High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 7-9-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMWP Nos.19660 of 2004 and 4032 of 2007andWPMP No.23626 of 2004 in WP No.19660 of 2004andMP No.2 of 2007 in WP No.4032 of 2007WP No.19660 of 2004:G.S.Rajendran.. Petitioner vs1.The Director of ElementaryEducation Elementary Education (G) Dept., DPI Campus, College Road Chennai 600 006.2.The District ElementaryEducational Officer O/o. The District Elementary Educational Officer New Town Hall, Pudukkottai Town Pudukkottai District.3.The Asst. Elementary EducationalOfficer Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District4.M.Gopala Kannan.. RespondentsWP No.4032 of 2007:M.Indira GandhiSecondary Grade TeacherMunicipal Middle SchoolL.N. Puram, Aranthangi.. Petitioner vs1.The Director of Elementary Education Directorate of Elementary Education, College Road, DPI Complex Chennai 6.2.The Director of Elementary Education District Elementary Education Office Pudukkottai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Assistant Elementary Education Officer Assistant Elementary Education Office Aranthangi4.S.Rajendran.. Respondents WP No.19660 of 2004 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for theimpugned order passed by the 2nd respondent herein in hisRc.No.6205/B3/2003 dated 5.7.2004, quash the same as illegal and arbitraryin nature and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to appointthe petitioner herein as Tamil Pandit in the existing post in LN PuramMunicipal Middle School, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District, in accordancewith the promotion panel prepared for the year 2004 by the 3rd respondentherein.WP No.4032/2007 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating tothe order passed by the first respondent in Na. Ka. 28054/L3/2006 dated18.1.2007 and the consequential order of the 2nd respondent passed in Na.Ka. No.4715/A3/06 dated 19.1.2007 and quash the same.For Petitioner inWP 19660/2004: Mr.G.ThangavelFor Petitioner inWP 4032/2007: Mr.D.RajendranFor Respondents 1 to 3in both WPs: Mr.N.Senthil Kumar Additional Government PleaderFor 4th Respondent inWP 19660/2004: Mr.D.RajendranFor 4th Respondent inWP 4032/2007: Mr.G.ThangavelCOMMON ORDERThis order shall govern the above two writ petitions. WP No.4032 of2007 has been brought forth seeking a writ of certiorari to quash theorder of the first respondent namely the Director of Elementary Education,Madras, made in Na. Ka. 28054/L3/2006 dated 18.1.2007 and also theconsequential orders passed by the second respondent in Na. Ka.No.4715/A3/06 dated 19.1.2007, while the fourth respondent therein hasfiled WP No.19960 of 2004 seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus toquash the order of the second respondent dated 5.7.2004 and to direct therespondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner as Tamil Pandit in theexisting post.2.The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side in both the writpetitions. The affidavits in support of the petitions and the counteraffidavits are also looked into. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The case of the petitioner in WP No.4032/2007 is that he joined inRamakrishna Vidyalaya Higher Secondary School, Thiruppunavasal, asSecondary Grade Teacher, on 29.2.1988; that she was further transferred toKamarajar Kalasalai Middle School (Government Aided), Aranthangi, as perthe proceedings in RC 13180/EG2 dated 30.4.1999, and subsequently,appointed in Panchayat Union Middle School, Panchathi, as Secondary GradeTeacher as per the proceedings dated 26.7.1999; that again she gottransferred from Panchayat Union Service to Municipal School Service asper the proceedings dated 21.7.2001, of the District Elementary EducationOfficer, Pudukkottai; that thereafter, the petitioner has completed 18years of service as Secondary Grade Teacher; that she entered Municipalservice on 31.7.2001 and was working continuously; that while the matterstood thus, she also completed B.Lit., (Tamil); that the same was dulyentered in the service register on 21.11.2005; that under thecircumstances, the petitioner had the necessary qualification andseniority for being promoted as Tamil Pandit for which a vacancy exists;that as per G.O.Ms.No.100 School Education (Budget) Department, dated27.6.2003, the Government converted and downgraded all the permanentvacancies into Junior Teachers i.e., Junior Secondary Grade Teacher,Junior B.T., Assistant, etc.; that pursuant to the same, the vacancy wasfilled in with the appointment of one Gopalakannan, Junior B.T., on7.7.2004; that he was in service upto 3.7.2006, and then, he got histransfer through counseling and was relieved on 3.7.2006; thatconsequently, a vacancy arose; that since the petitioner was dulyqualified to be appointed as Tamil Pandit in the vacancy which arose from4.7.2006 onwards, she made a representation; that a panel was prepared;that the petitioner was placed in rank No.1; that the fourth respondentRajendran, was placed in Rank No.1(a), who was junior to the petitioner inservice; that pending consideration, the petitioner approached the MaduraiBench of this Court in WP No.7454/2006 wherein there was an order passedby the Bench on 11.10.2006 directing the first respondent therein toconsider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.7.2006; thataccordingly, she was appointed as Tamil Pandit on consideration of therepresentation; that while the matter stood thus, the fourth respondentmoved this Court in WP No.25363 of 2006, and orders came to be passed on11.8.2006; that under the circumstances, suddenly the second respondent byhis proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5595/A3/04 dated 9.9.2006 followed by anotherletter in Na.Ka.No.5595/A3/04 