S.Kasthuri v. The Director of Elementary Education

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 18.10.2011CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.NO.7114 of 2009S.Kasthuri.. Petitioner Vs.1.The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai-600 006.2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Neela Therkuveedhi, Nagapattinam-611 001.3.The Assistant Educational Officer, O/o.Assistant Education, Deen Complex, Mayiladuthurai-609 001.4.M.Kannan5.K.Sivagami6.N.Mangayarkarasi7.K.Bhuwaneswari8.P.Thamayanthi9.G.Jayanthi.. Respondents This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ ofcertiorarified mandamus to all for the records pertaining to theorder bearing Roc.No.176/A2/2009, dated 11.3.2009 of the thirdrespondent herein and quash the same and further to direct therespondents to restore the seniority of the petitioner in the cadreof Secondary Grade Teachers in Municipal School over and aboverespondents 4 to 9 based on the date of her joining duty viz.,10.6.2002 as mentioned in the seniority list published on01.01.2008. For Petitioner : Mr.V.SuthakarFor Respondents : Mr.V.Subbiah, Spl.G.P. for RR1 to 3 Mr.R.Shivakumar for RR4 to 6 ORDERThe petitioner has come forward to file the present writpetition seeking to challenge an order dated 11.3.2009 passed bythe third respondent Assistant Elementary Education Officer, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mayiladuthurai and after setting aside the same, to restore theseniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Secondary GradeTeachers in the Municipal school over and above respondents 4 to 9based on the date of her joining duty, i.e., 10.6.2002 as mentionedin the seniority list published on 1.1.2008.2.The writ petition was admitted on 20.4.2009. Pending thewrit petition, this court had granted an interim stay andsubsequently, the interim stay was extended from time to time andwas made absolute on 25.10.2010. On notice from this court, thesecond respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 16.6.2009.3.It is seen from the records that the petitioner wasappointed on 20.07.1988 in the Municipal School at Thiruvarur. Shewas transferred to Mayiladuthurai Municipal School on 5.8.1994within Mayiladuthurai range. During the year 2001-02, there was norequired students. Hence 13 teachers were found surplus. In thelight of the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.525, EducationDepartment, dated 23.7.1997, those 13 teachers among the juniormost in the seniority list were transferred on re-deployment. Thefourth respondent was ranking in the seniority list at No.1 and theother respondents 5 to 9 were ranking in serial Nos. 2 to 6. Thepetitioner was only in Serial No.10. Her original seniority willexist in her parent municipality union and that the seniority ofthe re-deployed teachers will be restored to their originalseniority in the parent union whenever they were reabsorbed as perthe original seniority. The writ petitioner got transferred to themunicipal school on her willingness due to her family circumstancesbefore the clarification was issued by the Government. Butsubsequent re-absorption of teachers in various vacancies in themunicipal schools were done as per the guidelines issued by theGovernment. 4.It is stated that as per the guidelines issued by theDirector, a seniority list of Secondary Grade Teachers for the year2009-2010 was prepared and it was prepared on the basis of the dateof fist joining on a regular time scale and those who had joinedduty on transfer from another union, their seniority was fixedbelow the seniority of approved probationer and that those who werere-deployed due to want of vacancy and retransferred to parentunion, their seniority will be placed at the original place fromwhich they have been transferred. Hence the third respondent hadprepared a seniority list on the basis of these guidelines. The 8threspondent had filed a writ petition being W.P.No.11463 of 2008 toconsider her representation. It was pursuant to the directions ofthis court, the seniority list was prepared and promotions werealso effected. The petitioner made a request only after theapproval of the seniority list. Hence her request was rejected. 5.The contention of the petitioner was that Rule 35(f) of theTamil Nadu State and Subordinates Rules was not followed. In thecounter affidavit, in paragraph 7, a tabular column was given,wherein it is seen that several respondents were seniors to thepetitioner both on the date of regularization as well as on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ date of joining and that in the panchayat union seniority, all ofthem were seniors to the petitioner. It was also stated that thedate of completion of probation for the fourth respondent was31.5.1990, whereas the petitioner had completed probation only on19.7.1990. She had joined the municipal school only on 5.8.1994 andthat too on request. She is not at all senior either on the date offirst date of joining or on the date of regularization or on thedate of completion of probation or on the date of joining in themunicipal school at Mayiladuthurai.6.Mr.V.Suthakar, learned counsel for the petitioner claimsthat his client was working from the year 1988 and that even thoughrespondents 4 to 9 were shown as juniors in the seniority listearlier, after a lapse of four years they were shown as seniors.The official respondents have explained as to how respondents 4 to9 were seniors to the petitioner and that they had strictlyimplemented the Government guidelines in the matter of drawal ofseniority list.7.In this context, it is necessary to refer to a judgment ofthe Supreme Court in Dhan Singh v. State of Haryana reported in1991 Supp (2) SCC 190 and in paragraph 10, the Supreme Court hadobserved as follows:“10.... The State could amend the 1965 Rules andwithdraw the concession in exercise of the powerconferred under Article 309 of the Constitution. It isopen to the State to lay down any rule for determiningseniority in service and the court cannot interfereunless it results in inequality of opportunity amongthe employees belonging to the same class. When a ruleis challenged as denying equal protection, the questionfor determination by the court is not whether it hasresulted in inequality but whether there is somedifference which bears a just and reasonable relationto the object of legislation. Mere differentiation orinequality of protection does not per se amount todiscrimination within the inhibition of equalprotection clause under Article 14. To attract theattention of the clause, it is necessary to show thatthe selection or differentiation is unreasonable orarbitrary and that it does not rest on any rationalbasis having regard to the object which the legislaturehas in view. The court has to examine whether theclassification can be deemed to rest upon differentiadiscriminating the persons or things grouped from thoseleft out and whether such differentia has a reasonablerelation to the objects sought to be achievedirrespective of whether the rule is intended to applyto person or thing or to a certain class of persons orthings. Therefore, the policy or the object of thelegislation are relevant consideration.” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8.In the light of the above, the writ petition will standdismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.vvkTo1.The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai-600 006.2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Neela Therkuveedhi, Nagapattinam-611 001.3.The Assistant Educational Officer, O/o.Assistant Education, Deen Complex, Mayiladuthurai-609 001.1 cc To Mr.V.Suthakar, Advocate Sr 643291 cc to The Govt. Pleader, SR 64651 cc To Mr.R.Shiva Kumar, Advocate Sr 63601 W.P.NO.7114 of 2009trm[co]gp/12.11.