Madras High Court
K.Tamilmani vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 17 August, 2021
Bench: Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Krishnan Ramasamy
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
Rev.Appln.No.60 of 2020 in W.A.No.3904 of 2019
& W.A.Nos.723 of 2020 and 245, 246 and 462 of 2021
and C.M.P.Nos.9831, 9833, 10205 of 2020
and 1038, 1041, 1825 and 10675 of 2021
Rev. Application No.60 of 2020
and W.A.No.723 of 2020 :
1. K.Tamilmani
2. M.Krishnakumar
3. B.Shanthi
4. B.Rajeswaran
5. T.Ayyappan
6. A.Subbulakshmi
7. P.Jesindha
8. M.Venkatachalam
9. M.Kandasami .. Petitioners in Rev.Appln.
No.60/2020/Appellants in
W.A.No.723/2020/Third
Parties in all Writ Appeals
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
3. The Director of Elementary Education,
School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai-600 006. .. Respondents 1 to 3 in Rev.
Appln.No.60/2020/
Appellant in WA No.3904/2019/
Respondents 25 to 27 in WA
No.723/2020
4. T.Kunjukrishnan
5. V.Vanithamani
6. R.Saradha
7. R.Lenin
8. N.Murugan
9. P.Ponpandi
10.M.Babu
11.G.Kamala
12.P.J.Josephine
13.K.A.Mary Jaya Sundari
14.T.anandhajothi
15.M.Rajalakshmi
16.R.Ramyashri
17.R.Ganesan
18.P.Veeramani
19.S.Sankar Prakash
20.D.Doss
21.S.Venkatesulu
22.K.Govardhan
23.K.T.Eswaran
24.K.Amudha
25.M.Raman
26.G.Ananthi
27.J.Mahalakshmi .. Respondents 4 to 27 in Rev.
Appln.No.60/2020/
Respondents 1 to 24 in
W.A.No.723/2020/
Respondents 1 to 24 in
W.A.No.3904/2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
W.A.Nos.245 and 246 of 2021 :
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Vellore District. .. Appellants in W.A.Nos.245
& 246/2021/Respondents
Vs.
K.Bhaskaran .. Respondent/Petitioner in
W.P.No.33059 of 2019
G.Chandrasekaran .. Respondent/Petitioner in
W.P.No.33054 of 2019
W.A.No.462 of 2021 :
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
3. The Joint Director (Higher Secondary),
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
4. The Chief Educational Officer,
Vellore District. .. Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 3/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
D.Alli .. Respondent/Petitioner
***
Prayer in Rev. Appln.No.60 of 2020 : Review Application filed under
Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil
Procedure against the order dated 13.01.2020 passed in W.A.No.3904 of
2019.
Prayers in W.A.Nos.245 and 246 of 2021 : Writ Appeal filed under
Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 26.11.2019 passed in
W.P. Nos.33059 and 33054 of 2019.
Prayers in W.A.No.462 of 2021 : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of
Letters Patent against the order dated 17.12.2019 passed in W.P.
No.34891 of 2019.
Prayers in W.A.No.723 of 2020 : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of
Letters Patent against the order dated 30.07.2019 passed in
W.P.No.4991 of 2015.
***
For Review Petitioners : Mr.Ajmalkhan, Senior Counsel
in Rev.Appln.No.60/ for M/s.Ajmal Associates
2020/Appellants in
W.A.No.723/2020
For Appellants in WA : Mr.R.Neelakandan
Nos.245, 246, 462/2021/ State Government Counsel
Respondents 1 to 3 in
Rev.Appln.No.60/2020/
Respondents 25 to 27 in
W.A.No.723/2020
For Petitioners in CMP : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal,
No.10675/2021 Senior Counsel for
M/s.Isaac Chamber
For Petitioners in CMP : Mr.Nalini Chidambaram,
No.10205/2020 Senior Counsel for
M/s.C.Uma
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
For Respondents in WA : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy
Nos.245,246 & 462/2021/
Respondents 1 to 24 in
W.A.No.723/2020
COMMON JUDGEMENT
Headmasters have powers at their disposal with which Prime
Ministers have never yet been invested - said Winston Churchill.
A Nine-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad
St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat, (1974) 1 SCC 717,
laying the importance of the head of the educational institutions observed
as follows :
"It is upon the principal and teachers of a college that the
tone and temper of an educational institution depend. On them
would depend its reputation, the maintenance of discipline and its
efficiency in teaching. The right to choose the principal and to have
the teaching conducted by teachers appointed by the management
after an overall assessment of their outlook and philosophy is
perhaps the most important facet of the right to administer an
educational institution."
2. These writ appeals and the review application are
interconnected and intertwined on the same issue, but triggered certain
controversies, which pertain to the promotion to the post of School
Headmasters.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 5/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
3. Originally, one T.Kunju Krishnan and others, who are
respondents in W.A.No.723 of 2020, had filed W.P.No.4991 of 2015
seeking a writ of Mandamus to regularise their services from their initial
date of appointment, till they were absorbed on 01.06.2006 with all
consequential monetary and service benefits. The writ Court, which
dealt with the same, relied on a decision in P.Karthikeyan and Another
V. The Commissioner, Most Backward and Denotified
Communities Welfare Department, in W.P.No.21316 and 21317 of
2015 dated 12.06.2017 and directed the Government to regularise the
services of the petitioners therein from the date of entry into service for
the purpose of seniority and other attendant benefits.
