Madras High Court
S.Muruganandham vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 15 February, 2017
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.02.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.(MD) No.12011 of 2012
1.S.Muruganandham
2.M.Rajan
3.Y.Mallika
4.G.Sheba
5.A.Gunaseelan
6.ES.Thirumalaikumar
7.L.Nadimuthu
8.G.Subramanian
9.P.Surulinathan
10.T.Nagajothi
11.P.Malarvizhi
12.S.Angeline Rachel Lelly Pushpam
13.S.Prema
14.S.Gowtham
15.P.Ramamoorthy
16.G.Ruckmani
17.G.P.Chinna Veeran
18.G.Prabu
19.L.Rajendran
20.P.Murugan
21.K.Marimuthu
22.V.Natarajaperumal
23.T.Paulraj
24.A.Chandrasekar
25.M.Dhanalakshmi
26.D.Sheela
27.T.Kather Jayalani
28.N.Parameswari
29.M.Muthukrishnan ... Petitioners
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary to Government
School Education Department
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Director,
Directorate of Teachers Education,
Research and Training,
Chennai.
3.The Director of School Education,
DPI Complex, College Road,
Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
relating to the order No.11026/U2/2011-5 dated 28.06.2012 passed by the 1st
respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to
regularise the services of the petitioners from their date of initial
appointment in the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) ie.,
from 18.03.2002 or actual date of appointment of individual petitioners in
2002 and grant time scale of pay, continuity of service and all other
consequential service and monetary benefits from the date of initial
appointment.
!For Petitioners : Mr.N.Thirukkumaran
^For Respondents : Mr.V.Muruganandham
Addl.Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3
:ORDER
The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order No.11026/U2/2011-5 dated 28.06.2012 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners from their date of initial appointment in the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) ie., from 18.03.2002 or actual date of appointment of individual petitioners in 2002 and grant time scale of pay, continuity of service and all other consequential service and monetary benefits from the date of initial appointment.
2.The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition is that all these petitioners had been appointed during the year 2002 ie., in February/March 2002 as Junior Lecturers for the period of two years on contract basis to take the classes in Government Teacher Education Institution, for students, who had been admitted in those institutions because of that had been affected due to the de-recognition of number of private institutions, where the said students studied. Accordingly, these petitioners had been appointed and had been working for two years. Since the two years period was over by February 2004, by orders dated 25.02.2004, the services of these petitioners for the said two years period had been terminated.
3. Subsequently the Government issued a Government order in G.O.Ms.(D) No.389 School Education (U2) Department dated 09.09.2004 whereby, the Government has directed the Teachers Recruitment Board to conduct a special qualifying examinations for these teachers, who had lost their two years contract period service and based on such Test to be conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board, these teachers can be selected and to be appointed on permanent basis. Subsequently, the Teachers Recruitment Board also conducted the special qualifying Test and pursuant to the same, these Teachers had been selected and had been appointed as Junior Lecturers in Government Higher Secondary School with effect from 30.11.2004. At the time of making such reappointment, pursuant to the selection through the said qualifying test conducted by the TRB, these petitioners had been put in regular service and to complete the probation period also from the date of such appointment. Subsequently, since the petitioners had completed the probation period successfully, their consolidated pay service had been closed by 31.05.2006 and from 01.06.2006, all these petitioners had been made permanent in other words, their services had been regularised. In fact, this permanent services had been conferred on the petitioners only pursuant to the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.120 School Education Department dated 18.07.2006. The relevant portion of the said Government order is in paragraph No.3 of the said G.O., which reads thus:
?vdnt> muRg; gs;spfspy; xg;ge;j Kiwapy; bjhFg;g{jpak; bgw;W gzpahw;Wk; Mrphpah;fspd; xg;ge;j epakdj;jpid 31.05.2006 gpw;gfy; Kot[wr; bra;Jk; gjtpf;Fhpa rpwg;g[ tpjpfspd; fPH; midj;J tpjpfisa[k; clw;jFjp cl;gl g{h;j;jp bra;jth;fSf;F 01.06.2006 Kw;gfy; Kiwahd epakd Miz tHq;fp> 01.06.2006 Kw;gfy; Kjy; jFjpfhz; gUtk; Jtq;FtJ Fwpj;J jf;f eltof;if vLf;FkhW gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Feh; / bjhlf;ff;fy;tp ,af;Feh; mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwhh;fs;. 01.06.2006 md;W taJ tpjpapid g{h;j;jp bra;ahjth;fis bghJ tpjp 10(a) (i) fPH; jw;fhypf epakdk; tHq;fp> taJ tpjp jsh;t[f;F cldoahf murpw;F fUj;JU mDg;g[k;goa[k; nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;fs;. tpjpj;jsh;tpw;F gpwF 01.06.2006 Kw;gfy; Kjy; jFjpfhz; gUtj;jpy; itf;f fUjyhk;. nkYk; ,th;fsJ K:Jhpik ,d xJf;fPL Kiw gpd;gw;wg;gl;L Mrphpah; njh;t[ thhpaj;jpdhy; eph;zapf;fg;gl;l K:Jhpikna MFk;. nktiytha;g;gfk; K:yk; epakdk; bgw;w Mrphpah;fis bghWj;jtiu ,lxJf;fPL Kiw gpd;gw;wg;gl;L eph;zapf;fg;gl;l K:Jhpikna MFk;.?
