High Court · 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27.11.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARWrit Petition No.30734 of 20081.K.P.K.Vijay Baalaji,2.Ravi,3.R.Vimalathithan,4.M.Elangovan. ... Petitioners vs.1.The Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.The Director of Elementary Education, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.3.The Chief Educational Officer, Karur District, Karur. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for therecords of the second respondent culminating in and by his proceedingNa.Ka.No.20108/L3/2006 dated 11.8.2008 and quash the same andconsequently direct the respondents to regularize the petitioners'serve as per G.O.Ms.No.116, Education Department dated 11.9.2003 inthe Secondary Grade Teachers post.For Petitioner : Mr.V.BharathidasanFor Respondents : Mr.A.Suresh, Government Advocate(Education). O R D E RThis Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ culminating in and by his proceeding Na.Ka.No.20108/L3/2006 dated11.8.2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondentsto regularize the petitioners' serve as per G.O.Ms.No.116, EducationDepartment dated 11.9.2003 in the Secondary Grade Teachers post.2. Petitioners 1 to 4 belongs to the Schedule Caste Community.On completion of Higher Secondary School Certificate, they underwentDiploma and Teacher Training and have registered their names withKarur Employment Exchange in the month of November, 2001. The ChiefEducational Officer, Karur took steps to appoint Secondary GradeTeachers for the year 2001. There were 207 vacancies, of which 22vacancies are relatable to Backlog vacancies for Schedule Caste,Schedule Tribe and Most Backward Class candidates. As per theCommunal Reservation Roster, out of total number of 207 vacancies,117 vacancies will go to Backward Class and Open Competition; 41vacancies will go to Most Backward Class and 49 vacancies will go toSC and ST. List of eligible candidates were called for from theDistrict Employment Exchange. In the list of candidates forwarded bythe Employment Exchange, the names of the petitioners did not findplace. Out of the list sent by the Employment Exchange, the thirdrespondent appointed 129 candidates and the break up of theappointment is as follows:-1) Open Competition - 57 candidates2) Backward Class - 54 candidates3) Most Backward Class- 11 candidates4) SC and ST- 7 candidates ----------------- 129 candidates -----------------Insofar as the Most Backward Class, only 11 were selected and inrespect of SC and ST, 7 persons alone were appointed. In effect, thepetitioners, who belong to the SC and ST Category and who areeligible to be considered for appointment were not considered astheir names did not figure in the list of candidates forwarded by theEmployment Exchange. Petitioners made a representation to theDistrict Collector and the Government and the third respondentstating that they are eligible candidates and their names also shouldbe considered. The grievance of the petitioners and similarly placedpersons were considered by the Government and G.O.Ms.No.116 EducationDepartment dated 11.9.2003 was passed. Paragraphs 4 to 7 of theG.O.Ms.No.116 dated 11.9.2003 which is relevant for this case readsas follows:-"4. nkYk; 14/6/2002 Kjy; ,ilepiy Mrphpah; gzpapl';fs; epug;g[tJbjhlh;ghf murhiz (epiy) vz; 79. gs;spf; fy;tpj; Jiw ehs; 14/6/2002y;@6. 7. 8k; tFg;g[fSf;bfd @jw;nghJ gzpg[hpa[k; ,ilepiy Mrphpah;fs; Xa;t[ bgWk;nghnjh my;yJ gzpj;Jwg;g[ bra;a[k;nghnjh (my;yJ) gjtp cah;tpy; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bry;Yk;nghnjh my;yJ kw;w tifapy; VnjDk; xU fhuzj;jpdhy; gzpaplk;fhyp Vw;gLk; nghnjh mt;tif ,ilepiy Mrphpah;fSf;F gjpy; @,ilepiyg;gl;ljhhp Mrphpah;@ vd;w g[jpa gjtpapid gog;goahf cUthf;fp mg;gjtpfSf;F(1/6/2002 md;iwa epiyapy; Vw;gl;l fhypg;gzpapl';fs; cl;gl) 2002?2003k;fy;tpahz;L Kjy; gp/vl;/. jFjp bgw;w (Middle GradeGraduate Teachers) Mrphpah;fisf; bfhz;L epakpf;f murhy;mDkjpj;J Mizaplg;gl;Ls;sJ/5/ fU:h; khtl;lj;jpy; fhypahf cs;s gpd;dilt[g; gzpapl';fs;1/6/2002f;F Kd;dnu (2001?2002y; mjhtJ 31/5/2001 md;iwa epiyapy;) cs;sfhyp kw;Wk; gpd;dilt[g; gzpapl';fshFk;/ vdnt. fU:h;. Kjd;ikf; fy;tpmYtyhpd; nfhhpf;iffpz';f nkw;Twg;gl;l 37 ,ilepiy Mrphpah;gzpapl';fSk; 2001?2002y; xJf;fPL bra;ag;gl;L epug;gg;glhj gpd;dilt[g;gzpapl';fshf cs;sjhYk;. khtl;l ntiy tha;g;g[ mYtyfj;jpypUe;J ,ilepiy Mrphpah; gapw;rp Koj;j gzp ehLeh; gl;oaiyg; bgw;W 11/1/2002 md;Wrhd;wpjH; rhpghh;f;Fk; gzp epiwt[ bgw;Ws;s epiyapYk;. ,jid rpwg;g[ neh;thff; fUjp nkw;go gpd;dilt[g; gzpapl';fis 2002?2003 fy;tp Mz;oy;,ilepiy Mrphpah; gzpapl';fshf fUjp epug;g Miz tH';FkhW gs;spf;fy;tp ,af;Feh; muirf; nfl;Lf; bfhz;Ls;shh;/ 6/ gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Fehpd; fUj;JUit muR ed;F ghprPyidbra;jJ/ ,e;epfH;tpy; Fwpg;gplg;gLk; 37 gzpapl';fSk; fU:h; khtl;lj;jpy;1/6/2002f;F Kd;dnu (2001?2002y; mjhtJ 31/5/2001 md;iwa epiyapy;)fhypahf cs;s gpd;dilt[ gzpapl';fshFk;/ Mfnt. nkw;go murhiz(epiy) vz; 79. gs;spf; fy;tp ehs; 14/6/2002y; Fwpg;gplg;gLk; epge;jidfs; ,e;epfH;t[f;F bghUe;jhJ/7/ vdnt gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Feh; fUj;jpid Vw;W fU:h; khtl;lj;jpy;nkw;Twg;gl;l 37 ,ilepiy Mrphpah; gzpapl';fis 2001?2002k; Mz;LxJf;fPL bra;ag;gl;L epug;gg;glhj gpd;dilt[g; gzpapl';fshf cs;sjhy;. ,jid rpwg;g[ neh;thff; fUjp nkw;go gzpapl';fis 2002?2003 fy;tp Mz;LKot[w;wjhy;. 