4. The same was put to challenge by the Government in
W.A.No.3904 of 2019, which came to be allowed in part on 13.01.2020
with an only modification to the effect that the seniority of the writ
petitioners be reckoned from the date of initial appointment and
monetary benefits be given from the date of regularization, i.e., from
01.06.2006.
5. Aggrieved by this order, some teachers have filed the instant
Review Application No.60 of 2020, by obtaining leave of the Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 6/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
6. The very same petitioners have also sought leave of this
Court to file an appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge
in W.P.No.4991 of 2015. The leave was granted by the First Division
Bench of this Court in C.M.P.No.41182 of 2020 in W.A.No.SR19811 of
2020 and C.M.P.No.6862 of 2020 in Review Application No.SR19118 of
2020, by order dated 01.09.2020.
7. In the meanwhile, a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of
this Court passed an order dated 01.06.2021 in W.A.(MD)Nos.299 of
2021, etc. batch (The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, School
Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai V. C.Murugan)
accepting the contentions of the Government and thereby allowing the
appeals filed by the State by setting aside the similar directions given by
the learned Single Judges in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.(MD)No.5984
of 2020, etc. batch, dated 24.03.2020, wherein, direction was issued to
the Government to regularise the services from the date of initial
appointment till 01.01.2006 with consequential benefits.
8. It was pointed out that the appeals preferred by the State in
the Principal Seat in W.A.No.3904 of 2019 was allowed in part with
modification, whereas, the appeal preferred by the State before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 7/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
Madurai Bench was allowed in toto setting aside the Mandamus issued.
It is once again stated that the order in W.A.No.3904 of 2019 is opened
up for fresh consideration when the review application was admitted.
9. In the above circumstances, these matters are placed before
us.
10. Before we delve into the correctness of the orders under
challenge, it would be appropriate to discuss the background, in which,
this petition and appeals have been filed before this Court.
11. The review petitioners were appointed initially as Secondary
Grade Teachers (SGT) and they were promoted as B.T. Assistants during
2005-2006 and some of them were promoted as P.G. Assistants. The
writ petitioners in W.P.No.4991 of 2015, who sought for regularization of
their services from the date of appointment, were initially appointed
under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules (in
short, "TNSSS Rules"). The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.100, School
Education (Budget) Department, dated 27.06.2003, for the purpose of
filling up the vacancies in the posts of teachers in Schools and the said
G.O. reproduced, as has been filed in the typed-set of papers, in the
following manner :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 8/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
@gs;spfspy; 1?8 tFg;gpfspd; ,ilepiy Mrphpah;fSk; 9?10 tFg;g[fspy; gl;ljhhp
Mrphpah;fSk;. +1. +2 tFg;gf[ spy; KJfiy Mrphpah;fSk; Kiwahd Cjpaj;jpy;
epakpf;fg;gl;LtUfpd;wdh;/ mt;thW epakpf;fg;gl;LtUk;nghJ 6.7.8 tFg;g[fspy; M';fpyk;.
fzpjk;. mwptpay; Mfpa ghl';fis ,ilepiy Mrphpah;fshy; ifahs ,aytpy;iy
vdf;fUjp mt;tFg;g[fspy; ,ilepiy Mrphpah; gzpaplk; epue;jkhf fhyp Vw;gl Vw;gl gp/vl;/