Therefore, on regularisation, the petitioners have been continuously working.
4. In the meanwhile, in a parellel development, for the academic year 2005-2006, similar recruitment of Teachers was necessitated to be employed on contract basis in Government Teacher Education Institution to take classes for the affected students, who had been admitted therein. Therefore, a second set or second batch of Teachers had been appointed as Junior Lecturers in the year 2004 itself ie., on 13.09.2014 and here also, the 2nd batch of Junior Lecturers, who had been appointed for the academic year 2005-2006 had also been given only two years service to take classes to the affected students.
5. However, the second batch of junior lecturers, whose services had to be completed at the end of two years period on 31.08.2006, had, in fact, not been terminated because, the services of these Teachers in the 2nd batch were required to be pressed into service on regular basis and in this regard, a proposal to that effect was pending consideration before the Government.
Therefore, on completion of two years of contract period as on 31.08.2006, the services of the 2nd batch of Teachers had been subsequently extended. When they were working in the extended service, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.172 School Education Department dated 18.07.2007, wherein, the said 2nd batch of Teachers numbering 39 had been directed to be appointed in the existing vacancies/posts available in Government Teacher Education Institution throughout the State. The relevant portion of the said G.O.No.172 reads thus:
?2. ,t;tpsk; tphpt[iuahsh;fs; jq;fs; gzpia epue;juk; bra;a nfhhpa[s;ssjhy; jw;nghJ gzpg[hpe;J tUk; 39 ,sk; tphpt[iuahsh;fis muR Mrphpah; gapw;rp epWtdq;fspy; fhypahf cs;s ,sk; tphpt[iuahsh; gzpaplq;fspy; ghlj;jpw;F Vw;wthW epakdk; bra;J bfhs;s murpd; Mizia ,af;Feh; nfhhpa[s;shh;.
3. muR Mrphpah; gapw;rp epWtdq;fspy; cs;s fhypg;gzpaplq;fspy;
,t;tpsk;tphpt[iuahsh;fis ghlthhpahf gzpakh;j;Jk; nghJ jkpH;-1> rK:f mwptpay;- 2> bkhj;jk; K:d;W ngh;fSf;F chpa gzpaplq;fs; ,y;yhikahy; jw;nghJ ,th;fis gzpakh;j;j ,ayhj epiy cs;sJ vd;Wk; vdnt gs;spf; fy;tpj; Jiwapy; epakdk; bra;a chpa Miz tHq;f ,af;Feh; nfhhpa[s;shh;. clw;fy;tp tphpt[iuahsh;fs; ,uz;L ngh;fis bghWj;jtiuapy;> muR Mrphpah; gapw;rp epWtdq;fspy; clw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fspd; gzpaplk; ,ilepiy Mrhphpah;> jFjp epiyapy; U:.4500-125-7000 vd;w Cjpa tpfpjj;jpy; kl;Lnk cs;sJ vd;gjhy; ,th;fis gl;ljhhp Mrphpah; gzpepiyapy; (U:.5500-175-9000) muR Mrphpah; gapw;rp epWtdq;fspy; gzpakh;j;j ,ayhj epiy cs;sJ.
