JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to consider the eligible B.T. Assistants of the petitioner’s Association working in Panchayat Union/Corporation & Municipal Middle Schools under the service of the 3rd respondent herein for the promotion to the post of PG Assistants in the Higher Secondary Schools under the services of the 2nd respondent herein.) 1. The prayer sought for herein is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to consider the eligible B.T. Assistants of the petitioner’s Association working in Panchayat Union/Corporation & Municipal Middle Schools under the service of the 3rd respondent herein for the promotion to the post of PG Assistants in the Higher Secondary Schools under the services of the second respondent herein. 2. The petitioner is an Association called ‘Tamil Nadu Pattathari Asiriyar Kootamaippu’. It espouses the cause of number of graduate Assistants or B.T. Assistants working in various Government Schools. According to the petitioner, from the year 2003-2004 onwards and upto the year 2005-2006, about 20,000 Teachers were appointed in the temporary post of junior B.T. Assistants on a monthly consolidated pay of Rs.4000/- to handle the classes from standards VI to VIII. 3. The minimum qualification for those post was Bachelor Decree with B.Ed. degree. The Teachers were selected by the regular process by written examination conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board. 4. In this context, it is the further case of the petitioner’s Association that, though many number of qualified Teachers participated in the selection process and they became eligible to be considered for appointment, for want of vacancy, in the initial stage or in the first stage, around 3365 Teachers were appointed and when they make such appointments, those who got higher marks were given appointment in High and Higher Secondary Schools and those who got lower rank in comparing with the inter se ranking, were given appointment in Primary or Elementary and Middle Schools. 5. Though, insofar as the qualification is concerned, all are having the equal qualification and some of them even had the P.G. qualification, however because of the lower ranking they were posted in Primary or Middle Schools. 6. As per the said appointment, those who had been appointed in the Primary and Middle Schools were continuously working for more than a decade. 7. 6. As per the said appointment, those who had been appointed in the Primary and Middle Schools were continuously working for more than a decade. 7. However, in subsequent year or years, the second batch of appointment had been made, where, those who became eligible to be appointed, even though got lower ranking than those who have already got appointment in Primary and Middle Schools as B.T. Assistants, were given postings in High or Higher Secondary Schools by taking into account the inter se ranking maintained in the second batch of Teachers. 8. Therefore, According to the petitioner Association, there is a complete disparity if we take the ranking i.e., merit alone is the criteria and therefore, in order to bring, those who have already been working in Primary and Middle Schools with higher ranking or higher qualification, to the High or Higher Secondary Schools atleast after some years, some remedial measures to be undertaken to uplift their service conditions. 9. In this context, having given representation to the respondents in the year 2009, especially on 05.01.2009 and since the same was not considered, the Association approached this Court by filing the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. 10. Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out the aforesaid disparity that is prevailing for long years among Teachers with same qualification. 11. He has also contended that, those who had been posted in the first batch to the Primary and Middle Schools even though got higher ranking, their merit have not been considered when the second batch appointment were given. When the second batch appointment was given, the respondents should have taken into account the Teachers who are given appointment in the first batch in the Primary and Middle Schools and accordingly, they should have been transferred to High or Higher Secondary Schools and in those vacancies created at the Primary and Middle Schools, the second batch Teachers should have been placed, but that exercise was not undertaken by the respondents, because of which, the first batch Teachers, who were appointed in Primary and Middle Schools because of their lower ranking in the first batch, are still have been pressed into service in the Primary and Middle Schools. 12. 12. In this context, Mr.K.Kumaresh Babu, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 has brought to the notice of this Court that, considering the plight of the Teachers who had been, with higher qualification and ranking, working as B.T. Assistants in Middle or Primary Schools, the Director of Elementary Education has given his views and recommendations to the Director of School Education i.e., the second respondent by his proceedings dated 16.02.2018. By relying upon the said proceedings/communication of the third respondent addressed to the second respondent, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that, since this issue has to be bestowed the consideration by the concerned authorities viz., the second respondent and thereafter, the first respondent i.e., Secretary to Government, steps would be taken to forward this recommendation along with the views and recommendation of the second respondent to the Government i.e., the first respondent, who in turn after receipt of the views from both the second respondent as well as the third respondent, would take a decision in this regard and accordingly, the Government would come forward to announce its decision as to how this disparity can be rectified. 13. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court. 14. In order to appreciate the said grievances espoused by the petitioner Association, the views of the third respondent i.e., the Director of Elementary Education, as has been reflected in the proceedings dated 16.02.2018, can be taken into account. After having discussed the issue in detail, the third respondent, in the said proceedings, has stated the following: “TAMIL” 15. In view of the said opinion expressed by the third respondent with recommendation for consideration of the second respondent i.e., the Director of School Education under whose control the High and Higher Secondary Schools are functioning, the second respondent can very well take into account the said views and recommendation expressed by the third respondent and accordingly, the second respondent after recording his views and recommendation, in turn, can forward the same to the first respondent i.e., the Government, who is the Secretary to Government, School Education Department and it is for the first respondent to take a suitable decision to resolve this issue. 16. 16. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following orders. The second respondent/Director of School Education shall consider the proceedings of the third respondent i.e., the Director of Elementary Education dated 16.02.2018 in proper perspective in order to address the issue espoused by the petitioner Association in this writ petition, as has been averred in the said proceedings of the third respondent and on consideration of the same, the second respondent can forward his views along with the views of the third respondent with recommendation to the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the first respondent i.e., Secretary to Government on behalf of the Government shall take a decision thereon and accordingly issue Government Order to that effect within a period of two weeks thereafter. 17. With this direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.