jFjp bgw;w ,ilepiy gl;ljhhp Mrphpah;fisf; bfhz;L ,ilepiy Mrphpah; Cjpa
tpfpjj;jpy; xU Kd; Cjpa cah;t[ mspj;J epug;gyhbkd murhiz vz; 79 gs;spf;fy;tp
ehs; 14?6?2002 md;W Miz btspaplg;gl;J/ Mdhy; 9?10 tFg;gpfspy; mnj gp/vl;/ fy;tp
jFjp bfhz;l gl;ljhhp Mrphpah;fs; epakpf;fg;gLfpd;wdh;/ gs;spfspy; gp/vl;/ jFjp bgw;w
gl;ljhhp Mrphpah;fspilna ,U tpj epakdk; vd;gijj; jtph;f;Fk;tz;zk; ,dp midj;J
tifg; gs;spfspYk; 6?10 tFg;g[fspy; gp/vl;/ jFjp bgw;w gl;ljhhp Mrphpah;fs; kl;Lk;
M';fpyk;. mwptpay;. fzpjk;. tuyhW kw;Wk; g[tpapay; nghd;w ghlKiwfSf;nfw;g epakdk;
bra;a muR MizapLfpwJ/ 6?8 tFg;g[fspy; ,ilepiy Mrphpah; gzpapl';fspy;
epue;jukhf fhypapl';fs; Vw;gLk; nghJ gog;goahf gl;ljhhp Mrphpah;fs; epakdk;
bra;ag;gLth;/ mg;gzpapl';fspy; Kjw;fl;lkhf fzpjk;. mwptpay; kw;Wk; M';fpy gl;ljhhp
Mrphpah;fs; epakpf;fg;gLthh;fs;/ midj;J ,ilepiy Mrphpah; gzpapl';fSk; gl;ljhhp
Mrphpah; gzpapl';fshf khWk; tiu jw;nghJs;s ,ilepiy Mrphpah;fis Vw;fdnt
cs;sthW midj;Jg; ghl';fisa[k; fw;gpf;fg; gad;gLj;jpf; bfhs;s ntz;Lk;/
nkw;Fwpg;gpll; thW 6?10 tFg;g[fspy; gl;ljhhp Mrphpah;fis kl;Lnk epakdk; bra;tjhy;. ,dp
gs;spfspy; 1?5 tFg;gpfspy; kl;Lk;; ,ilepiy Mrphpah;fs; epakdk; bra;ag;gLth;/ mnj
nghd;W murhiz epiy vz; 172 gs;spf; fy;tp. ehs; 31/10/2002y; Mizapll; thW 1.2
tFg;g[fspy; eh;rhp. khz;obrhp fpz;lh; fhh;ld; my;yJ Pre School Teacher Training-
Course my;yJ Pre Basic Teacher Training Course Mrphpah; gapw;rp bgw;wth;fSk; (+2
tFg;gpy; Pre School Teacher vd;w xU ghlj;ij gapd;wth;fs; jtpu) Fiwe;jst[
Cjpaj;jpy; ,sepiy Mrphpauhf epakdk; bgWth;/
2/ nkYk; jw;nghJ epytp tUk; epjp epiyiaf; fUj;jpw; bfhz;L rpy Jiwfspy;
cs;s gzpapl';fs; jtpu kw;w muR mYtyf';fspy; cs;s fhypg;gzpapl';fis epug;gt [ jw;F
jil tpjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ Mrphpah; fhypg; gzpapl';fis epug;gt
[ J Fwpj;J Muha[k; nghJ.
Midj;J tifg; gs;spfspYk; me;je;j tif Mrphpah; gzpapl';fspy; mt;tg;nghJ
epue;jukhff; fhyp vw;gLk;nghJ. mj;jifa gzpapl';fshdJ ,sepiy Mrphpah;
gzpapl';fshf (mjhtJ. ,sepiy ,ilepiy Mrphpah;. ,sepiy gl;ljhhp Mrphpah;.
,sepiy. KJfiy Mrphpah; vd) fUjg;gl;L fPH;f;fz;lthW bjhFg;g{jpaj;jpy; epug;g muR
MizapLfpwJ/
thpir Mrphpah; gzpapl tif tH';fg;glt[s;s bjhFg;g{jpak; khjk; xd;Wf;F
vz;
1 ,sepiy ,ilepiy Mrphpah; (clw; U:/3000-?(eh;rhp. khz;obrhhp kw;Wk; fpz;lh; fhh;ld;
fy;tp Mrphpah;. rpwg;ghrphpah; cl;gl) nghd;w ,sepiy Mrphpah;fSf;F U:/2500)
2 ,sepiy gl;ljhhp Mrphpah; (bkhHp U:/4000-?
Mrphpah; cs;gl)
3 ,sepiy KJfiy Mrphpah; U:/4500-?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 9/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
,t;thW bjhFg;g{jpaj;jpy; epug;gg;gLk;nghJ. ,dp Mrphpah; gzpapl';fspy; Kiwahd Cjpa
tpfpjj;jpy; neuo epakdk; ,Uf;fhJ/ gjtp cah;tpy; kl;Lk; Kiwahd Cjpa tpfpjj;jpy;
epakdk; bra;ag;gLk;/ ,sepiy Mrphpah; fhypg; gzpapl';fspy; bjhFg;g{jpaj;jpy; epakdk;
bra;ag;gLgth;fs; Ie;J Mz;L fhy epue;ju gzp epiwt[f;Fg;gpd; jFjp. jpwik kw;Wk;
gzpK:g;g[ nghd;witfSf;Fl;gl;L Kiwahd Cjpa tpfpjj;jpy; epakdk; bra;ag;gLth;/
mt;thW epakdk; bra;a[k;nghJ mth;fs; tfpf;Fk; gzpaplkhdJ jhdhf Kiwahd
gzpaplkhf juk; cah;j;jg;gl;ljhff; fUjg;gLk;/ Kiwahd Cjpa tpfpjj;jpy; epakdk; bra;j
gpdd
; h; mth;fsJ jFjpfhz;gUtkhdJ Kd;whz;L fhyj;jpw;Fs; ,uz;lhz;L fhykhf
,Uf;Fk;/ Mrphpah; fhypg; gzpapl';fis bjhFg;g{jpaj;jpy; epug;gg;gLtjw;F VJthf me;je;j
gzpapl tpjpfSf;F chpa jpUj;jk; btspaplg;gLk; mnjnghd;W Kiwahd Mrphpah;
gzpapl';fSf;Fk;. bjhFg;gg{jpaj;jpy; epakpf;fg;gLk; ,sepiy Mrphpah; gzpapl';fSf;Fk;
khWgl;l epiyapy; gzpg; gS eph;zak; bra;ag;gLk;/
3/ 1?6?2003 md;iwa epiyapy; Cuhl;rp xd;wpag; gs;spfs;. murpdh; cah;epiy kw;Wk;
nky;epiyg; gs;spfspy; cs;s Mrphpah; fhypg; gzpapl';fspy; jw;nghJ epug;g
mDkjpf;fg;gl;Ls;s 12000 ,l';fis gs;spfspilna fPH;f;fz;lthW gfph;e;jspf;fg;gLfpwJ?
