired several other educational qualifications. He made a representation to the respondents 3 and 4 to consider him for the post of Primary School Headmaster, based on the G.O.No.39, School Education Department, dated 09.02.2005. Thereafter, he sent many reminders to his earlier representation. The third respondent, by his order dated 22.09.2005, rejected the claim of the petitioner stating that his seniority would be considered for promotion only from the date of joining in the Government School. Consequently, the first respondent also, by his proceedings dated 14.06.2006 and 19.07.2006, rejected the representation of the petitioner, stating that the posts of the Middle School Headmaster would be filled from the feeder posts of Primary School Headmaster, Tamil Pandit and B.Ed., Teacher and since the petitioner has not worked in any of the said posts, his case for promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster was not considered. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The second respondent in the counter affidavit, among other things, contended that G.O.Ms.No.13, School Education (C2) Department, dated 09.02.2005, mandated that seniority list to the promotion of the Middle School Headmaster should be prepared based on the services of a Teacher in the cadre of Primary School Headmaster or B.Ed., Teacher/Tamil Pandit. 3. The second respondent in the counter affidavit, among other things, contended that G.O.Ms.No.13, School Education (C2) Department, dated 09.02.2005, mandated that seniority list to the promotion of the Middle School Headmaster should be prepared based on the services of a Teacher in the cadre of Primary School Headmaster or B.Ed., Teacher/Tamil Pandit. The petitioner was given with Selection Grade Teacher at that time and he was not a Primary School Headmaster. Then only, the claim of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster was rejected, by taking into account the G.O.Ms.No.13, School Education (C2) Department, dated 09.02.2005, wherein guidelines were issued in this regard. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is eligible for the promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster as per the G.O.Ms.No.510, Education (B1) Department, dated 26.05.1992, which would clearly entitle the petitioner for such promotion and hence, he sought for appropriate relief. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, vehemently contended that the petitioner has not possessed the requisite qualifications for the promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster and as per G.O.Ms.No.13, School Education (C2) Department, dated 09.02.2005, he has to comply with the guidelines issued therein and in such a case, the claim of the petitioner is untenable. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 7. In similar circumstances, several Original Applications were filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.789 of 1989, etc., wherein the Government was directed to clarify certain positions. Thereafter, as per the judgment of the Tribunal dated 03.07.1991 and in pursuance of the consideration of Pay Anomaly Committee, the Government passed the order modifying the three Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.1297, Education, dated 21.07.1979; G.O.Ms.No.1298, Education, dated 21.07.1979 and G.O.Ms.No.373, Education, dated 31.03.1989, and the same reads as follows: "i) When Permanent vacancies arise in posts of Headmasters of Middle Schools (due to death, retirement, resignation) and the vacancies shall be filled up by the senior-most among persons working as Secondary Grade Teachers or in other cadres of trained teachers but qualified for B.Ed.,/Tamil Pandit. ii) The unit for the purpose of filling up of the post of the Headmaster in Middle Schools shall be as follows: a) In case of Government Schools - All Government Schools will be taken as One Unit. b) In case of Local Body Schools - where the teaching staff are paid by the Government, Middle Schools in each Local Body will be as one unit. c) In case of aide Schools-Each Aided School, or each cluster of Aided Schools under single Management will be considered as one unit. iii) If no such Secondary Grade or other Teacher qualified for B.Ed./Tamil Pandit is in service on the date on which a vacancy arises such vacancy shall be filled up by appointing a B.Ed., Teacher/Tamil Pandit (From the Open Market or by transfer from another management) as Headmaster. iv) Schools in which Additional Headmasters are now working shall continue to maintain their status as long as they continue in the posts." (extracted as such) 8. The specific contention raised by the petitioner is only based on the G.O.Ms.No.510, Education (B1) Department, dated 26.05.1992. However, the stand of the second respondent is that the there are no provisions in favour of the petitioner either in the Government Orders or in the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Elementary Educational Service, to reckon the services rendered in the aided school prior to resignation, for the purpose of preparing the seniority list for the promoted post of Panchayat Union Primary School Headmaster and accordingly, it has no nexus with the claim of the petitioner. 9. Also, it is pertinent to note that pending this writ petition, the petitioner filed two writ petitions in W.P(MD)Nos.948 and 4138 of 2011, for revision of salary in the selection grade scale of pay and for special grade to the petitioner from 18.07.2006, respectively. This Court, by a common order dated 05.04.2013, allowed those writ petitions. 10. Now, a reading of the above said G.O.Ms.No.510, Education (B1) Department, dated 26.05.1992, would show that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the same and the first respondent, in his impugned proceedings, has not adverted to the G.O.Ms.No.510, dated 26.05.1992 and hence, this Court is of the view that there are no justifiable reasons for the first respondent to reject the claim of the petitioner. 11. 11. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.20516/E4/2006, dated 19.07.2006, is quashed and consequently, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in the light of G.O.Ms.No.510, Education (B1) Department, dated 26.05.1992, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.