G.S. Rajendran & Ors. v. The Director of ElementaryEducation, Elementary Education (G)Department, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDate:- 21.01.2008 CoramThe Honourable Mr. Justice S.J. MUKHOPADHAYAandThe Honourable Mr. Justice M. VENUGOPAL W.A. Nos.1313 and 1314 of 2007G.S. Rajendran... Appellant in W.A.No.1313/2007S. Rajendran... Appellant in W.A. No.1314/2007..vs..1. The Director of ElementaryEducation, Elementary Education (G)Department, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.2. The District ElementaryEducational Officer, O/o District ElementaryEducational Officer, New Town Hall, Pudukkottai Town and District.3. The Assistant ElementaryEducational Officer, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District.4. M. Gopalakannan... Respondents in W.A. No.1313/20071. M. Indira Gandhi2. The Director of Elementary Education, Directorate of Elementary Education DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The District ElementaryEducational Officer, Pudukkottai.3. The Assistant ElementaryEducational Officer, Assistant ElementaryEducational Office, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District.... Respondents in W.A. No.1314/2007Appeals filed to set aside the order dated 7.9.2007 passedin W.P. Nos.19660 of 2004 and 4032 of 2007 respectively on thefile of this Court.WP No.19660 of 2004:- Petition presented under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India for issue of writ of certiorarifiedmandamus calling for the records of the Impugned order passed bythe 2nd respondent herein in his Rc.No.6205/B3/2003 dated5.7.2004, quash the same as illegal and arbitrary in nature andconsequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to appoint thepetitioner herein as Tamil Pandit in the existing post in LNPuram Municipal Middle School, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District,in accordance with the promotion panel prepared for the year2004 by the 3rd respondent herein.WP No.4032/2007:- Presented under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying to issue a writ of certioraricalling for the records relating to the order passed by thefirst respondent in Na. Ka. 28054/L3/2006 dated 18.1.2007 andthe consequential order of the 2nd respondent passed in Na. Ka.No.4715/A3/06 dated 19.1.2007 and quash the same.For Appellant: Mr. G. ThangavelFor Respondent : Mr. D. Srinivasan, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3 (W.A. No.1313/2007) for R2 to R4 (W.A. No.1314/2007) Mr. A. Gandhi for R1 (W.A. No.1314/2007) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment was delivered by S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J.)In both writ appeals, since common question isinvolved, they were heard together and disposed of by commonjudgment.2. The matter relates to the appointment to the postof Tamil Pandit from Secondary Grade Teacher in Municipal MiddleSchool, L.N. Puram, Aranthangi (hereinafter referred to as"Middle School"). Both G.S. Rajendran-appellant in W.A. No.1313of 2007 and M. Indira Gandhi-first respondent in W.A. No.1314of 2007 were functioning as Secondary Grade Assistant (Teacher)in the said school. One M. Gopalakannan-fourth respondent inW.A. No.1313 of 2007 having been appointed by the DistrictElementary Educational Officer to the post of Tamil Pandit inthe said school, G.S. Rajendran-appellant in W.A. No.1313 of2007 preferred W.P. No.19660 of 2004, challenging the order ofdirect recruitment passed in R.C. No.6205/B3/2003 dated 5th July,2004. During the pendency of the writ petition, Gopalakannan-fourth respondent in W.A. No.1313 of 2007 was transferred tosome other District on 4th July, 2006. The post of Tamil Pandithaving been again fell vacant, both G.S. Rajendran-appellant inW.A. No.1313 of 2007 and M. Indira Gandhi-first respondent inW.A. No.1314 of 2007 submitted their representations forpromotion to the post of Tamil Pandit, which were disposed of.3. A panel was prepared in 2006, in which IndiraGandhi-first respondent in W.A. No.1314 of 2007 was shown asserial No.1 and S. Rajendran-appellant in W.A. No.1314 of 2007was shown as serial No.1(a). In view of the direction given bythis Court in W.P. No.7454(MD)/2006 preferred by Indira Gandhi-first respondent in W.A. No.1314 of 2007, she was promoted asTamil Pandit in November, 2006. G.S. Rajendran-appellant inW.A. No.1313 of 2007, who did not expect the same, preferredcontempt proceedings, alleging non compliance of the orderpassed by this Court on 11.8.2006 in W.P. No.25363 of 2006.Thereafter, the respondent-Director of Elementary Educationpassed an order dated 18th of January, 2007 inRC.No.28054/L3/2006 and consequential order dated 19th ofJanuary, 2007 in RC.No.4715/B3/06. By those orders, IndiraGandhi-first respondent in W.A. No.1314 of 2007 was reverted tothe substantive post and G.S. Rajendran-appellant in W.A.No.1313 of 2007 was granted promotion to the post of