Cuhl;rp xd;wpag; gs;spfs;
midtUf;Fk; fy;tpj; jpl;lj;jpd; fPH; Jtf;fg;gl;l (2003?2004 cl;gl) 2256
bjhlf;fg; gs;spfSf;F gs;spf;F ,uz;L gzpapl';fs; tPjk; (mjpy; xd;W
jiyikahrphpah; gzpaplk;) (1?5 tFg;g[fSf;F) ,ilepiy Mrphpah;
gzpapl';fs;
xd;wpag; gs;spfspy; 1?5 tFg;gpfspy; ,ilepiy Mrphpah; gzpapl';fs; 1202
(fd;dlk;. bjY';F. kiyahsk;. cUJ nghd;w rpWghd;ik bkhHp ,ilepiy
Mrphpah;fs; cl;gl)
eLepiyg; gs;spfspy; clw;fy;tp Mrphpah; gzpapl';fs; 30
midtUf;Fk; fy;tpj; jpl;lj;jpd; fPH; Jtf;fg;gl;l (2003?2004 cl;gl) 1971
eLepiyg; gs;spfSf;F (6?8 tFg;g[fs;) njitahd gl;ljhhp Mrphpah;
gzpapl';fs;
eLepiyg; gs;spfspy; gl;ljhhp Mrphpah; gzpapl';fs; 91
eLepiyg; gs;spfspy; bkhHp Mrphpah; gzpapl';fs; 88
bkhj;jk; 5638
muR cah;epiy kw;Wk; nky;epiyg; gs;spfs;
+1. +2 tFg;g[fspy; KJfiy Mrphpah; gzpapl';fs; 2010
6?10 tFg;g[fspy; gl;ljhhp Mrphpah; gzpapl';fs; 3668
6?10 tFg;g[fspy; bkhHp Mrphpah; gzpapl';fs; (jkpH;. bjY';F. 464
fd;dlk;. kiyahsk; nghd;wit)
clw;fy;tp Mrphpah; gzpapl';fs; 100
rpwg;ghrphpah; gzpapl';fs; (,ir. Xtpak;. ijay;) 120
bkhj;jk; 6362
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 10/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
muR cah;epiy kw;Wk; nky;epiyg; gs;spfs;
bgU bkhj;jk; 12000
4/ gj;jp 1 kw;Wk; 2y; Fwpg;gpl;lthW chpa gzptpjpfSf;Fj; jpUj;jk; btspapl;l
gpdd; h;. nkw; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s Mrphpah; fhypg; gzpapl';fspy; ,ilepiy Mrphpah;
gzpapl';fshdJ (clw;fy;tp Mrphpah;. rpwg;ghrphpah; cl;gl) me;je;j khtl;l ntiy tha;g;gf
gjpt[ K:g;gpd;go Mz;. bgz; epakd Kiw. ,lXJf;fPl;L Kiw. Kd;Dhpik Kiw nghd;w
KiwfSf;Fl;gl;L epug;gg;gLk;/ eLepiy. cah;epiy kw;Wk; nky;epiyg;gs;spfspy; cs;s
gl;ljhhp Mrphpah; (bkhHp Mrphpah; cl;gl) KJfiy Mrphpah; Mfpa gzpapl';fs;
(tpjpfspd;go gjtp cah;t[f;fhd gzpapl';fs; nghf) Mrphpah; njh;t[ thhpak; K:yk; nghl;oj;
njh;t[ K:yk; epug;gg;gLk;/ ,jdpilapy; ,g;gzpapl';fis epug;gt [ jw;fhd g{h;th';f
Vw;ghLfis nkw;bfhs;syhk;/
5/ gj;jp 1 kw;Wk; 2y; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s Mizg;go jkpH;ehL jdpahh; gs;spfs;
(xG';FKiwg;gLj;Jjy;) rl;lk; 1974. tpjpfSf;F jFe;j jpUj;jk; btspapl;l gpdd
; h;. muR
cjtpbgWk; gs;spfspy; Mrphpah; fhypg; gzpapl';fis epug;gt
[ J Fwpj;J jdpahf mwpt[iu
tH';fg;gLk;/
6/ ,t;thizahdJ epjpj;Jiwapd; m/rh/F/vz;/1684-FS/P/03 ehs; 5?6?2003?y;
bgwg;gl;l ,irt[ld; btspaplg;gLfpwJ/
12. It is also pertinent to note that there was a ban on
recruitment for the period between 2001-2006 in the State of Tamil Nadu
barring a few essential services. As the education being one of the prime
concern of the State, the above Government Order was issued to fill-up
vacant posts in schools. As the ban itself was to overcome the financial
crunch, these teachers were appointed on a consolidated pay in their
categories referred therein. Pursuant to the Government Order, the
Teachers' Recruitment Board (in short, "TRB") had issued the prospects
calling for applications and selected the candidates. The selection was
made for the year 2004, 2005 and 2006. The said teachers, who were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 11/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
selected by the TRB, were appointed based on an agreement under Rule
11 of the TNSSS Rules.
13. Subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.53, School Education (HS1)
Department, dated 02.06.2004, was issued appending the agreement to
be obtained from the appointees in terms of the said Rules and the said
G.O. reads as hereunder :
"The Government in the Government Order first read above
have ordered that in view of the difficult financial position in the
State, vacancies arising from the academic year 2003-2004 in the
various categories of Teacher Posts in all kinds of Schools shall be
deemed to be junior Grade Teacher posts and allowed only
consolidated pay. In the said Government Order the Junior Grade
Post Graduate Assistant was allowed consolidated pay of Rs.4500/-
per month.
2) The Director of School Education in his letter second read
above has forwarded the draft form of Agreement for appointment
to the posts of Junior Grade Post Graduate Assistant in
Government / Municipal Higher Secondary Schools under rule 11 of
the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services.
3) The Government after careful examination approve the
form of agreement to be executed at the time of appointment by
the Junior Grade Post Graduate Assistants as appended to this
order.
4) The Director of School Education is requested to instruct
the appointing authorities to execute the agreement with the
Junior Grade Post Graduate Assistants recruited by the Teachers
Recruitment Board in the Agreement Form appended to this order.
He is also requested to use this Agreement Form in respect of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 12/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
other identical Junior Grade posts in the Tamil Nadu Higher
Secondary Educational Service."
14. Though in G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 27.06.2003 it was
specifically mentioned that these teachers, who were recruited under
Rule 11 of the TNSSS Rules, will be appointed for regular pay structure
after completion of five years of service, the Government issued
G.O.Ms.No.99, School Education (Budget-2), Department, dated
27.06.2006 granting regular time scale of pay with effect from
01.06.2006 to the teachers working in consolidated pay.
15. Thereafter, the Government issued yet another
G.O.Ms.No.120, School Education (Va Se-2) Department, dated
18.07.2006, which fixed the scale of pay for those teachers working
under the consolidated pay from 01.06.2006. The said Government
Order also deals with probation period.
16. The prayer of the writ petitioners was to consider their
services from the date of entry into service and not from the date of
regularization, namely, 01.06.2006, as has been issued in
G.O.Ms.No.120, dated 18.07.2006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 13/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
17. The learned Single Judge had issued the Mandamus to the
Government to consider their regularization, which was conceded by the
Government in W.A.No.3904 of 2019, based on which, the appeal was
originally, allowed in part. Neither in G.O.Ms.No.99 dated 27.06.2006 nor
in G.O.Ms.No.120, dated 18.07.2006, the Government has intended to
regularize or fix the seniority from the date of initial appointment.
18. G.O.Ms.No.120, specifically states "further their seniority
shall be considered as per the communal allotment and the method is the
one which was determined by the TRB." The same view was taken by
the Division Bench in Madurai Bench of this Court in the judgment dated
01.06.2021 in W.A.(MD)Nos.299 of 2020, etc., batch, (C.Murugan's
case [cited supra]) and it would be useful to quote paragraphs 23 to
27 of the said judgment in this regard :
"23. The Honourable First Bench, after considering the
submissions, held that if the seniority of the review applicants are
directly affected by the implementation of the judicial intervention,
then keeping in view the law laid down by the Honourable
Supreme Court in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs. Additional
Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar and another [AIR 1963
SC 786], as also the general law of seniority, they are affected
parties and therefore, proper and necessary parties entitled to be
heard in the matter and the review applicants having not been
made as parties to the writ petitions and they are likely to be
affected, have therefore a right to seek leave to appeal and
accordingly, the applicatioins seeking leave to appeal were allowed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 14/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
and the review applicatiions were directed to be numbered and
admitted. Though interim order was sought for by the review
applicants, in the light of the submissions of the learned Special
Government Pleader (Education) that no promotions are being
made due to pandamic, the Honourable First Bench held that the
question of grant of any interim order at that stage does not arise
and request can be made during pendency of the appeal, if
occassion so demands. We also find that along with the review
applications, which were directed to be numbered and admitted
and to be listed for hearing on 29.09.2020, a writ appeal filed by
the affected teachers, who also sought for grant of leave, was
permitted and the writ appeal has been admitted. Thus, the net
effect of the order in T.Kunju Krishnan and others (supra) is
that it cannot be relied on as a precedent. Thus, we note that the
review applications have been entertained and they have been
admitted and fresh writ appeals at the instance of the aggrieved
teachers have also been admitted. Therefore, the respondents /
writ petitioners cannot seek to draw any inspiration or place
reliance on the decision in T.Kunju Krishnan and others
(supra).
