Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2237 (MAD)

R. Janarthanan v. District Forest Officer

2014-07-24

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2014
Judgment 1. Heard both sides. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 12.12.2001. He was promoted as B.T. Assistant on 01.03.2007. He was further promoted as Middled School Headmaster on 01.09.2012. 3. While so, the District Forest Officer, Thiruvannamalai North Division, Thiruvannamalai, the first respondent herein, issued the impugned order dated 04.04.2013 reverting the petitioner to the post of B.T. Assistant. The reversion order was passed since one Mr. C. Murugesan, who was senior to the petitioner in the category of B.T. Assistant had to be promoted as Middle School Headmaster as per the orders of this Court. Since there was no vacancy to accommodate him in the post of Middle School Headmaster, the petitioner was reverted to the post of B.T. Assistant. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the respondents 2 and 3 were promoted as Middle School Headmasters on the same day, on which he was promoted to the post of Middle School Headmaster, they were promoted as Primary School Headmasters only in August 2008, that is, after the petitioner was promoted as B.T. Assistant on 01.03.2007. According to the petitioner, since both the posts of B.T. Assistants and Primary School Headmasters are feeder categories to the post of Middle School Headmaster, the respondents 2 and 3 should have been reverted instead of reverting the petitioner. In support of his submission, the petitioner has relied on G.O.Ms.No.166, School Education Department, dated 07.06.1999. 5. On the other hand, the first respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the impugned order was passed based on the letter dated 11.10.2012 of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruvannamalai. 6. An additional counter affidavit is also filed by the first respondent stating that the Forest Department follows the Government Orders and Proceedings issued by the Educational Authorities in respect of Teachers and Headmasters in the Schools run by them. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 heavily relied on the letter dated 11.10.2012 of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruvannamalai, stating that though the posts of Primary School Headmaster as well as the B.T. Assistant constitute the feeder category for the post of Middle School Headmaster, preference shall be given to Primary School Headmasters, as per the letter dated 11.10.2012 of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruvannamalai. 8. 8. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. The contents of the letter dated 11.10.2012 of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruvannamalai is extracted hereunder: “TAMIL” 10. In my view, the aforesaid letter is contrary to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.166. The posts of Primary School Headmaster, B.T. Assistant and Tamil Pandit are feeder categories for promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster. Earlier, all the three posts carried the same scale of pay. Later, B.T. Assistants/Tamil Pandits were given higher scale of pay than the Primary School Headmaster. In those circumstances, B.T. Assistants/Tamil Pandits shall get preference over the Primary School Headmasters in the normal circumstances, as all the categories belong to feeder category. But the Government wanted to follow the same procedure that was followed before the revision took place, by issuing G.O.Ms.No.166 stating that a common seniority of all the three categories will be prepared based on the entry into the feeder category. The Government issued the order in G.O.Ms.No.166 exercising its power under Rule 36(a) of the General Rules. In this regard, the relevant passage in para 5 of G.O.Ms.No.166 is extracted hereunder: “TAMIL” 11. In view of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.166, the letter dated 11.10.2012 of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruvannamalai has to be rejected, as the same is contrary to the aforesaid Government Order. It is well settled that the Government Orders would prevail over the letters/proceeding of its subordinates. The letter of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruvannamalai states that the Primary School Headmasters shall be given preference for promotion to the post of Middle School Headmasters. I am not able to understand as to how the District Elementary Educational Officer came to such a conclusion. One can understand that giving preference to B.T. Assistants/Tamil Pandits is on the ground that they received higher scale of pay. But the Government exercised its power under Rule 36(a) of the General Rules and made it clear that though B.T. Assistants/Tamil Pandits were given higher scale of pay, all the three categories shall be treated as feeder categories with equal treatment and the date of promotion to the feeder category will form basis for preparation of panel. But the Government exercised its power under Rule 36(a) of the General Rules and made it clear that though B.T. Assistants/Tamil Pandits were given higher scale of pay, all the three categories shall be treated as feeder categories with equal treatment and the date of promotion to the feeder category will form basis for preparation of panel. Hence, the impugned order dated 04.04.2013 of the first respondent is liable to be quashed particularly taking note of the additional counter affidavit filed by the first respondent that they are following the Government Orders and proceedings issued by the Government in the Educational Department in respect of Teachers and Headmasters in the schools run by them. Further, though para 2 of the letter dated 11.10.2012 of the District Elementary Educational Officer is not relevant for this case, I am of the view that the same is also contrary to Government Orders and various judgments of this Court. 12. Accordingly, the letter dated 11.10.2012 of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruvannamalai is set aside. Since the impugned order is based on the letter dated 11.10.2012 of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruvannamalai, the same is also set aside. The first respondent is directed to restore the petitioner immediately to the post of Headmaster by reverting the respondents 2 or 3, based on their seniority in the Secondary Grade Teacher, who were promoted to the post of Primary School Headmasters subsequently, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent is further directed to pay consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks thereafter. 13. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.