TamilPandit. Those orders dated 18th and 19th January, 2007 werechallenged by Indira Gandhi-first respondent in W.A. No.1314 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2007, by preferring W.P. No.4032 of 2007, wherein S. Rajendran-appellant in W.A. No.1313 of 2007 was impleaded as fourthrespondent.4. Learned Single Judge, having noticed the rivalcontentions, by an impugned common order dated 7th September,2007, while dismissing W.P. No.19660 of 2004, in view of thefact that Gopalakannan had already been transferred to anotherschool, held that Indira Gandhi-first respondent in W.A.No.1314 of 2007 is senior to the appellant in W.A. No.1314 of2007 and set aside the orders dated 18th and 19th January, 2007.5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of theappellants submitted that the post of Tamil Pandit in MiddleSchool fell vacant on 1st January, 2004. A panel was publishedon 1st January, 2004 indicating S. Rajendran-appellant in W.A.No.1314 of 2007 as the only qualified person for promotion tothe post of Tamil Pandit in Middle School. In spite of thesame, the post was not filled up by promotion and Gopalakannan-fourth respondent in W.A. No.1313 of 2007 was appointed bydirect recruitment by an order dated 5th July, 2004 inNa.Ka.No.6205/a3/2003, which was challenged in W.P. No.19660 of2004. He placed reliance on Notification issued by the SchoolEducation (C1) Department in G.O.Ms.No.1383(Education) dated23.5.1988 (w.e.f. 01.06.84): G.O.M.S.No.227 Education dated28.8.2000, whereby and whereunder the method of appointment tothe post of Tamil Pandit and other language pandit Grade-1 isprovided.6. According to the appellant in W.A. No.1313 of 2007,in view of the order dated 11th August, 2006 passed by thisCourt in W.P. No.25363 of 2006, the representation of theappellant has been considered for promotion to the post of TamilPandit, by taking into consideration the provisions of amendedG.O.Ms.No.227 dated 28.8.2000 issued by the School EducationDepartment and as per the panel published as on 1st January,2004. Indira Gandhi-first respondent in W.A. No.1314 of 2007was not qualified for promotion to the post of Tamil Pandit ason 1st January, 2004 when the panel was prepared, since sheobtained B.Lit degree in 2005. It was submitted that onlyqualified in B.Lit in Tamil is legally entitled for promotion tothe post of Tamil Pandit and therefore, appellant in W.A.No.1313 of 2007 was the only eligible candidate as on 01.01.2004as shown in the panel.7. Indira Gandhi-first respondent in W.A. No.1314 of2007 filed a caveat petition and contested the writ appeal.The only plea taken by her is that she was senior to theappellant in W.A. No.1314 of 2007 in the Middle School and that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ she had necessary qualification of B.Lit.(Tamil), which was dulyentered in the service register on 21st November, 2005 , i.e.prior to the subsequent vacancy which fall vacant on 3rd July,2006, when Gopalakannan-fourth respondent in W.A. No.1313 of2007 was transferred to another school.8. The stand taken by the learned counsel for theState is that in view of common order passed by this Courtearlier that the impugned order in the writ petition was passed.9. We have heard the parties and noticed the rivalcontentions and facts, as brought forth before this Court.10. It is not in dispute that fourth respondent inW.A. No.1313 of 2007-Gopalakannan was appointed as Tamil Panditon 5th July, 2004, who was subsequently transferred to anotherschool and relieved on 3rd July, 2006. After he was relievedfrom the post of Tamil Pandit, W.P. No.19660 of 2004, preferredby G.S. Rajendran-appellant in W.A. No.1313 of 2007, becomeinfructuous. In this background, no finding having been givenby the learned Single Judge, it calls for no interference.11. So far as S. Rajendran-appellant in W.A. No.1314of 2007 and Indira Gandhi-first respondent in W.A. No.1314 of2007 is concerned, the question arises as to who amongst themare eligible for promotion to the post of Tamil Pandit and thedate from which the case for promotion be considered.12. The relevant Rule prescribes the following methodsof appointment to the post of Tamil Pandit and other languagepandit Grade-1 in the Notification issued by the SchoolEducation (C1) Department in G.O.Ms.No.1383(Education) dated23.5.1988 (w.e.f. 01.06.84) : G.O.M.S.No.227 Education dated28.8.2000:-"Rule – IVNotification – 2In exercise of the powers conferred bysection 6 volume III of Tamil Nadu ServiceManual the Governor of Tamil Nadu herebymakes the following amendment to the TamilNadu School Educational Subordinate Service(Municipal/Township Schools) rules whichshall be deemed to have come into force from01.06.88 (As per the recommendation of theOne Man Commission of V Pay Commission) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Amendment1. In the said rule for item – 1 Appointment– against the entries in column – 1 and 2 ofthe following item shall be modified namely.ClassCategoryII2, Tamil Pandit and Other Language Pandit Grade - 1III1. Secondary Grade Assistant2. In the said rule for item No.2 Appointmentagainst the entries in column No.1, 2 and 3of the Table.ClassCategoryMethod of AppointmentII2, TamilPandit andotherLanguagePandit Grade- I1. Promotion from any category in class IIIof this service.2. Transfer from any class and category inthis service in an identical scale of pay.3. In no qualified and suitable candidatesare available for appointment by method 1and 2 above, recruitment by transfer fromany other service. 