R. Rajan v. The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai-62

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 10.04.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLAW.P.No.22325 of 2007 andM.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2007R. Rajan ... Petitioner vs.1. The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai-62. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli.3. The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Vasudevanallur, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents Writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution ofIndia for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call forrecords in pursuance to the impugned order passed by the firstrespondent in Na.Ka.No.16170/D3/2007 dated 11.6.07 and to quash thesame and consequently forbear the respondents from altering theseniority of the petitioner in the cadre of secondary grade teacherin the Kovilpatti Panchayat union in pursuant to the impugned orderpassed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.16170/D3/2007 dated11.6.07.For petitioner : Mr.K. Shanmugam For respondent : Mr.Edwin Prabakar Additional Government Pleader O R D E RThe petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned proceedings ofthe first respondent dated 11.06.2007. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that thepetitioner was selected and appointed by the Teacher RecruitmentBoard for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the year 1995. Theappointment of the petitioner was on 4.8.1995 in the Sankaran KoilUnion, Tirunelveli District. On 08.07.1997, he was transferred forthe first time to Vasudevanallur Union of the same district, where hecontinue to perform his duties for the past 12 years. As per rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, theseniority of a person in a service, class or category or grade shouldbe determined by the rank obtained by him from the list of approvedcandidates drawn up by the T.N.P.S.C. or other appointing authorityand in the case of the petitioner which is the Teachers RecruitmentBoard. After the recruitment made in the year 1995, since thevarious teachers recruited in that selection could not beaccommodated in their respective districts or the Panchayat Unions towhich they belong, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.388 dated19.06.1996 by which it was provided that if at their request such ofthose teachers who were selected in 1995 by the Teachers RecruitmentBoard, who were initially posted in a different district, seek forposting in their native district the same to be favourably consideredand by virtue of such posting the seniority as determined in the year1995 in the select list shall not be altered. 3. Subsequently, the first respondent issued proceedings dated10.03.2000 and by way of clarification of the stipulation containedin G.O.Ms.No.388 dated 19.06.1996, it was stated that such of thosesecondary grade teachers, who were appointed by the recruitment madeby the Teachers Recruitment Board in the year 1995 can retain theirseniority originally fixed if they seek for a transfer from onePanchayat to another Panchayat as a onetime measure. In other words,only once such teachers can seek for transfer from one PanchayatUnion to another Panchayat Union and if they seek for a furthertransfer to a different Panchayat Union, their seniority would befixed at bottom level of that Panchayat Union to which they seek fortransfer on the second occasion. Yet another proceedings came to beissued by the first respondent on 4.10.2001 in which it was againreiterated after referring G.O.Ms.No.388 dated 19.06.1996 as well asthe proceedings dated 10.03.2000, by stating that the secondary gradeteacher appointed in the year 1995, can retain their seniority whenthey seek for transfer from one Panchayat Union to another PanchayatUnion as a one time measure. Under the order impugned in the writpetition, it is stated that any Secondary Grade Teacher, who gottheir appointment in any of the Panchayat Union of the nativedistrict seek for a transfer to their native Panchayat Union or someother Panchayat Union in the same district, they will not bepermitted to retain their seniority assigned to them at the time oftheir selection in the year 1995. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. When the stipulations contained in G.O.Ms.No.388 dated19.06.1996 is read along with the proceedings of the first respondentdated 10.3.2000 and 4.10.2001, it is clear to the effect that afterthe initial appointment made in the year 1995 irrespective of theplace of posting at that point of time they are entitled to seek fortransfer once and that on that occasion alone they are entitled toretain their seniority. In fact, in the proceedings dated 10.3.2000,the first respondent has stated the said position in the followingwords in paragraph 5:**5. vdnt nju;t[ thupaj;jpd; K:yk; 1995y; ,ilepiy Mrpupau;fshf nju;t[bra;ag;gl;L xd;wpa gs;spfspy; epakdk; bra;ag;gl;ltu;fs; murhiz epiyvz;/388. fy;tpj;Jiw ehs; 19/09/96d; go Kjy;Kiw xU xd;wpaj;jpy; ,Ue;JntW xd;wpaj;jpw;F khWjypy; bry;Yk;nghJ kl;Lk; nju;t[ thupak; tH';fpa juvz; goahd Kd;Dupikia jf;f itj;Jf; bfhs;syhk;/**5. The said set of expression contained in the proceedings dated10.3.2000 if applied by referring to the statement found in theproceedings dated 4.10.2001 again in paragraph 5 of the saidproceedings, it can be stated without any contradiction that as aone time measure, the teachers, selected and appointed in 1995 underthe selection made by the Teachers Recruitment Board, are entitled toseek for transfer irrespective of their initial place of postingwhether it be to their native district or native panchayat union.When the first respondent had stated the said position in such anuncontraverted manner the impugned proceedings dated 11.6.2007containing a totally conflicting directions, vis-a-vis the G.O. andthe subsequent proceedings dated 4.10.2001 will cause seriousdetriment to the interest of such of those teachers who seek for anytransfer for the first time in their career after their initialappointment of 1995.6. In the case of the petitioner though the initial appointmentof the petitioner was in his native district of Tirunvelveli but in adifferent Panchayat Union viz., Sankaran Koil Panchayat Union and forthe first time he has got a transfer to different union of the verysame district viz., Vasudevanallur Union, having regard to theprovisions contained in G.O.Ms.No.388 dated 19.06.1996 and also theproceedings of the first respondent dated 10.03.2000 and 4.10.2001,such a transfer will not in any way affect the retention of heroriginal seniority that was assigned to him in the selection of theyear 1995 by the Teachers Recruitment Board. When the said positioncan be thus clarified the impugned proceedings shall not in any wayaffect the right of the petitioner for retention of such seniorityoriginally assigned to him. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. As the petitioner's right for retention of his seniority isthus declared by applying the above referred two proceedings, theimpugned proceedings dated 11.06.2007 cannot be applied to the caseof the petitioner. The writ petition is therefore allowed and theImpugned proceedings are hereby set aside in so far as the petitioneris concerned. Connected M.Ps. are closed.sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar ggsTo 1. The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai-6.2. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli.3. The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Vasudevanallur, Tirunelveli District.+1 cc To Mr.K. Shanmugam, Advocate, SR.20338 W.P.No.22325 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2007nm [co]gkg/13.5