K. Gangadharan & Ors. v. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Coonoor-2, The Nilgiris District & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 3.2.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRUWRIT PETITION NOS.19856 OF 2004AND 21732 OF 2005W.P.No.19856 of 2004:-1. K. Gangadharan2. N.R. Balakrishnan3. M.N. Raveendran ...PetitionersVs.1. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Coonoor-2, The Nilgiris District.2. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Gudalur Block, Gudalur, The Nilgiris District.3. M.R. RajuR3 impleaded as per order dated7.1.2005 in WMP.No.44789 of 2004. ...RespondentsW.P.No.21732 of 2005:-P.M. Hameed ...Petitioner Vs.1. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Coonoor-2, The Nilgiris District.2. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Gudalur, The Nilgiris District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal Chennai-600 104 rep. by its Registrar. ...RespondentsW.P.No.19856 of 2004 has been filed praying for the issuance ofa Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to follow the orderspassed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal inO.A.No.1953/1989, dated 9.10.1990 and maintain a common senioritylist between Tamil Medium and Malayalam Medium Secondary GradeTeachers and make promotions with reference to such a commonseniority.Writ Petition No.21732 of 2005 has been filed praying for theissuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for therecords relating to the impugned order in O.A.No.4190/1992, dated18.11.2003 on the file of the third respondent and quash the sameand direct the respondents 1 and 2 to fix the pay of the petitioneron par with his juniors Mr.P.Maruthaiyan and grant all consequentialbenefits to the petitioner. For Petitioners : Mr. P. RajendranFor Respondents : Mr. Rajasekar, Additional Government PleaderCOMMON ORDER(Order of the Court was made by K. Chandru, J.)Writ Petition No.19856 of 2004 :- This writ petition is filedby three teachers, who are Malayalam Pandits working in GudalurTaluk of Nilgiris District. The prayer in the writ petition is for adirection to the respondents to implement O.A.No.1953 of 1989, dated9.10.1990. By the aforesaid O.A., the Tribunal entertained apetition from four other teachers. The operative portion of the saidorder reads as follows:" Therefore, Rule 5 of the Special Rules itself is quiteclear in the matter. Further, it is conceded by therespondents that by virtue of the applicants havingpassed the second class language test (Full test) inTamil, they can be posted to bilingual schools offeringMalayalam and Tamil media of instruction where they canvery well manage the administrative and academicfunctions. Under such circumstances, reliance placed bythe respondents on Rule 5 of the Special Rules formaintaining separate seniority list is totallyunfounded. The contention raised by the applicant thatonly a combined seniority list for Secondary GradeTeachers should be maintained and promotion effected for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the post of Headmaster in the Primary Schools from thesaid combined Seniority List is in accordance with theSpecial Rules. No doubt, it is open to the respondentsto prescribe any test qualifications for promotion asHeadmaster, like passing the Second Class Language Testin Tamil. But the Rules do not contemplate maintenanceof a separate seniority list among the Secondary GradeTeachers depending upon the media of instructions inwhich they were trained. We have, therefore, nohesitation to come to the conclusion that the practiceof maintaining a separate Seniority list for Tamil,Malayalam and Kannada Teachers in the Gudalur Taluk inNilgiris District is contrary to the Special Rules andis, therefore, illegal. Consequentially, we direct therespondents to maintain a common seniority list amongthe Secondary Grade Teachers and promote them asHeadmasters in the Primary Schools whenever vacancyarises in accordance with their seniority in such alist, subject to the condition that they satisfy theother qualifications, if any, prescribed under theRules. The order dated 30.9.1989 promoting the thirdrespondent, a junior to the applicants, is also againstthe provisions contained in the Special Rules and is,therefore, quashed. Application allowed. No order as tocosts."Therefore, the above direction of the Tribunal was that themaintenance of the common seniority list among the language punditsincluding Malayalam, Tamil and Kannada, will not amount to anyviolation of Rule 5 of the Special Rules. If once the commonseniority is maintained, there is no impediment for those personsto be