dated 9.11.2006 informed the fourthrespondent that the petitioner is placed at No.1 in the seniority list andthe vacancy relating to the Tamil Pandit, will be filled up according tothe seniority; that suppressing these two letters, the fourth respondentmoved the contempt application before this Court as if the orders in WPNo.25363/2006 referred to above, were disobeyed; that while the matter waspending, this Court passed an order directing the second respondent totake action and pass orders in respect of the seniority as per 2004seniority list; that accordingly, there was an order passed by theauthority which is challenged in this writ petition, on 19.1.2007; thatthe petitioner has been reverted from the post of Tamil Pandit to theSecondary Grade Teacher; and that under the circumstances, this writpetition has been brought forth.4.The petitioner in WP No.19960/2004 has brought forth that petitionstating that one Gopala Kannan who was actually a Secondary Grade Teacher,was made as Tamil Pandit; that among the persons, the petitioner isactually the person who is fully qualified; that at the time of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ preparation of the panel, he should have been placed in that place; thatunder the circumstances, the appointment of Gopala Kannan was not valid,and hence, the orders have got to be quashed, and further direction beissued for his appointment.5.Both the Counsel in the respective writ petitions put forth theircase as found therein. The Court paid its anxious consideration on thesubmissions made. The Court also heard the learned Additional GovernmentPleader for the State.6.It is not in controversy that the petitioners in both thesepetitions are originally Secondary Grade Teachers in Tamil attached to theSchool in question. There was a vacancy that arose for the post of TamilPandit. A Teacher by name Gopala Kannan, was actually promoted as TamilPandit. Now, at this juncture, the same was challenged by the petitionerin WP No.19660 of 2004 that he was the person fully qualified, and thus,Gopala Kannan should not have been appointed; that the said Gopala Kannanwas subsequently transferred; that under the circumstances, the vacancyarose; and he should be considered. Thus, it would be quite clear that WPNo.19660/2004 was filed challenging the appointment of Gopala Kannan.But, it remains to be stated that Gopala Kannan was transferred, and avacancy arose. Under the circumstances, the request of the petitioner inWP 19660/2004 does not require for consideration at this stage since thevacancy has actually arisen by the transfer of Gopala Kannan. Hence, thatwrit petition is liable to be dismissed as infructuous.7.As regards the other WP No.4032/2007, the grievance of thatpetitioner is that she was a Secondary Grade Teacher; that she had got theB.Lit.; that she is fully qualified to be appointed as Tamil Pandit; thatshe filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench; that there was adirection to the Education Department to consider her representation andpass suitable orders; that accordingly, her representation was considered,and she was also promoted as Tamil Pandit; that while she was working so,suddenly she received a communication that she was demoted from the postof Tamil Pandit to that of the Secondary Grade Teacher, and therefore,that order has got to be quashed. Now, it is replied by the learnedCounsel for the fourth respondent who is the petitioner in WPNo.19660/2004, that he is the eligible candidate to be promoted as TamilPandit; that when his representation was not considered, he moved thisCourt; that there was an order passed originally in the earlier writpetition in WP No.25363/2006 dated 11.8.2006; that as the orders passed bythis Court was disobeyed by the authorities, he took out a contemptapplication; that there was a direction given to the second respondent totake action and pass orders in respect of the seniority as per 2004seniority list; that accordingly, he has been promoted; that under thecircumstances, his promotion cannot be challenged; that he was the onlyperson competent for that post; that he had the B.Lit. in the year 2004itself; that he was fully qualified; that he was the senior than thepetitioner in WP No.4032/2007, and under the circumstances, hisappointment as Tamil Pandit could not be disturbed. 8.The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.This Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the confusion thatwas entertained by the Education Authorities, the writ petitions have comebefore this Court. It is not in controversy that the petitioner in WPNo.4032 of 2007 has actually made a representation for the post of Tamil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Pandit alleging that she has got the necessary qualification; and that shehad B.Lit. qualification. Subsequently, a seniority list was prepared, inwhich she was shown in the first place, while the fourth respondent isshown as 1(a). While the matter stood thus, the petitioner was notappointed despite representation made. Then, she approached the MaduraiBench for necessary orders. Madurai Bench passed an order in WP (MD)No.7454/2006 which runs as follows:"Hence, without expressing anything on merits, the petitioner isdirected to furnish a copy of the representation along with thecopy of this order before the first respondent within one weekfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The firstrespondent is directed to consider the representation of thepetitioner dated 20.7.2006 and pass orders thereon on merits andin accordance with law within four weeks thereafter."Accordingly, orders came to be passed by the first respondent, and she hasalso been appointed as Tamil Pandit. It is an admitted position that from13.11.2006 onwards, she was functioning so. At this juncture, it would bemore appropriate to reproduce that part of the counter filed by theEducation Department in that writ petition which was filed by thepetitioner and also pending in the hands of the Madurai Bench. The samereads thus: "(4)It is submitted that the petitioner has qualified as B.Litt.