Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This writ petition is for direction against the respondents to promote the petitioners to the post of Lecturers.

2. The petitioners are working in the third respondent Polytechnic College, out of whom the first petitioner D.Seralathan, who was appointed on 09.12.1991 is working as Workshop Instructor/Mechanical Engineer, K.Srenevasan who was appointed on 02.01.1995, is working as Workshop Instructor/Production Engineer, R.Kamalaveni, who was appointed on 01.04.1990, is working as Workshop Instructor/EEE and P.Marisami, who was appointed on 02.01.1995, is working as Junior Drafting Officer/Mechanical Engineer.

2(f). Since the posts of Instructors were redesignated as Lecturers, according to the petitioners, the posts of Instructors were also to be considered as feeder cadre to the posts of Lecturers and since the Instructor post has been merged with Lecturers, the feeder categories to the Instructor posts viz., Junior Drafting Officer or Workshop Instructors are next in line for the promotion to the post of Lecturer and by discontinuing the recruitment to the post of Instructors, there is stagnation in the post of Workshop Instructors and Junior Drafting Officers in non-teaching category.

3(b). As per the ad hoc Rules framed in G.O.Ms.597 Higher Education Department dated 1.12.1997, the appointment is made either by direct recruitment or recruitment by transfer in Tamil Nadu Technical Education Subordinate Services. Therefore, the feeder category for the post of Lecturer is Instructor. However, the petitioners are holding the posts of Workshop Instructors/Junior Drafting officers, which are not at all coming under feeder categories for the posts of Lecturers.

3(c). It is true that the feeder categories to the post of Instructors as per the relevant rules for the Tamil Nadu Technical Education Services have been issued in G.O.Ms.No.1364 Education dated 16.8.1988 and therefore, unless the petitioners are promoted to the posts of Instructors, they cannot be promoted as Lecturers. In other words, it is the case of the second respondent that the posts of Workshop Instructors and Junior Drafting Officers cannot be directly appointed or promoted to the posts of Lecturers.

5. Ms.Arulmozhi, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that pending the above said writ petition, some of the similarly placed Workshop Instructors in aided polytechnics filed writ petitions seeking direction not to give effect to G.O.Ms.No.1081 Education (J1) Department dated 19.08.1989 and final order was passed on 10.9.2004 directing to consider the Workshop Instructors to the post of Instructors, de hors G.O.Ms.No.1081 Education (J1) Department dated 19.08.1989 and that decision was followed in a series of writ petitions and ultimately the said decision was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 1.8.2007 and as per the order of the High Court, the first respondent has promoted the Workshop Instructors/Junior Drafting Officers by implementing the same. It is also stated that in Tamil Nadu Technical Education Subordinate Service Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India vide G.O.220 Higher Education (B1) Department dated 6.7.2009, the post of Instructor (Engineering) in Polytechnics and special institutions remain as class I in the annexure to Rule 9 of the Special Rules and the method of appointment is prescribed including the direct recruitment and promotion and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, by virtue of the implementation of the Division Bench judgment, the executive instructions in G.O.Ms.No.1081 dated 19.8.1989 cannot stand in pursuance of the rules framed in G.O.Ms.1364 Education Department dated 16.8.1988.