4. Mrphpah; fy;tp Muha;r;rp kw;Wk; gapw;rp ,af;Fehpd; fUj;jpid muR ed;F ghprPypj;jgpd;> Mrphpah; fy;tp Muha;r;rp kw;Wk; gapw;rp ,af;fj;jpy; jw;nghJ bjhlh;e;J gzpg[hpa mDkjpf;fg;gl;Ls;s ,sk;tphpt[iuahsh;fis (U:.5500-175-9000) muR Mrphpah; gapw;rp epWtdq;fspnyna fhypahft[s;s ,sk; tphpt[iuahsh; gzpaplq;fspy; ghlj;jpw;F Vw;wthW epakdk; bra;jplt[k;> mt;thW gzpakh;j;Jk;nghJ cghpahft[s;s jkpH; 1> rK:f mwptpay; 2 Mfpa K:d;W ,sk; tphpt[iuahsh;fis gs;spf; fy;tpj; Jiwapy; gs;sp cjtp Mrphpauhf (U:.5500-175-9000) epakdk; bra;jplt[k; muR mDkjpf;fpwJ. muR Mrphpah; gapw;rp epWtdq;fspy; gl;ljhhp Mrphpah; epiyapy; (U:.5500-175-9000) clw;fy;tp tphpt[iuahsh; gzpaplk; ,y;yhj epiyapy;> vQ;rpa ,uz;L clw;fy;tp ,sk;tphpt[iuahsh;fis (U:.5500-175-9000) Mrphpah; fy;tp Muha;r;rp kw;Wk; gapw;rp ,af;ffj;jpd; fPH; ,aq;Fk; 9 muR Mrphpah; fy;tp Muha;r;rp kw;Wk; gapw;rp ,af;fj;jpd; fPH; ,aq;Fk; 9 muR Mrphpah; gapw;rp epWtdq;fspy; U:.4500-175-7000) vd;w Cjpa tpfpjj;jpy; Vw;fdnt fhypahft[s;s 6 clw;fy;tp Mrphpah; gzpaplq;fspy;> epakdj;ij kdg;g{h;tkhf Vw;Wf; bfhs;fpnwhk; vd;w cWjpbkhHpiag; bgw;Wf; bfhz;L epakdk; bra;jpl Mrphpah; fy;tp Muha;r;rp kw;Wk; gapw;rp ,af;Feuf;F muR mDkjp mspf;fpwJ. ,J bjhlh;ghf Mrphpah; fy;tp Muha;r;rp kw;Wk; gapw;rp ,af;FeUk;> gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;FeUk; tpiue;J eltof;if vLf;FkhW mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwhh;fs;.?
6. Subsequently, according to the petitioners, the 2nd batch of Teachers had been given absorption or permanent regularisation from the date of their original engagement or appointment ie., in September 2004, itself, whereas such a gesture has not been shown to the petitioners, who had initially been engaged or appointed on 29.02.2004. Therefore, seeking a similar benefit, as has been conferred to the 2nd batch of Teachers, the petitioners, who are the first batch of Teachers had already approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.3052/2011, wherein, a direction was given by this Court on 16.03.2011 directing the petitioners to approach the respondents by giving detailed representations and pursuant to the same, the petitioners seem to have given detailed representations seeking service benefit of regularisation of their services from their original date of employment on par with the 2nd batch of Teachers. The said representation, having been considered by the Government, has now been rejected through the impugned letter dated 28.06.2012. Challenging the same, the present writ petition had been filed.
7. Heard both sides.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners, after having narrated the above said facts, has mainly contended that when these petitioners being the first batch of Teachers had been appointed initially on 29.02.2004, of course, on contract basis for two years and after the contract period was over, these petitioners' services had been abruptly terminated and subsequently, had been permitted to undergo the special qualifying Test conducted by the TRB and thereafter, after successfully completed the qualifying Test, they had been again appointed on permanent basis only in the year 2004 and after the petitioners had been reappointed in 2004, that too, after having become qualified in the special qualifying examination conducted by the TRB, their services ought to have been regularised from the original date of appointment ie., as Junior Lecturer in the year 2002.
9. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that when the 2nd batch of Teachers, who had been engaged only from 13.09.2004, similar to that of the petitioners' position, their services had been subsequently extended beyond the two years period, ie., from 31.08.2006 and thereafter, without undergoing any special qualifying Test, as has been undergone by the first batch of teachers ie., the petitioners, the 2nd batch of Teachers had been given permanent absorption from the date of their original appointment itself and it is a clear case of discrimination between the 1st batch of Teachers as well as the 2nd batch of Teachers. When the respondents came forward to regularise the services of the 2nd batch of Teachers from their original engagement, the same treatment has not been given or extended to the first batch of Teachers, who are the petitioners herein and therefore, on the ground of discrimination, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with, the learned counsel submitted.
10. When this ground was urged as a prime reason or ground to seek the benefit of retrospective regularisation from the date of initial engagement or appointment to the petitioners, it was specifically requested by this Court to the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents that whether the 2nd batch of Teachers, who had not been subjected to any special qualifying examination, had been given retrospective regularisation from the date of initial appointment ie., from 13.09.2004 or not, the learned Additional Government Pleader has received the written instructions from the 2nd respondent in his letter in Na.Ka.No.9306/A4/2017 dated 13.02.2017 and the same has been produced before this Court, wherein, the 2nd respondent has categorically stated in the following terms:
?2004-2005> 2005-2006 Mfpa ,uz;L fy;tpahz;LfSf;F kl;Lk; epakdk; bra;ag;ggl;lth;fSf;F 2004-Kjy; Kd;njjpapl;L gzptud;Kiw bra;ag;gltpy;iy vd;Wk;> murhiz epiy vz;.172> gs;spf;fy;tp(a[2) Jiw> ehs; 18.07.2007-d;go epakdk; bra;ag;gl;l ehshd 29.08.2007 Kjy; tzptud;Kiw bra;ag;gl;lJ vd;Wk;> 28.08.2009 Kjy; jFjp fhz; gUtk; Koj;j Miz tHq;fg;gl;lJ vd;Wk; bjhptpj;Jf;
bfhs;fpnwd;.?
11. In this regard, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents would contend that at the time of completion of two years contract period, insofar as the 2nd batch of Teachers are concerned, since during that time the vacancies were available in the Government Teachers Education Institution on regular basis, proposal was mooted by the 2nd respondent to the Government to utilise the services of the 2nd batch of Teachers by way of permanent appointment in Government Teacher Education Institution. When the said proposals, which were pending before the Government for consideration, the two years period came to an end in respect of the 2nd batch of Teachers. Therefore, in anticipation of the decision to be taken by the Government, the two years service, which ended for 2nd batch of Teachers on 31.08.2006, was further extended and those 2nd batch of Teachers had been appointed in Government Teacher Education Institution.
12. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.No.172 dated 18.07.2007 and as per the import of the said G.O., the 2nd batch of Teachers had also been appointed in Government Teachers Education Institutions. Subsequently, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that subsequently the services of the 2nd batch of Teachers had been regularised only on completion of probation period of one year, which the 2nd batch of Teachers had completed only in August 2007 and in some cases, September 2007. In this regard, the learned Additional Government Pleader would also produce the necessary proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in O.Mu.No.3206/A4/09 dated 08.07.2009, wherein, a list of Teachers under the 2nd batch numbering 34 had been given and the date of appointment of their services also had been given in the table, only from that date their services had been regularised. The relevant portion of the said proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 08.07.2009 reads thus:
?X.K.vz;3206/m4/2009 ,izg;gpy; bfhLf;ffg;gl;Ls;s 34 ,sepiy tphpt[iuahsh;fSk; Xuhz;L gzpf;fhyj;jpid epiwt[r; bra;Js;sjhy;> mth;fspd; bgaUf;bfjpnu Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s ehs; Kjy; mth;fsJ gzpapid gzptud;Kiw bra;ag;gLfpwJ.
2. nkw;go ,sepiy tphpt[iuahsh;fspd; gzptud;Kiw bra;j tptuj;ij rhh;e;jth;fspd; gzpg;gjpntl;oy; gjpt[r; bra;a[khW muR Mrphpag; gapw;rp epWtd Kjy;thfs; nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;fs;.
3. nkw;Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s ,sepiy tphpt[iuahsh;fspd; jFjpfhz; gUtk;
Kot[w;wJk;> mjw;Fhpa fUj;JUf;fis chpa gotj;jpy; g{h;j;jpr; bra;J gzpg;gjpntl;Lld; mDg;gp itj;jplt[k; Kjy;th;fs; nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;fs;.?
13. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the 2nd batch of Teachers had also not been given any retrospective regularisation from the date of their initial appointment/engagement and what has been adopted in respect of first batch of Teachers ie., the petitioners herein has been adopted in respect of the 2nd batch of Teachers also and therefore, there is no substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners that there is a discrimination between the first batch of Teachers and 2nd batch of Teachers. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the relief sought for herein cannot be accepted or granted and therefore, the first respondent has rightly rejected the plea made by the petitioners in this regard through the impugned order. Hence, it requires no interference from this Court.
14. This Court has considered the said rival submissions made by both counsel for the parties as well as the documents filed before this Court for perusal.
15. The above stated facts on behalf of both sides are not in much controversy. No doubt, the petitioners, who are the first batch of Teachers had been appointed or engaged as Junior Lecturers initially in the year 2002 ie., February or March 2002. The said initial engagement is only for two years contract period, because the purpose of engagement itself is only to teach the affected students, who had been readmitted in Government Teacher Education Institution in a particular academic years, ie., 2002 - 2003 and 2003-2004. On completion of the two years contract period, which is in February 2004, no doubt, that services of the first batch of Teachers had been terminated. Thereafter, the Government, in order to utilise the services rendered by the first batch of Teachers and the experience gained by them, had come forward to issue a Government order in G.O.Ms.No.289 dated 09.09.2004, whereby the said qualifying Test was directed to be conducted by Teachers Recruitment Board. This first batch of Teachers ie., the petitioners had undergone the said Test and became successful. Only thereafter, they had been reappointed on 30.11.2004 and from that date, they had been continuously working. Though their probation period was fixed for two years and the same would be over only at the end of the year 2006, the said reappointment for consolidated pay had come to an end by 31.05.2006 itself and from 01.06.2006, these petitioners had been brought under regular scale of pay and from the date of their reappointment, this first batch of Teachers had also been absorbed or regularised.
16. Insofar as the 2nd batch of Teachers are concerned, though they had been subsequently appointed on 13.09.2004, for the same two years contract period, their services on completion of the two years had not been terminated, because of the reason that there were number of vacancies available during that time in Government Teacher Education Institution and therefore, the services of this 2nd batch of Teachers could have been utilised for filling up those posts and accordingly, their services had been extended beyond the two years period ie., 31.08.2006. Thereafter, the Government issued a Government Order in G.O.No.172 School Education Department dated 18.07.2007, thereby, those 2nd batch Teachers had been permanently appointed. The only difference between the first batch Teachers and 2nd batch Teachers is that the first batch Teachers, on completion of two years contract period, had been terminated and subsequently they had been reappointed only after successfully passed in the qualifying Test conducted by the TRB, whereas insofar as the 2nd batch of Teachers are concerned, the two years service on contract basis had not subsequently been terminated, in fact, it was extended beyond the 2 years period on need basis. Since these Teachers had been continuously working, the Government thought it fit to not to conduct any qualifying Test, as has been conducted to the first batch of Teachers and therefore, by a policy decision as reflected in G.O.No.172, the second batch Teachers had been permanently appointed.
17. However, in respect of both batch of teachers, the actual absorption on permanent basis had been given or done only from the date of reappointment alone and not from the original date of engagement. In other words, though the first batch of Teachers, ie., petitioners had been appointed in the year 2002, they had been regularised only from their reappointment on completion of probation period, ie., from 01.06.2006. Insofar as the second batch of Teachers are concerned, though they had been initially engaged on 13.09.2004, they had been regularised only from the date of their reappointment in August 2007. Therefore, there is, absolutely, no basis for such arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the 2nd batch of Teachers had been absorbed from the date of their original engagement ie., in the year 2004.
18. In view of the said facts, the arguments of discrimination and by thus, violating the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted, as absolutely, there is no basis for such a plea to make that discriminatory treatment has been given to the petitioners herein.
19. In view of the said factors, since the petitioners had been rightly regularised only on the reappointment date, as in the case of the 2nd batch of Teachers, the other benefits, as they claimed through the representations have been rejected by the first respondent through the impugned order dated 28.06.2012. Therefore, there is no unjustifiable reasons or infirmity attached with the said impugned order passed by the first respondent and in that view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition to interfere in the said impugned order. Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
To
1.The Secretary to Government School Education Department Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Director, Directorate of Teachers Education, Research and Training, Chennai.
3.The Director of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai..