Important Point
The integration of A and B Wing teachers in Tamil Nadu took place on 1.4.1970 and not on 2.11.1978 as contended by appellants.

Headnote:Service Jurisprudence-Service in District Board Schools and Service in Govt. Schools of Tamil Nadu-Two categories (A & B Wings) of teachers-Later on integrated into one category-Question of seniority and promotions between them-Crucial issue-What is the actual date of integration of two categories of teachers (A & B Wings)-Whether 1.4.70 as contended by the B Wing teachers, or only on 2.11.1978 as contended by the A Wing teachers and also by the State of Tamil Nadu? (1.4.70)-Appeals dismissed.
       Held : Ultimately, the Tribunal came to the conclusion as follows:-
       “The respondents cannot be allowed to alter the provisions contained in G.O.Ms. No. 1968, Education, dated 2.11.78 by means of impugned Government orders in view of the fact the Bench had declared that in doing so it will amount to:
       (1) Inequality of opportunity among the employees belonging to the same class.
       (2) Employees of ‘A’ Wing who were not in service as on 1.4.70 are likely to be placed above ‘B’ Wing teachers who were in service as on 1.4.70.
       If the impugned Government orders are to be enforced after 1.4.1970 by adding subsequently recruited people of ‘A’ Wing then if the subsequent promotions are given effect to as per the ratio it will result in the same condition viz., ‘A’ Wing teachers recruited subsequent to 1.4.70 getting precedence over ‘B’ Wing teachers who were in service as on 1.4.1970. Hence, the passing of the impugned Government orders will bring into existence the situation which was directed to be avoided by the Division Bench Judgment. Enforcing the impugned Government orders will result in perpetrating something which was struck down by the High Court and the Supreme Court.”
       We find that the Tribunal on the basis of the facts and records placed before it, has arrived at the correct conclusion. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants to support the change brought about in the date of integration from 1.4.70 to 2.11.78 and the reasons given therefor are either overruled already in the two rounds of litigation or they are too technical. The submission that the mandamus issued by the Madras High Court was a futile one as the rule struck down by it was not there on the statutory book when the judgment was rendered, cannot be taken note of as the Government, accepting the decision of the Madras High Court as upheld by this Court, had issued the G.Os. impugned in these cases. Further, the Madras High Court, apart from holding the G.O. 98 as illegal and void, also settled other contentious issues like the date of integration between the parties. The High Court further commanded the State to re-draw the seniority list as originally contemplated by G.O. 1968. That being the position, it is too late in the day to contend that the judgment of the Madras High Court, as upheld by this Court, has to be totally ignored. Mr. P.P. Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, was right in placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in M.M. Pathak’s case (supra) and in making the submission that the right to combine seniority list as well as the promotional opportunities provided in G.O. 1968 became crystallised in the said writ of mandamus issued by the Madras High Court as upheld by this Court and the same could not be taken away by resorting to the rule-making power of the State Government. At the risk of repetition, we point out that the Government after the judgment of this Court upholding G.O. 1968, expressed that there was no better possible alternative to the problem than the integration order affirmed by this Court. After all this, the Government again purporting to give effect to the writ of mandamus issued by the Madras High Court as upheld by this Court, issued G.Os. impugned in these cases, which had the effect of distintegrating an integrated cadre contrary to the principles contained in G.O. 1968. Therefore, the Tribunal was compelled to quash the G.Os. impugned before it. The technical objections taken by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the absence of challenge to G.O. Ms. Nos. 37 dated 7.1.82 and 603 dated 15.4.87 the respondents ‘B’ Wing teachers cannot get the fruits of the Tribunal’s direction, is also not tenable. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel, Mr. P.P. Rao, that G.O. 37 dated 7.1.82 had no impact at all on the principles of integration contained in G.O. 1968 and it did not even touch the quotas prescribed for promotion from gazetted Headmasters post to that of DEO for ‘A’ and ‘B’ Wings. In the circumstances, the learned counsel was right in his submission that G.O. 37 must be read down to sustain its validity to mean that the combined seniority list should be drawn up with reference to 31st March, 1970, i.e., the date on which ‘B’ Wing teachers were absorbed in Government service and made up-to-date as on 1.11.78 by deleting the names of persons promoted, resigned or dead in the meanwhile, for operating the same for purposes of filling up vacancies. Similarly, G.O. 603 dated 15.4.87 has no effect on the integration process initiated under G.O.Ms. No. 1968 and, therefore, there was no need to challenge the same by ‘B’ Wing teachers. (Para 28)
       Further held : As pointed out earlier, once if we come to the conclusion that the date of integration was 1.4.70 and not 2.11.78, all other questions will go to the background and this was not seriously disputed by Mr. Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for one of the appellants. (Para 29)
       Held finally : In the circumstances, the appeals fails and are dismissed accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs. (Para 30)

Judgment

K. Venkataswami, J.-These appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment as the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal disposed of the matters by a common order in view of the fact that the issues arising out of these cases are inter-related and, therefore, necessary to be disposed of by a common order.

2. This is the third round of litigation up to this Court between the two categories (A & B Wings) of Teachers, who were later on integrated into one category and as a result of which litigations started concerning seniority and further promotions. The first round of litigation, which came up to this Court, was disposed of by this Court in The Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Association etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.1 on 23.10.79. The second round of litigation was disposed of by this Court in K. Subramanian v. Director of School Education & Ors.2 at the admission stage itself by dismissing the SLP (C) Nos. 14520, 14685-89 on 15.12.1987 with a short, reasoned order. We are not disposing of the third round of litigation with the hope that this will give a quietus at least in the matter of seniority and promotions between the parties as one of the categories, which was merged with another category, is due to vanish by efflux of time. We propose to give only skeletal factors necessary to appreciate the rival submissions.

3. Consequent on the formation of the Panchayat Unions, as a first step, the Government abolished the District Boards in the year 1960-61. The administration of the erstwhile District Board Secondary Schools was brought under the control of the Special District Educational Officers in the year 1963. Later on, the Government by G.O.Ms. No. 539 dated 1.4.66 directed to treat the erstwhile District Board Schools as Government Secondary Schools with effect from the said date. However, no decision was then taken regarding the staff of the District Boards Schools in the said G.O. By G.O.Ms. No. 761 dated 16.5.70, the Government ordered the absorption of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the District Board Schools in Government Service w.e.f. 1.4.70. On such absorption, the staff of the District Board Schools was governed by a separate service named as Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service (B). We may mention that the regular staff in the Government Secondary Schools was governed by the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service. By G.O.Ms. No. 289 dated 20.2.71, the staff of the Regular Government Schools was treated as ‘A’ Wing and the staff of the erstwhile District Board Schools, but later absorbed as Government staff, was treated as ‘B’ Wing. The Government also decided that any school to be opened on or after 1.4.70 shall be only regular Government School. That means, there won’t be any addition to the Government School under ‘B’ Wing category after 1.4.70. By another G.O.Ms. No. 1786 (Education) dated 17.10.74, the Government expressed that the integration of ‘A’ Wing and ‘B’ Wing was administratively not feasible and, therefore, it was decided to reserve 30 of the posts of District Educational Officers (promotional post) for ‘B’ Wing. By G.O.Ms. No. 1968 (Education) dated 2.11.78, the Government directed, in partial modification of the earlier G.Os., that the staff of ‘A’ and ‘B’ Wings be integrated with immediate effect. The Government also indicated the procedure for integration in the following manner:-

“(i) Statewide seniority lists shall be drawn up and maintained by the Director of School Education for `B’ Wing Staff similar to the statewide list maintained all along for Gazetted Headmasters, Non-Gazetted Headmasters, B.T., Assistants language Pandits, Grade I and Physical Directors in `A’ Wing.

(ii) The date of regular appointment of a person in the post in ‘B’ Wing on 31.3.1970 should be basis for drawing up the statewide seniority lists for different categories in ‘B’ Wing.

(iii) For filling up substantive vacancies existing on the dat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

1998 Supreme(SC) 543

Important Point The integration of A and B Wing teachers in Tamil Nadu took place on 1.4.1970 and not on 2.11.1978 as contended by appellants.

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis

Important Point
The integration of A and B Wing teachers in Tamil Nadu took place on 1.4.1970 and not on 2.11.1978 as contended by appellants.