13. It appears that Indira Gandhi-first respondent inW.A. No.1314 of 2007 joined as Secondary Grade Teacher on 29thNovember, 1988 in one Ramakrishna Vidyalaya Higher SecondarySchool, Thiruppunavasal and she was transferred to KamarajarKalasalai Middle School (Government aided), Aranthangi as perthe proceedings dated 30th April, 1999 and subsequently,appointed in Panchayat Union Middle School as Secondary GradeTeacher as per the proceedings dated 26th July, 1999 . Again,she was transferred from Panchayat Union Service to MunicipalSchool Service as per the proceedings dated 21st July, 2001 ofthe District Elementary Educational Officer, Pudukkottai. 14. On the other hand, G.S. Rajendran, appellant inW.A. No.1314 of 2007 was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on8th August, 1997 in Avudayar Koil Panchayat Union Middle School.He was transferred from Panchayat Union School, Mangudi to theMunicipal Elementary School (East) at Aranthangi Town on 1stDecember, 2003, where he was working as Assistant Teacher.Later, he was transferred to the present school. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15. From the materials as quoted above, it would beevident that the Tamil Nadu School Educational SubordinateService (Municipal/Township Schools) Rules came into force on 1stJune, 1988. Indira Gandhi-first respondent in W.A. No.1314 of2007 became member of the Municipal Educational SubordinateService since 21st July, 2001 whereas S.Rajendran-appellant inW.A. No.1314 of 2007 became member of said Municipal EducationalService on 1st December, 2003, thereby Indira Gandhi-firstrespondent in W.A. No.1314 of 2008 is senior to the appellant inW.A. No.1314 of 2007 in the service.16. We have also noticed that the post of Tamil Panditwas vacant since 2002 as evident from one of the petitionspreferred by the appellant. The appellant was not eligible atthat time. In January, 2004, though the appellant was the onlyeligible candidate, he had no right to be promoted as there wasno cause of action till 5th July, 2004, when the post of TamilPandit was filled up by direct recruitment of Gopalakannan-fourth respondent in W.A. No.1313 of 2007. The said writpetition become infructuous when the said post again fell vacanton 3rd July, 2006, on transfer of Gopalakannan. Thereby, as onthe date of vacancy i.e. 3rd July, 2006, it is evident that boththe appellant S. Rajendran and first respondent Indira Gandhiwere eligible for promotion to the post of Tamil Pandi and forthe said reason, since the name of the first respondent-IndiraGandhi was at serial No.1 of 2006 panel and the name of theappellant-S. Rajendran, was below her at 1(a), the promotion aswas granted to Indira Gandhi cannot be held to be illegal.17. We have already observed that the appellant had noright to claim promotion w.e.f. 1st January, 2004. In fact, noperson has any right to claim for promotion from retrospectivedate till any junior is promoted from retrospective date. Inthis background, the appellant-S. Rajendran cannot claim thatthe respondent-State should have considered his case forpromotion to the post of Tamil Pandit with effect from1.1.2004, pursuant to 2004. Further, as more than two yearshave lapsed, we are of the view that the panel prepared as on1st January, 2004 could not be acted upon for grant of promotionin the year 2006, since the period of earlier panel lapsed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18. We find that no ground is made out to interferewith the order dated 7.9.2007 passed by the learned single Judgein W.P. Nos.19660 of 2004 and 4032 of 2007 respectively. Therebeing no merit, both the appeals are dismissed, but there shallbe no order as to costs.Ssa.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Director of ElementaryEducation, Elementary Education (G)Department, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.2. The District ElementaryEducational Officer, O/o District ElementaryEducational Officer, New Town Hall, Pudukkottai Town and District.3. The Assistant ElementaryEducational Officer, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District.+ 1 cc to Mr. G. Thangavel, Advocate, SR No.2360/08+ 1 cc to Mr. Govt Pleader SR No. 2318/08+ 1 cc to Mr. A. Ganthi, Advocate, SR No.1938/08W.A. Nos.1313 and 1314 of 2007SA(CO)SR/31.1.2008