Madras High Court
M. Nagappan, M. Kaliaperumal, S. ... vs Director Of Education, Government Of ... on 16 April, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2005)3MLJ75
Author: P. Sathasivam
Bench: P. Sathasivam
ORDER S.K. Krishnan, J.
1. These Writ petitioners are agitating the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.980 of 1998, dated 9.8.2000. They were arrayed as respondents 2 to 5 in the above said application. The petitioners are working as Language Teachers Grade II. They have been given promotion as Post Graduate Teacher (Tamil) on temporary and adhoc basis. The Director of Education, Pondicherry, issued a memorandum dated 12.10.1998 giving effect of promotion to the respondents. Presently, all the respondents are working as Post Graduate Teachers (Tamil) as per the joining instructions given by the department.
2. It is to be noted that the said promotion to these respondents were considered by the department after passing of amalgamation order dated 9.9.1997.
3. Aggrieved against the promotion of the petitioners, the respondents herein approached the Tribunal and filed O.A.No.980 of 1998.
4. Their contention before the Tribunal was that when two grades are being amalgamated those in the highest grade shall always be treated as senior to those in the lower grade on the date when actual amalgamation took place and not with effect from a notional day when amalgamation is effected for fixation of pay purposes.
5. They have contended that though the respondents were junior and were designated as Grade II in their status, without considering the educational qualification and other rights vested in them, the department has given promotion without considering the reasonable rights of the applicants. Therefore, the order of promotion dated 12.10.1998 has to be set aside.
6. It is further contended that none of the respondents have put in the stipulated five years of actual service in the post of Language Teachers Grade - I. Moreover, the 6th respondent, who is the second grade assistant, is ineligible to be promoted to such post. Moreover, he has no experience in the teaching profession.
7. However, the contentions raised by the applicants before the Tribunal stoutly denied by the first respondent. It is to be noted that the respondents 2 to 6 have not filed any reply statement. However, they were arrayed as the respondents 2 to 6 in the said proceedings.
8. According to the first respondent, the promotion was given to the respondents 2 to 6 on the following grounds.
9. The method of selection for the post of Lecturer (formerly post graduate teacher) is governed by the recruitment rules framed to such post.
10. It is stated that for filling up of 26 vacancies arose in the cadre of lecturer was considered on the basis of promotion. Even though there were 26 vacancies, 10 vacancies to be filled up in the discipline of Tamil.
11. The vacancies referred to above were filled up as per the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee which was duly constituted for the selection of Lecturer (PGT) on 6.10.1998. The said committee recommended certain eligible teachers from the feeder categories, namely, School Assistant Grade II, Secretarial Assistant and Language Teacher(Tamil). The vacancies of post graduate teachers were filled up by following the existing recruitment rules referred in Col. 23 of the recruitment rules. The impugned promotion order dated 12.10.1998 was issued after merging the said two categories, for instance, Tamil Pandit Grade II and Tamil Pandit Grade I into one with strict adherence of the existing Recruitment Rules to the post of Lecturer (Tamil) (PGT (General/PGT - Tamil) as stated supra.
12. It is further contended that as far as the 6th respondent is concerned, he is a post graduate in Tamil and has been working as School Assistant Gr.II, from the date of appointment, i.e. 14.9.1979.
13. Further, as per the joining instructions issued by the department, all the respondents were joined in their respective places. Therefore, the relief sought for by the applicants has no merits and is liable to be dismissed.
14. The Tribunal, considering the contentions and rival contentions of the applicants as well as the first respondent, came to the conclusion that since the applicants are already working as Language Teacher Grade I and the rules of recruitment provided for a minimum experience of 5 years in the cadre, the applicants are eligible for that post.
15. The Tribunal is of the view that when the respondents 2 to 6 were promoted from Grade II to Grade I, in all fairness, the applicants working as Grade I teachers ought to have been given priority in the matter of promotion to the post of post graduate teacher (Tamil).
16. Further, the Tribunal is of the view that for giving promotion to Grade II teachers as well as Grade I teachers to the post of Post Graduate Teachers (Tamil), the department has not come out with clear explanation.
17. Further, the Tribunal is of the view that since the applicants are possessing post graduate qualifications with B.A./B.T. qualification and they are already working as Grade I teachers, the applicants should be given priority in the matter of promotion to that post.
18. Further, the Tribunal is of the considered view that the applicants before the Tribunal are not only qualified persons but also possess the adequate experience in teaching profession.
19. Considering the reasons stated above, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the department on 12.10.1998 and further, the Tribunal directed the first respondent to consider the claim of the applicants for promotion to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Tamil) and to pass a reasoned order within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
20. The respondents in the above said application, aggrieved against the said order passed by the Tribunal, preferred the present Writ Petition.
21. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondents emphasised their respective contentions and rival contentions on the lines of the grounds taken in the Writ Petition and the application.
22. The only point that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the order passed by the Tribunal is sustainable under law.
23. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that as per the joining orders issued by the department dated 12.10.1998, the petitioners joined as post graduate teachers in their respective places and they are still working in the same place. Further, their promotions were considered on the basis of the Recruitment Rules framed to such post vide G.O.Ms.No.21/86/Edn/E3 dated 7.3.1986 and subsequent G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 9.9.99.
24. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the said promotion to the petitioners was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee formed by the Government. As such, there is no illegality or irregularity in the said selection. In such circumstances, without considering the above stated reasons, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law.
25. It is to be noted that on the side of the Government, a detailed reply statement was filed, wherein, the department has stated sufficient reasons for filling up the vacancies. In such circumstances, the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
26. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the reasoning given by the Tribunal to set aside the order dated 12.10.1998 is quite satisfactory.
27. It is further contended by the learned counsel that since the petitioners already qualified for Language Teacher Grade-I at a time in all fairness the departmental promotion committee could have selected these petitioners and appointed them as post graduate teachers (Tamil).
28. On a careful consideration of the valid reasons stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the counsel appearing for the department, we are of the considered view that the selection of the departmental promotional committee and the promotion given to the petitioners are in accordance with the said Recruitment Rules.
29. Further, we have no hesitation to accept the selection of the Departmental Promotion Committee which followed the guidelines issued by the Government.
30. In such circumstances, we find that there are valid reasons to interfere with the decision arrived at by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Tribunal dated 9.8.2000.
31. In result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Connected W.P.M.Ps. are closed.