(Tamil). Entries have also been made in the service Register ofthe petitioner. The petitioner is the senior in the proposedpromotion panel seniority list 2006 as prepared by 2nd and 3rdrespondents.(5)It is submitted that the vacancy for the post of Tamil Panditin the school arose consequent on the retirement on : 31.10.2002A.N. So the post was vacant from 01.12.2002 and as per theG.O.2003 School Education Dept. dt: 08.11.1978 the vacancy hadto be filled in by the Direct Recruitment."9.From the very reading of the above counter, it would be quite clearthat the petitioner was found to be in list, and she was also senior amongothers. Accordingly, she was appointed, and she was also working so.While the matter stood thus, pursuant to the orders of this Court passedin the contempt application made as if the orders passed in WPNo.25363/2006 was not obeyed by the Education Department, subsequentorders came to be passed, which is the subject matter of challenge,whereby the fourth respondent who is the petitioner in WP No.19660/2004was appointed as the Tamil Pandit, and the petitioner in this writpetition was demoted. It is a matter of surprise to note that while thewrit petition was filed in this Court by the fourth respondent in WPNo.25363/2006, the writ petition filed by the petitioner before theMadurai Bench in WP No.7454/2006 was pending, and the petitioner in WPNo.19660/2004 who originally filed WP No.25363/2006, was shown as fourthrespondent therein; but, he has not whispered anything before the MaduraiBench in those proceedings. That apart, in those proceedings initiated byhim in WP No.25363/2006, the present petitioner was conveniently omittedto be shown as party. Thus, she could not bring forth her case before thisCourt, when the orders came to be passed. After the orders were passed bythis Court, in the absence of the petitioner herein in the proceedings inWP No.25363/2006, the petitioner namely the fourth respondent, took out https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the contempt application as if the orders passed therein, were disobeyed.At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the entire proceedingsat the Madurai Bench in WP No.7454/2006 filed by the petitioner hereinwere completely suppressed when the matters are pending in this Court, andthus, an order came to be passed issuing a direction to the firstrespondent to consider the representation of the fourth respondent herein.Under the circumstances, it would be quite clear that once the EducationDepartment, pursuant to the G.O. passed, was of the view and also made itclear before the Madurai Bench in WP No.7454/2006 that the petitionerherein was the person fully qualified, and she was the senior most amongthe candidates, and she was to be appointed. Accordingly, herrepresentation was considered, and she was promoted. She was also workingso. In such circumstances, there is no question of demotion that wouldarise. The intervening circumstances namely the orders passed in the writpetition filed by the fourth respondent, and the contempt applicationfiled by him, were nothing but the outcome of the suppression of thepending proceedings in WP No.7454/2006 before the Madurai Bench initiatedby the petitioner, wherein the fourth respondent was also a party. Underthe circumstances, the Education Department without taking intoconsideration the seniority list which was originally prepared, and alsothe fact that the petitioner was the senior most, has passed the order ofdemotion of the petitioner, while she was already promoted and in order toplace the fourth respondent herein in her place, which, in the opinion ofthis Court, cannot be done. 10.Apart from the above, it would be quite evident that the EducationDepartment has taken the first stand in WP No.7454/2006 before the MaduraiBench that the petitioner herein is the senior most person, and she isfully qualified. When the contempt application was taken by the fourthrespondent herein, apprehending the results therein, they have takenanother stand, an inconsistent one, which should not have been taken. TheEducation Department should have explained to the Court, at that juncture,the actual happenings, but failed to do so. However, all these thingsshould not make the petitioner to lose her right or entitlementas per the G.O. and the earlier orders of this Court. Under thecircumstances, the order passed, appointing the fourth respondent as TamilPandit by the first respondent, is quashed. The original position of thepetitioner Indira Gandhi as Tamil Pandit pursuant to the orders of theEducation Department, is restored. 11.In the result, WP No.4032 of 2007 is allowed, and WP No.19660 of2004 is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMPand MP are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarnsv/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To:1.The Director of ElementaryEducation Elementary Education (G) Dept., DPI Campus, College Road Chennai 600 006.2.The District ElementaryEducational Officer O/o. The District Elementary Educational Officer New Town Hall, Pudukkottai Town Pudukkottai District.3.The Asst. Elementary EducationalOfficer Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District4. The Director of Elementary Education, District Elementary Education Office, Pudukkottai.2 CC To Mr.G.Thangavel, Advocate, SR NO.56312, 56313.1 CC To M/s.A.Gandhi, Advocate, SR NO.56201.WP Nos.19660 of 2004 and4032 of 2007TS(CO)RVL 20.09.2007