High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 18-9-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.No.18671 of 2006andMP Nos.2 and 3 of 2006 and 1 of 2007A.BanumathiSecondary Grade AssistantMunicipal Middle SchoolThenkottai VeethiVirudhachalamCuddalore District.. Petitioner vs1.The Director of Elementary Education Chennai 600 0062.The District Elementary EducationalOfficer Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.3.The Assistant Educational Officer Virudhachalam, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.4.The Additional Elementary EducationalOfficer Viruthachalam, Cuddalore District5.C.Sridhar Tamil Teacher Municipal Middle School Pudupettai, Viruthachalam, Cuddalore District... RespondentsWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus callingfor the records of the 2nd respondent the District ElementaryEducational Officer, Cuddalore, in his proceedingsNo.Na.Ka.No.2079/A-5/06 dated 17.5.2006 and quash the same asillegal and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to thepost of B.T. Middle School Headmaster. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner: Mr.A.ArulmozhiFor Respondents: Mr.V.Arun Additional GovernmentPleader for RR1 to 4 Mr.S.Mani for R5ORDERSeeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the ordersof the second respondent, the District Elementary EducationalOfficer, Cuddalore, in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.2079/A-5/06dated 17.5.2006, and also to direct the respondents 1 to 4 topromote the petitioner to the post of B.T. Middle SchoolHeadmaster, this writ petition has been brought forth.2.The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side andlooked into the affidavit in support of the petition and also thecounter affidavit filed by the State. 3.The case of the petitioner in short, is that she wasappointed in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the year 1974in the Municipal Middle School, Thenkottai; that she has been inservice for the past 32 years; that she relinquished theopportunity of promotion to the post of Headmaster, ElementarySchool, temporarily for a period of three years from January, 2002;that it has also come to an end on 2.1.2005; that while the matterstood thus, a seniority list of the Secondary Grade Teacherseligible to be promoted as B.T. Assistant, was prepared andpublished by the third respondent on 1.1.2005; that thepetitioner's name was in Seniority No.1; but, she was awaiting theorders of appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant; that herjunior, the fifth respondent herein, was promoted on 19.10.2005;that she was not given any reason why a junior was promoted; thatshe gave a representation to the respondents 2 to 4 on 14.11.2005;but, it was pending consideration; that while the matter stoodthus, the impugned order was passed on 17.5.2006 by which a list ofthe eligible candidates from among the category of ElementarySchool Headmasters and B.T. Assistants was made; that in that list,the names of the juniors have been included; but, her name was notincluded for promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster;that there was no reason for excluding her name and including thenames of the juniors in the list, and hence, the circumstanceswarrant for filing the writ petition before this Court seeking theremedy.4.The only contention put forth by the learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader for the State and the learned Counsel for thefifth respondent is that she relinquished her rights to be promotedas Headmaster of the Elementary School for a period of three years;that it is true that a panel has been prepared; that now, what ischallenged in the course of the writ petition is actually theproceedings dated 17.5.2006, namely a panel, which was prepared forthe purpose of Elementary School Headmasters and B.T. Assistants; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that to become eligible to be appointed as Middle SchoolHeadmaster, one must be either a B.T. Assistant or a Tamil Panditor Elementary School Headmaster; but, this petitioner is not comingunder any one of these categories; that she does not continue to beso; that in the case of a Secondary Grade Teacher to be appointedas Middle School Headmaster, first of all one must hold the post ofElementary School Headmaster by promotion; but, in the case of thepetitioner, it was not so; that without crossing that level, nowshe is not eligible to be appointed; that further she has not evenquestioned the appointment of the fifth respondent in theseproceedings; and that under the circumstances, the petition has gotto be dismissed.5.After careful consideration of the submissions made, thisCourt must come to the irresistible conclusion that the petitiondeserves an order of dismissal in the hands of this Court. Theonly grievance ventilated by the petitioner is that while she wasworking in the Municipal Middle School as Secondary Grade Teacher,she was eligible to be promoted, after the period of relinquishmentfor three years, to the post of B.T. Assistant; but, it was notdone; that instead, the fifth respondent was promoted; thatthereafter, another panel was prepared for promotion to the post ofMiddle School Headmaster in which her name was not included, andunder the circumstances, all the proceedings have got to bequashed. This Court is unable to appreciate this contention forthe simple reason that to include the name of anyone in the panelfor the post of Middle School Headmaster, one should be either B.T.Assistant or Tamil Pandit or Elementary School Headmaster; but, thepetitioner on that day, was only a Secondary Grade Teacher. If thepetitioner comes under any one of the above three categories, thenshe becomes eligible to be promoted or to be included in the panelfor Middle School Headmaster. 6.Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out thatwhen her name was not included in the panel from the post ofSecondary Grade Teacher to the B.T. Assistant, she gave arepresentation, and it is yet pending in the hands of therespondents 2 to 4 for consideration. Now, the contention putforth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that had herrepresentation been considered by the respondents 2 to 4 and hadshe been given promotion at that time as B.T. Assistant, she wouldhave become eligible and qualified to be included in the panel forthe post of Middle School Headmaster. This Court is unable toappreciate this contention. If she is to be included in the panelfor Middle School Headmaster, first of all, she should has to getpromotion as B.T. Assistant. But, the representation submitted byher in that regard, is in the hands of the respondents 2 to 4.Under the circumstances, no question of quashing or staying thepanel would arise. Hence, this petition deserves an order ofdismissal. But, at the same time, a direction is given to therespondents 2 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitionermade on 14.11.2005, seeking promotion as B.T. Assistant, within aperiod of eight weeks herefrom. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.nsv/To:1.The Director of Elementary Education Chennai 600 0062.The District Elementary EducationalOfficer Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.3.The Assistant Educational Officer Virudhachalam, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.4.The Additional Elementary EducationalOfficer Viruthachalam, Cuddalore District1 cc to Mr.S. Mani, Advocate, Sr. 587911 cc to Government Pleader, SR. 58565WP No.18671 of 2006PV (CO)kk 25/9