24. That apart, we find that Ground No.15 of the
memorandum of grounds of appeal in W.A.No.3904 of 2019
appears to have stated that the learned Writ Court ought to have
considered that with regard to the promotion of the respondents
therein, allowing those Secondary Grade Teachers / BT Assistants
/ PG Teachers brought into regular time scale of pay with effect
from 01.06.2006 vide G.O.(Ms) No.99, School Education
Department, dated 27.06.2006, date of initial appointments under
contract basis is taken into account already and no injust is caused
to them. Noting this ground raised by the Government, it was held
that the Government itself had agreed to grant the benefit of
seniority from the date of initial appointment and all monetary
benefits from the date of regularization, which is from 01.06.2006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 15/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
25. In Paragraph No.6 of the Judgment, dated 13.01.2020
in W.A.No.3904 of 2019, the undertaking given by the
respondents / writ petitioners i.e.T.Kunju Krishnan and others that
they will not claim any monetary benfits from the date of the first
appointment was placed on record and that portion of the order
passed in the writ petition directing payment of monetary benefits
from the date of first appointment was accordingly deleted. There
is an observation that the learned counsel agrees that the seniority
of the writ petitioners to be reckoned from the date of initial
appointment and monetary benefits be given from the date of
regularization i.e. 01.06.2006.
26. The argument of the respondents / writ petitioners is
that the Government had agreed that the seniority will be
reckoned from the date of initial appointment and therefore, the
learned Single Bench was right in allowing the writ petitions
following the decision in the case of T.Kunju Krishnan and
others (supra).
27. As noted above, not only the review applications filed in
the case of T.Kunju Krishnan and others (supra) were
admitted, but a separate writ appeal by the aggrieved teachers
have also been admitted. When the aggrieved teachers prayed for
interim orders, the learned Special Government Pleader, who
appeared before the Honourable First Bench, on instructions,
submitted that no promotions are being effected during the
pandamic period and therefore, the Honourable Division Bench
observed that the question of granting interim order at that stage
did not arise, but gave liberty to make a request during the
pendency of the appeals / review applications for grant of interim
order, if occassion so demands. The Judgment in T.Kunju
Krishnan and others (supra) appears to be based upon a
concession and such concession also can never enure in favour of
the respondents / writ petitioners before us for the reasons
assigned by us earlier coupled with the fact that the order and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 16/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
direction passed by the learned Writ Court in the case of T.Kunju
Krishnan and others (supra) was not given effect to and in two
of the writ appeals before us in W.A.(MD) Nos.299 and 300 of
2020, an order of interim stay has been granted on 26.02.2020.
Thus, we are of the view that the respondents / writ petitioners
cannot place reliance on the decision in the case of T.Kunju
Krishnan and others (supra)."
19. Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
petitioners in CMP No.10675 of 2021 joined as regular Teachers in the
year 2002 (the first petitioner joined as Physical Education Teacher on
12.08.1998) and they sought to implead themselves in the review
application on the ground that if any adverse order is passed in the
review application, the same will have a bearing on their promotion. In
view of the grounds urged by the learned Senior Counsel, even before
arraying the petitioners in the said miscellaneous petition as parties, the
learned Senior Counsel is permitted to make submissions in support of
the petitioners therein. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel
that G.O.Ms.No.53 was issued under Rule 11 of the TNSSS Rules for the
appointment of Junior Grade Teachers. The appendix to the said
Government Order sets out certain conditions as per which, it is also
open to the Government to terminate the services of those teachers. The
appendix to the said G.O., further provides for conditions, which would
normally be applicable for any persons appointed under ad hoc basis,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 17/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
i.e., thus appointees do not carry out the regular load of work to be
carried out by the teachers appointed in the regular process and scale of
pay.
20. A close reading of G.O.Ms.No.120, dated 18.07.2006,
specifically makes it clear that the consolidated pay system has been
abolished and the nomenclature of Junior Grade Teacher is also removed
from 01.06.2006.
21. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is
whether the relevant service period till 01.06.2006 can be counted, as
qualifying service for the purpose of counting the seniority, as prayed
for ?
22. Once again, the Division Bench in Madurai Bench in the
aforesaid judgment in C.Murugan's case (cited supra) had dealt with
the same point in paragraphs 43 and 44 in the following manner :
"43.It is submitted by the learned counsel that three issues
arise for consideration in these batch of cases, viz., (i) whether the
writ petitioners/respondents 1 to 18 are entitled to be regularised
from the date on which they were initially appointed on
consolidated pay and whether they are entitled to get
consequential monetary benefits; (ii) whether the period during
which the writ petitioners/respondents 1 to 18 worked on
consolidated pay/temporary basis can be taken as “qualifying
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 18/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
service” for the purpose of calculating their seniority; and (iii)
whether the impugned promotion panel dated 16.11.2019, issued
by the Director of School Education without considering the
seniority of the writ petitioners/respondents 1 to 18, is
sustainable.