2003?2004 fy;tp Mz;oy; ,ilepiy Mrphpah; gzpapl';fshffUjp epug;g mDkjp tH';fp muR MizapLfpwJ/" In effect the Government considering the recommendation of theDirector of School Education, ordered that the 37 vacancies to thepost of Secondary Grade Teacher relatable to the year 2001-2002should be considered as a special case and should be filled up asvacancies of the year 2003-2004. The vacancies to the SC, STcategory, therefore, had to be filled up in accordance with the abovesaid direction. 3. Since the G.O.Ms.116 dated 11.9.2003 was not given effect toin pith and substance, W.P.No.39813 of 2005 was filed and the Courtdirected the Director of Elementary Education, the second respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ herein, by its order dated 4.9.2007 to consider and dispose off therepresentation on merits in the light of G.O.Ms.No.116 dated11.9.2003. Consequent to this, the Director of Elementary Education,the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 11.8.2008rejecting the claim of the petitioners stating that in view of theG.O.Ms.No.100 dated 27.6.2003, the petitioners cannot be appointed tothe substantive post. They will be entitled to the appointment onconsolidated pay as contained in G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 27.6.2003. Theclaim of the petitioners was rejected stating that no benefit can begranted to the petitioners except in terms of G.O.Ms.No.100 dated27.6.2003. Present writ petition is filed challenging the said order.4. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondents. However,Mr.A.Suresh, learned Government Advocate states that in G.O.Ms.No.116dated 11.9.2003, the G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 27.6.2003 was notconsidered and therefore, the claim of the petitioners was rejected.5. G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 27.6.2003 was passed to appoint personson consolidated pay so as to overcome a ban imposed with regard tothe appointments. It was a measure taken by the Government toovercome certain difficulties that arose in the administration of theschool education. Whereas in G.O.Ms.No.116 dated 11.9.2003, theGovernment considered the backlog vacancies which was omitted. Ithas been specifically pointed out in the G.O.Ms.No.116 dated11.9.2003 that there are backlog vacancies of the year 2001-2002 inrespect of SC and ST candidates which were not filled up. Thiscause an anomaly insofar as merit candidates of SC and ST community.Therefore, special permission was granted by the Government. In suchcircumstances, the third respondent is not justified in rejectingthe plea of the petitioners on the ground that their claim will notbe considered for the 37 unfilled regular vacancies in view of theG.O.Ms.No.100 dated 27.6.2003. If the Government had wanted to denythe benefit to SC, ST Community, it would not have directed thefilling of the 37 vacant post by invoking G.O.Ms.No.100 dated27.6.2003 which was already in force. The omission is conscious andspecific to correct the anomaly. 6. In the present case, the 37 backlog vacancies are relatableto the year 2001-2002 whereas G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 27.6.2003 isprospective and it cannot apply to the backlog vacancies for which aspecial provision has been made in G.O.Ms.No.116 dated 11.9.2003.The second respondent has failed to consider the differentiationbetween both the two G.Os. G.O.Ms.No.116 dated 11.9.2003 isspecifically intended for the 37 backlog vacancies. WhereasG.O.Ms.No.100 dated 27.6.2003 does not apply to the 37 backlogvacancies meant for the SC and ST candidates. This vital differencehas been overlooked by the authority. In any event, theG.O.Ms.No.116 dated 11.9.2003 is binding on the school authority andthey are bound to implement it. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. In such view of the matter, the writ petitioners areentitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.116 dated 11.9.2003 and theirnames along with all other eligible candidates shall be consideredfor the purpose of appointment to the 37 backlog vacancies under theSC and ST category. The impugned order passed contrary to theG.O.Ms.No.116 dated 11.9.2003 is set aside. The third respondent isdirected to proceed in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.116 dated11.9.2003. The Writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Noorder as to costs. ts Sd/- Asst.Registrar/True Copy/ Sub.Asst.RegistrarTo 1.The Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.The Director of Elementary Education, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.3.The Chief Educational Officer, Karur District, Karur.+ 1 cc to the Mr. V. Bharathidasan,SR.64783+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader SR.64623 W.P.No.30734 of 2008 MS(CO)EU 10.12.2009.