Madras High Court
D.Rajan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 November, 2017
Author: P.D.Audikesavalu
Bench: P.D.Audikesavalu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 30.11.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU W.P(MD)No.12656 of 2016 D.Rajan ... Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by it's Secretary, School Education Department, St. George Fort, Chennai ? 9. 2.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai ? 600 006. 3.The Joint Director (Higher Secondary), DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai ? 6. 4.M.Lingeswari 5.K.Sivabala 6.A.Marimuthu 7.C.Jeyarani 8.C.Panner Selvam 9.G.Natarajan 10.M.Krishnamoorthi 11.M.Paramasivam 12.N.Murugesan 13.A.Muniappan 14.K.Dhivyanathan 15.P.Mukilan 16.V.Muthukumaran 17.R.Jeyakumar 18.A.Ramesh 19.S.Arockia Raja 20.D.Srinivasan 21.G.Kannan 22.S.Bharathiraja 23.S.Dhanababukumar 24.K.Santhanakumar 25.C.Rajendran 26.V.Rangasamy 27.B.Revathi 28.R.Ramesh 29.T.Tamilselvi ... Respondents (R4 to 29 are impleaded vide Court order dated 31.10.2017 in W.M.P.(MD) Nos.780 11203, 14978 and 15525 of 2017) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.92931/C1-E1/15, dated 22.12.2015, so far as the inclusion of the promoted PG Assistants in the seniority list for appointment to the post of High School Headmaster are concerned and consequently direct the respondents to prepare the seniority list for promotion to the post of High School Headmaster by strictly following the service rules. !For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan Senior Counsel for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian Special Government Pleader For Respondents 4 to 7 : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Karthick For Respondents 8 to 13 : Mr.M.Saravanan for Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondents 14 to 19: Mr.G.Sankaran For Respondents 20 to 29: Mr.R.Saseetharan :ORDER
The petitioner, who is now working as a B.T. Assistant, after being promoted from the post of Secondary Grade Teacher on 27.07.2008, has filed this Writ Petition questioning clause 9 of the order bearing Na.Ka.No.92931/C1-E1/15 dated 22.12.2015 issued by the second respondent/Director of School Education, insofar as it enables the inclusion of promoted P.G. Assistants in the seniority list of B.T. Assistants for appointment as High School Headmaster and for consequential directions.
2.The post of B.T. Assistant is provided in Category 1 of Class 1 of Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu School Educational Subordinate Service Rules. The Director of School Education by the impugned order dated 22.12.2015, contemplates to fill up vacancies to the post of High School Headmaster provided in Class V of Category 2 of Rule of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu School Educational Service and for the said purpose, a seniority list in the feeder category of B.T. Assistants was directed to be prepared. In that process, the B.T. Assistants, who had become P.G. Assistants by recruitment by transfer in terms of Class II of Category 1 of Rule 2 of the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service was also directed to be included in the Seniority List to be prepared in para 9 of that impugned order. The petitioner questions the validity of the inclusion of P.G. Assistants in the Seniority List of B.T. Assistants for the purpose of promotion as High School Headmaster, as according to him on being appointed as P.G. Assistants, those B.T. Assistants ceased to hold lien in the feeder category post and resultantly they could not be considered as eligible B.T. Assistants for being appointed as Headmasters in terms of the aforesaid Rule. It requires to be recapitulated here that the holders in the post of B.T. Assistants form the feeder category for the post of P.G. Assistants as well as Headmasters by way of recruitment by transfer.
3.Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, relying on clause (d) of Rule 14-A of the Tamil Nadu Government Fundamental Rules read with Rule 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rule, contends that the P.G. Assistants who have been appointed by way of recruitment by transfer from the post of B.T. Assistants have to be treated as having ceased to be holders of the Post of B.T. Assistants and they cannot claim any lien in a different service, namely, Tamil Nadu School Educational Subordinate Service.
4.In support of that submissions, the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Court have been cited:
(i) Ramlal Khurana (Dead) by LRS. v. State of Punjab and Others [(1989) AIR (SC) 1985] para 8.
(ii) DR.S.K. Kacker v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences [(1996) 10 SCC 734] paras 9 & 10.
(iii) State of Rajasthan v. S.N. Tiwari [(2009) 4 SCC 700] paras 17 to
19.
(iv) State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty [(2011) 4 MLJ 692 (SC) para 20.
(v) R. Perachi v. Hon'ble Principal District Judge [(2009) 1 MLJ 212] para 15 & 16.
(vi) Unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Rev. Appln. No.217 of 2015 between The State of Tamil Nadu v. S. Nagaraj para, 41 to 56.
(vii) Unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 12.03.2015 in W.P.(MD) No.10845 of 2011 between M.Meena v. The District Collector, paras 14 and 16.
5.In particular, it is brought to the notice of this Court that in the order dated 19.07.2011 in W.P.No.7920 of 2011 between G.Chandrababu v. The District Forest Officer, Thirupathur Division and others, learned Judge of this Court has held as follows:
?13.As per the statutory rule, the post of P.G. Assistant is not the feeder category and therefore, the fourth respondent could not have been appointed as the Headmaster of High School. When the statutory rule is very clear, the first respondent should not have promoted the fourth respondent as the Headmaster of Nellivasal High School. Hence, the order dated 12.04.2010 of the first respondent continuing the fourth respondent as Headmaster is bad and illegal.?
6.In response to the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner, a counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent, and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 contends that Rule 9(d) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules enables B.T. Assistants, who have been appointed by way of transfer to the post of P.G. Assistants to be also considered for appointment as Headmasters of High Schools, subject to the conditions stated in the proviso thereto and as a sequel to the impugned order, the second respondent has also issued another proceedings No.040397/W2/E2/2016 dated 21.07.2016 for preparing the seniority list of B.T. Assistants in this regard.
7.The P.G. Assistants, who would be adversely affected if the relief sought by the petitioner is granted, have been impleaded as respondents 4 to 29 in this Writ Petition and they support the contentions made by the learned Special Government Pleader. Written submissions have also been filed by the counsel appearing for the parties.
8.The question that arises for consideration is that whether the P.G. Assistants, who had been appointed by recruitment through transfer from the post of B.T. Assistants could be considered as entitled to be appointed as Headmasters of High Schools by relying upon Rule 9(d) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, if they satisfy the conditions indicated in that proviso.
9.In the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the order dated 19.07.2011 in W.P.No.7920 of 2011, the learned Judge has categorically held that P.G. Assistant is not the feeder category for appointment to the post of Headmaster of High School. However, in the said decision the applicability of Section 9(d) of Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules was not placed for consideration before the Court. Even the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Court, which have been relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the impact of Rule 9(d) and the proviso thereto of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules did not arise for consideration.
10.That apart, it is brought to the notice of this Court that a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.20533 to 20535, 32473, 29150 of 2016, 4611, 12663, 2668 of 2017, 17502 and 25569 of 2008 and 31547 of 2014 for similar relief as claimed in the writ petition are pending before the Principal Seat of the Madras High Court. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is desirable that the matter which has repercussion on a large number of teachers in the education department in the State is decided by a Larger Bench of this Court.
11.Hence, the Registry is directed to place this writ petition along with the aforesaid writ petitions pending in the principal seat of the Madras High Court before the Hon'be Chief Justice for consideration of hearing of the matters together before a Larger Bench of this Court.
To
1.The Secretary, School Education Department, State of Tamil Nadu, St. George Fort, Chennai ? 9.
2.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai ? 600 006.
3.The Joint Director (Higher Secondary), DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai ? 6.
.