44. Issue Nos.1 and 2 have been considered by us in the
preceding paragraphs and they have been answered by us in
favour of the appellants and against the writ petitioners.
Nevertheless, having taken note of the written submissions
submitted by the learned counsel, we answer the issues as follows.
The contention of the writ petitioners is that on account of non-
joinder of necessary parties, the rights of the writ
appellants/teachers are no way affected, insofar as Issue Nos.1
and 2 are concerned, as the issues relate to regularisation and
monetary benefits, sought for by the writ petitioners, is an issue
between the Government and the writ petitioners. The said
submission is devoid of merits. The writ petitioners have failed to
note as to what would be the consequences of relief being granted
to them as prayed for in the writ petitions. If they have to be
regularised from the date of their initial engagement as a Junior
Grade Teacher and to be granted monetary benefits from the said
date, undoubtedly, the writ petitioners would claim a march over
the regularly appointed teachers, as they seek for higher
placement in the seniority list. This is what precisely has been
done by the writ petitioners by challenging the tentative promotion
panel dated 16.11.2019. Therefore, non-impleadment of proper
and necessary parties is a substantial ground on which relief has
to be denied to the writ petitioners."
23. As per G.O.Ms.No.120, dated 18.07.2006, which takes away
the post of Junior Grade Teacher, the appointment of the writ petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 19/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
in W.P.No.4991 of 2015 and the similarly placed teachers should be
deemed as a new appointment as the previous post held by them had
already come to an end. Even in the G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 27.06.2006, it
has been specifically stated that those Junior Grade Teachers appointed
on consolidated pay after completion of five years of service will be
appointed for regular pay structure and regular time scale of pay will be
fixed with the probation of two years. The very same Government Order
once again categorically states that these teachers were appointed on a
contract basis and they will be granted with regular scale of pay from
01.06.2006. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it could be stated
that these teachers, who were selected pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.99 and
100, can seek seniority by considering their service prior to the
regularization.
24. The learned counsel for the private respondents made a
strenuous attempt to convince this Court by relying on G.O.Ms.No.120,
dated 18.07.2006, for the purpose of seniority. G.O.Ms.No.120 is usefully
extracted hereunder :
"In the Government Order referred to as 8 herein above,
order was issued for fixing the pay scale and regularizing the
teachers who are working under consolidated pay, on contract
basis in the Government and aided schools, from 16.2006.
Government perused about their probationary period commencing
from 1.6.2006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 20/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
2. Whenever the teachers who are working under the
consolidated pay in the government schools, the contract forms,
under the Rule 11 of the Tamilnadu State and Subordinate
Services Rules, were formed in the government orders, referred to
as 5, 6 and 7.
3. It is instructed to the Director of School
Education/Director of Elementary Education are directed that the
teachers who are working under consolidated pay on contract basis
shall be concluded with 31.5.2006 afternoon and the eligible
teachers, who have completed the qualifications under the Special
Rules of the said post, inclusive of physical fitness shall be issued
with the proper appointment order in connection with the
probationary period commencing from forenoon of 1.6.2006. The
teachers who did not complete the rule regarding the age shall be
appointed temporarily under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules,
and the proposal is directed to be sent to the government
immediately for the relaxation of age limit. After the relaxation of
the rule, from forenoon of 1.6.2006, they shall be considered to be
brought under probationary period. Further their seniority shall be
considered as per the communal allotment and the method is the
one which was determined by the Teachers Recruitment Board. As
far as the teachers were appointed through Employment
Exchange, the communal allotment method is follows and
determined as the seniority method.
4. Further, all types of vacancies of teachers, working under
consolidated pay in the government schools and aided schools, in
connection with the probationary period starting from 1.6.2006, for
the amendment to be published under Recognized Private Schools
(Regulation) Rules, 1974, the Director of School Education is
directed to send the proper proposal to the Government.
5. Further as at present the consolidated pay method is
cancelled, the vacancies of Junior Grade Teacher, as found in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 21/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
government order referred to as 1 hereinabove, will not be in
existence from 1.6.2006."
25. Paragraph 3 of the said Government Order provides for fixing
seniority and it only says that "THEIR" seniority shall be considered as
per the communal allotment and the method should be one, which was
determined by the TRB. Therefore, it was argued that the date should be
reckoned from the date of seniority, as has been drawn by the TRB.
Though this argument seems to be convincing at the first blush, but a
deep analysis of the same would reveal the cracks within. The above
Government Order relates only to those teachers working in Government
and Aided Schools on consolidated pay, whose scale of pay is fixed from
01.06.2006.
