Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1928 (MAD)

K. Uthayakumar v. Government of Tamil Nadu

2015-04-17

S.VAIDYANATHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners have come forward with these petitions, seeking to quash the impugned orders passed by the 4th respondent in O. Mu. No. 679/A1/2014 dated 16.07.2014, Na.Ka.No.1130/A3/2014, Na.Ka.No.1133/A3/2014 and Na. Ka. No. 1132/A3/2014 dated 14.10.2014, rejecting their claim for approval from the date of his appointment along with all monetary benefits and consequently direct the respondents to approve their appointment as Secondary Grade Teachers with effect from 28.10.1997 with all service and monetary benefits by extending the benefits of Proceedings in 4332/B3/2014 dated 18.06.2014 and in the light of the Judgment passed in the case of Chandrasekar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu in W.P. No. 11443/05 dated 22.01.2013. 2. The case of the petitioners is that similarly situated teachers like the petitioners herein filed a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.19821 of 2003 etc., challenging the Clauses iii and viii of the Government Order in G.O.155 dated 03.10.2002, mandating approval of appointment on completion of Child Psychology Training. This Court was pleased to allow those writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to approve their appointments from the date of appointment with all monetary benefits. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that based on the said order, the petitioners also made representations to the 4th respondent for extension of the same benefit to them. The 4th respondent in W.P.(MD) No.17425 of 2014, namely, The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Chinnamanur, Theni, rejected the request of the petitioner and in respect of other petitioners in W.P.(MD) Nos.17426 to 17428 of 2004, the 4th respondent therein, namely, The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Alankulam, Tirunelveli directed the petitioners to forward necessary applications to the District Elementary Educational Officer / 3rd respondent, who is the competent authority to take a decision in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that on the very same issue, two different orders were passed by the 4th respondents, which is arbitrary in nature. 4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the issue in question is covered by the decision of this Court dated 22.01.2013 passed in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.19821 of 2003, etc. 4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the issue in question is covered by the decision of this Court dated 22.01.2013 passed in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.19821 of 2003, etc. Pursuant to the said order, the District Elementary Educational Officer / 3rd respondent issued proceedings granting approval to the petitioners therein from the date of appointment along with all monetary and service benefits, but with a condition that it cannot be treated as a precedent to consider the request of other employees. 6. Since the petitioners are similarly placed persons, I am of the considered opinion that the request of the petitioners can be considered in the light of the above judgment and suitable orders be passed by the concerned authority in this regard. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.17425 of 2014 is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the District Elementary Educational Officer, Theni / 3rd respondent for fresh consideration, who in turn is directed to consider the request of the petitioner and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, keeping in view the judgment rendered in the batch of writ petitions referred to above. 8. Insofar as other petitioners in W.P.(MD) Nos.17426 to 17428 of 2014 are concerned, since no adverse orders were passed, the petitioners are directed to approach the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli / 3rd respondent by way of representations and the 3rd respondent in turn is directed to consider the request of the petitioners and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order bearing in mind the order passed in the batch of writ petitions (supra). No costs.