promoted to the post of the Primary School Headmaster, ifthey had completed the second language test ( Full test in Tamil).The respondent-State did not file any appeal against the saidorder. On the contrary, subsequent to the pronouncement of the saidorder, the Director of Elementary Education issued a proceedingsdated 20.5.2003 virtually nullifying the earlier orders passed bythe Tribunal. It was stated by the department that the MalayalamMedium Headmaster cannot teach a Tamil Medium class and givecorrect pronouncement in Tamil and it is the same case of TamilMedium Headmaster in respect of Malayalam Medium class andtherefore in the circular dated 20.5.2003, which was brought intoeffect from 1.1.2003, it was stated that a Tamil Medium Headmasterwill be appointed in a Tamil Medium school and Malayalam Mediumperson appointed as Headmaster of Malayalam Medium School but inrespect of following common seniorty, all language pandits will beconsidered for the post of Headmaster in bilingual schools. In thelight of this instruction given by the Director of SchoolEducation, the Department was denying promotion to the petitionerson the ground that they are Pandits of Malayalam Medium Primary https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Schools and therefore, they cannot be appointed for vacancies inTamil Medium Primary Schools in Gudalur District. 2. Mr. Rajasekar, learned Additional Government Pleaderappearing for the respondents fairly stated that no appeal wasfiled against the said order but on the contrary, the Director'sinstruction is more pragmatic and has been given in the interest ofstudents. A counter affidavit has also been filed to that effectjustifying the issuance of the circular by the Director. It is alsostated that subsequent to the circular, the very same Tribunaldismissed the O.A.No.4190 of 1992 on 18.11.2003 agreeing with thereasoning given by the Director. The order of the said Tribunal isthe subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.21732 of 2005. Since itis related to the earlier case, both the writ petitions were heardand a common order is being passed.3. In O.A.No.1953 of 1989, dated 9.10.1990, the Tribunalexamined the applicability of the Special Rule vis-a-vis, thedesirability of appointing the language pandits in any school asHeadmaster without the discrimination on the basis of the medium inwhich they are teaching. The Tribunal also held that such of thoseMalayalam teachers, who have passed Tamil alone have been providedthe Headmaster Post and therefore, there is no difficulty inmaintaining a common seniority list in respect of Gudalur District,wherein substantial number of malayalis are residing. In theabsence of any challenge to the Tribunal's order, the respondent-State is bound to implement the said order unless the Rules areamended by the State in terms of introducing amendment byexercising the power under Article 309 of the Constitution ofIndia. In the present case, such a rule has not been brought in.Therefore, the respondent-State is bound to implement the orders ofthe Tribunal. Hence, W.P.No.19856 of 2004 stands allowed as prayedfor.4. Writ Petition No.21732 of 2005 is directed against theconsequential order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.4190 of 1992, dated18.11.2003.5. A perusal of the said order shows that the matter was heardby the Vice Chairman of the Tribunal and there is no reference tothe earlier Tribunal's order. The respondents have not brought tothe notice of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal, that too bya two Bench and because of this reason, the Tribunal went on itsown and was convinced with the reasoning given by the Director videhis communication dated 20.5.2003. Since this Court has alreadyallowed the other writ petition and directed the previous order ofthe Tribunal to be implemented, the reasoning found in O.A.No.4190of 1992, dated 18.11.2003 cannot be countenanced by this Court.Hence, the order of the Tribunal stands set aside and the writpetition stands allowed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. In the result, both the writ petitions stand allowed, butthere will be no order as to costs.sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarkbTo1. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Coonoor-2 The Nilgiris District.2. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Gudalur Block, Gudalur, The Nilgiris District.3. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.+ 2 c.cs. to Mr. P. Rajendran, Advocate. S.R.Nos.5025 & 5026.+ 2 c.cs. to The Government Pleader. S.R.Nos.4991 & 4992. W.P.No.19856 of 2004 and 21732 of 2005CK (CO)GSK 12.02.2009.