Madras High Court
S.Saraswathi vs The Director Of Elementary Education on 10 March, 2017
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.03.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN W.P(MD)No.10145 of 2010 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2010 S.Saraswathi, wife of Mathivanan, Secondary Grade Teacher, Corporation Middle School, Varaganeri South, Trichy ? 3 ..Petitioner .vs. 1.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai. 2.The District Elementary Education Officer, Sethuramanpillai Colony, No.1 Toll Gate, Trichy. 3.The Assistant Education Officer, Office of the Assistant Education Officer, Nandhikoil Street, Trichy. 4.L.Rosalin Vimalarani, Headmistress, Municipal Primary School, Melachinthamani, Trichy Urban, Trichirappalli. 5.R.Josephine Infandomary, Headmistress, Municipal Primary School, Thennur East, Trichy Urban, Trichirappalli. 6.Sofia Jeyakodi, Headmistress, Municipal Primary School, Majlisul Ulama Primary School, Trichy Urban, Trichirappalli. ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the original records pertaining to the impugned orders in Na.Ka.No.754/A3/2010, dated 21.5.2010 in respect of the promotions of respondents 4 to 6 and to quash the same and to issue suitable directions or orders to the respondents 1 to 3 to promote the Petitioner as Headmistress w.e.f.21.5.2010 with all consequential benefits. !For Petitioner :Ms.Akarathi for M/s.T.Banumathy ^For Respondents :Mr.S.Kumar 1 to 3 Addl.Govt.Pleader For Respondents :No appearance 4 to 6 :ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the original records pertaining to the impugned orders in Na.Ka.No.754/A3/2010, dated 21.5.2010 in respect of the promotions of respondents 4 to 6 and to quash the same and to issue suitable directions or orders to the respondents 1 to 3 to promote the Petitioner as Headmistress w.e.f.21.5.2010 with all consequential benefits.
2.Heard Ms.Akarathi, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.S.Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. The respondents 4 to 6 though served, have not appeared either through counsel or in person.
3.The Petitioner claims to have been aggrieved by the promotion of respondents 4 to 6 as Headmistresses. According to the Petitioner, she is senior to them in the Trichy Urban Unit and therefore, she should have been considered for promotion as Headmistress, ahead of respondents 4 to 6. It is not in dispute that the respondents 4 to 6 had entered service before the Petitioner. They were also placed ahead of the Petitioner in the seniority list prepared for the year 2007-2008. In the year 2009, it appears that the respondents 4 to 6 were placed below the Petitioner considering the date on which they had joined the service in the Trichy Urban Unit. The fourth respondent has been shown to have been joined the Trichy Urban Unit on 6.7.2005. The fifth respondent is shown to have been joined the Trichy Urban Unit on 17.7.2005 and the sixth respondent is shown to have been joined the Trichy Urban Unit on 2.6.2008. This was done by taking into account the joining date in the Trichy Urban Unit. The fact that the respondents 4 to 6 entered services on 5.9.1986, 6.10.88 and 6.7.88 respectively and their services were regularised on the date of their appointment itself, is not in dispute. According to the petitioner, since the respondents 4 to 6 were transferred out of Trichy Urban Unit to Andanallur Rural Unit in the year 2002 and rejoined the Trichy Urban Unit only on 16.7.2005, 17.7.2005 and 2.6.08 respectively, the date of rejoining should be taken as the date of their joining service in the Trichy Urban Unit and hence they are juniors to the Petitioner.
4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 referring to the counter filed by the second respondent would contend that the respondents 4 to 6 were also working in the Trichy Urban Unit only and they were transferred to Andanallur Panchayat Union during the year 2002-03 by re-deployment, since there were excess teachers in Trichy Urban Unit and vacancies in the Andanallur Panchayat Union. Their initial transfers were not on their request and they were re-transferred depending upon the existing vacancies on the dates specified above. Therefore, the transfer of respondents 4 to 6 to Andanallur Panchayat Union cannot deprive them of their seniority.
5.The learned counsel for the Petitioner would take me to the guidelines issued for fixing the seniority among the staff members, working in one unit. The said guidelines very clearly states that it is the date of joining the service that should be taken into account while fixing the seniority.
6.The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that in the year 2009, the seniority, was fixed as the date of joining in the Trichy Urban Unit overlooking the fact that the respondents 4 to 6 were working in the Trichy Urban Unit and they were transferred due to administrative reasons. The said mistake was corrected while preparing the seniority list in the year 2010.
7.The learned counsel for the Petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to the Tamil Nadu Service Manual and contend that, application for the revision of seniority of a person must be made within a period of three years from the date of appointment to such service and hence modification or alteration of seniority in the year 2010 is not correct. The submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner overlooks the fact that Rule 35(f) relied upon by the Petitioner, itself states that the maximum time limit prescribed shall not be applicable to the case of rectifying orders, resulting from mistake of facts. Therefore, it is clear that the revision of seniority in the year 2010 is only based on the guidelines issued by the Government and as such the Petitioner who is admittedly, junior to the respondents 4 to 6, if the date of original entry into service is taken into account. In the absence of any material to show that the respondents 4 to 6 were transferred to Andanallur Panchayat Union on their request, their seniority at Trichy Urban Unit will not be affected. Hence I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders promoting the respondents 4 to 6 as Headmistress.
8.Hence this Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.
To
1.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai.
2.The District Elementary Education Officer, Sethuramanpillai Colony, No.1 Toll Gate, Trichy.
3.The Assistant Education Officer, Office of the Assistant Education Officer, Nandhikoil Street, Trichy..