26. The seniority which is referred to therein relates only to those
persons, who are appointed on the consolidated pay as "Junior Grade
Teachers", and later appointed for the purpose of fixing the pay scale
from 01.06.2006. Therefore, it is for the purpose of fixing the seniority
among themselves, i.e., new appointees, as all of them were appointed
fixing the regular pay scale from 01.06.2006, and the seniority should be
drawn as determined by the TRB. Thus, the argument of the learned
counsel for the private respondents cannot be accepted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 22/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
27. The initial appointments of the writ petitioners were based on
Government Orders that were issued to fill up the vacancies in various
categories of teachers on consolidated pay during the ban on recruitment
was force in the State. They had discharged their duties as Junior Grade
Employees. After they were absorbed into service on 01.06.2006
inclusion of their names in the seniority list would only deprive the
promotees (Review Petitioners and other similarly placed teachers) the
legitimate seniority to which they are entitled to.
28. It is settled law that seniority of a person has to be counted
from the date of his initial appointment, if he was appointed in a regular
post, selection to which is by way of regular mode of recruitment.
Therefore, the corollary is, where the initial appointment is not according
to rules, i.e., ad hoc, as a stopgap arrangement, the discharge of duty in
such post cannot be taken into account for determining seniority.
29. When already the Government Orders issued by the
Government are clear about fixing of the seniority, the same cannot be
now altered by the judicial intervention. It is also to be seen that when
the First Division Bench passed the order, based on the concession given
by the Government, the right of the other parties (review
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 23/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
petitioners/appellants in W.A.No.723 of 2020 and other similarly placed
teachers), who were not arrayed as parties to the proceedings, would be
affected and the same was not brought to the notice of this Court.
30. If the writ petitioners/the private respondents herein are
extended such benefits, it will take away the rights already accrued to
the review petitioners and other similarly placed teachers. It is, in this
background, the review petition was entertained by the First Division
Bench and such judicial intervention cannot be taken advantage of by the
writ petitioners, in the absence of the persons, who may be affected by
such an order.
31. When the absorption of the writ petitioners were during
2006, as per G.O.Ms.No.120, the writ petitioners had, in fact, knocked at
the doors of this Court only in the year 2014, after inordinate delay and
there is no explanation / reason for the delay and laches on their part.
Even assuming that the writ petitioners moved the Court only after the
non-inclusion of their name in the promotion panel, the said approach
cannot be appreciated by this Court, for the simple reasons that they had
accepted the terms and conditions of all those Government Orders and
after such inordinate delay, they cannot seek any relief which is in
contravention to the terms of those Government Orders. Undoubtedly,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 24/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
the delay on the part of the writ petitioners would disentitle them from
the relief sought by them.
32. The said principle was re-emphasised by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479, in
the following terms:
“17. It is also well-settled principle of law that ‘delay defeats
equity’. The Government Order was issued on 15-1-2002. The
appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality
and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others
were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal
thereagainst, they impleaded themselves as party-respondents. It
is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the
High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to
them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact
that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain
the benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue
any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint
the appellants at this stage.”
33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghulam Rasool Lone v.
State of J&K, (2009) 15 SCC 321, observed as follows :
"19. It is beyond any cavil of doubt that the remedy under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary one. For
sufficient or cogent reasons a court may in a given case refuse to
exercise its jurisdiction; delay and laches being one of them. While
considering the question of delay and laches on the part of the
petitioner, the court must also consider the effect thereof."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 25/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
34. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in view of the
pendency of the writ petitions, writ appeals and the review application,
the promotion panel, which was drawn on 16.11.2019 is kept pending
without any progress.
35. The First Bench, also had passed a reasoned order on
01.09.2020 to admit the review application. In view of the discussions
made hereinabove, the Review petition No.60 of 2020 and W.A.No.723 of
2020 filed by the third parties, whose rights are affected by the said
order, are allowed and consequently, the order dated 13.01.2020 passed
in W.A.No.3904 of 2019 is recalled. As a natural corollary, the order
passed by the writ Court dated 30.07.2019 in W.P.No.4991 of 2015 is set
aside and the writ petition is dismissed.
36. In view of the orders passed by us in the instant review
petition, the writ appeals filed by the Government in W.A.Nos.245, 246
and 462 of 2020 are also allowed and the respective orders passed by
the learned Single Judges, which were impugned therein, are also set
aside and those writ petitions are dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 26/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
37. It is also made clear that any order passed by this Court
placing reliance on the judgment dated 13.01.2020 in W.A.No.3904 of
2019 and the order dated 30.07.2019 in W.P.No.4991 of 2015 cannot be
given effect to, in view of the order passed in the review petition recalling
the order dated 13.01.2020.
38. There shall be no order as to costs. The connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(P.S.N., J.) (K.R., J.)
17.08.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
gg
To
1. The Principal Secretary,
School Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
3. The Director of Elementary Education,
School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 27/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
4. The Joint Director (Higher Secondary),
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
5. The Chief Educational Officer,
Vellore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 28/29
Rev.Appln.60/2020 in WA No.3904/2019
& WA Nos.723/2020 & 245, 246 & 462/2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
gg Rev.Appln.No.60 of 2020 in W.A.No.3904 of 2019 & W.A.Nos.723 of 2020, 245, 246 and 462 of 2021 17.08.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page 29/29