Madrasdated High Court · 2025

WP No. 9659 of 2009391.P.MurugesanP.G.Assistant (english), Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Thiruchengode, Namakkal Dist.392.S.Kalirajan, P.G.Assistant(maths), Govt. Higher Sec. School Pallavaram, Kancheepuram Dt. Resp.3 To 392 Are Rep.By The 3rd Resp. M.Periyasamy Pg Asst. G.H.S.S., Noyyal.Respondent(s)PRAYERWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.1813, Education Department, dated 12.12.1988 in so far as the direction for placement of the 10 (a) (i) regularized candidates below the Service Commission candidates and the consequential impugned panel issued by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.96700/W.1/E.1/2008 dated 16.3.2009, in so far as the respondents 3 to 392 are concerned, and quash the same, and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to place the petitioners above the respondents 3 to 392 and below the serial No.61 of the panel for the year 2009 for promotion to the post of Headmaster of Higher Secondary School, communicated by the second respondent in communication Na.Ka.No.96700/W.1/E1/08 dated 16.03.2009.Page 59 of 66 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 9659 of 2009For Petitioner(s):M/s.V.SivalingamM/s.S.Thendral for M/s.S.ManiFor Respondent(s):Ms.Akila RajendranGovernment AdvocateORDERAll the petitioners herein are the persons appointed to the post of P.G Assistant on or before 12.12.1988, having been selected by the Teachers Recruitment Board in accordance with law, and their services have been regularized in the said post from the date of their initial appointment. 2.While so, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1813, Education Department, dated 12.12.1988 regularizing the services of the petitioners who were temporarily appointed as P.G Assistants in academic subject / languages and Physical Directors in Government Higher Secondary Schools, from the date of their temporary appointment subject to twin conditions. First condition is with regard to payment of monetary benefits and second condition being with regard to their seniority. The persons who are benefited under G.O.Ms.No.1813 dated 12.12.1988 were directed to be placed below the candidates selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Page 60 of 66 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 9659 of 2009Commission (hereinafter referred as 'TNPSC'), while ranking their seniority i.e., the candidates whose services were regularized under the above said Government order were directed to be placed below the last candidate selected by TNPSC for that year. In terms of the same, the seniority list was finalized through proceedings in Na.Ka.No.96700/W.1/E1/08 dated 16.03.2009 wherein, the private respondents herein were placed from S.No.62 i.e., below the candidates who were selected by TNPSC for the said years. On having come to know about the said seniority finalized through proceedings dated 16.03.2009, the petitioners herein approached this Court by filing the present writ petition challenging the G.O.Ms.No.1813 dated 12.12.1988 and the consequential proceedings dated 16.03.2009. 3.It is the case of the petitioners that, they being the candidates regularly selected by Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) which is the substitute for TNPSC, they are also entitled to be treated on par with the candidates selected by TNPSC, and are entitled to be placed over and above the candidates whose services were regularized through the impugned G.O.Ms.No.1813 dated 12.12.1988.Page 61 of 66 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 9659 of 20094.Though the 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 17.09.2009, the said counter affidavit is silent with regard to the claim being made by the petitioner, even though the stand of the petitioners was specifically averred in para 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Under those circumstances, this Court passed an order dated 04.07.2025 requiring the official respondents to file additional counter affidavit. The said order reads as under:“The crux of the issue is with regard to Paragraph No.10 of the affidavit. The petitioners herein are the candidates who are recruited through the Teachers Recruitment Board, which is a substitute to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. While issuing the impugned Government Order, the Government has taken care of the candidates selected through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission prior to the constitution of the Teachers Recruitment Board. However, the Government Order is silent with regard to the placement to be given to the candidates selected through the Teachers Recruitment Board prior to issuance of the impugned Government Order, which resulted in prejudicially affecting the petitioners herein. 2. Though the grievance of the petitioner is clearly explained in Paragraph No.10 of the affidavit, the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents is totally silent in the same. 3. In view of the same, the learned Government Advocate is directed to get specific instructions and file an additional counter meeting the averments raised in Paragraph No.10 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 4. List the matter on 18.07.2025 under the same caption.”Page 62 of 66 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 9659 of 20095.Pursuant to the above order, the 2nd respondent filed additional counter affidavit.6.Though it is admitted that the petitioners herein are all the persons who were selected through Teachers Recruitment Board, nothing is stated about the claim made by the petitioners. It is also not dispute that the Teachers Recruitment Board is a substitute for TNPSC. In the admitted fact situation, the claim of the petitioners to treat them on par with the candidates selected by TNPSC and to safeguard their seniority and to treat them as seniors over and above the candidates whose services were regularized through impugned G.O.Ms.No.1813 dated 12.12.1988 cannot be denied. 7.Though all the beneficiaries of impugned Government Order were impleaded as respondent Nos.3 to 392 in the writ petition, and most of them were served with notice, none of them chose to enter appearance to contest the matter. No doubt, the some of the private respondents were not served with notice. Be that as it Page 63 of 66 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 9659 of 2009may, taking into consideration the admitted fact situation, the non-service of notice on some of the private respondents will not make much difference, and there appears to be no sustainable defence to the private respondents. Taking into consideration the fact that this writ petition is of the year 2009, this Court is not inclined to issue further notice to un-served respondents. 8.In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, directing the 2nd respondent to revise the seniority list finalized through proceedings Na.Ka.No.96700/W.1/E1/08, dated 16.03.2009, by duly placing the petitioners herein above the candidates whose services were regularized through G.O.Ms.No.1813 dated 12.12.1988, if necessary, by putting the affected parties on notice, and issue the consequential orders, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.9.The 2nd respondent is further directed to consider the case of the petitioners for notional promotion to the post of Head Masters of Higher Secondary Schools in terms of the seniority of the petitioners to be fixed in terms of this order Page 64 of 66 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 9659 of 2009within a further period of six (6) weeks.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.14-08-2025dpaIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NoTo1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamilnadu School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.2.The Director of School Education, Chennai – 6.Page 65 of 66 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 9659 of 2009MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR J.dpaWP No. 9659 of 200914.08.2025Page 66 of 66