Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 3276
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. NAGAMUTHU
R. Sivakumari & Others
Versus
Ramanathapuram Mavatta Payirchipetra Edainilai Asiriyargal Sangam & Others
Review Application (MD)Nos.14 of 2007 & 15 of 2007 and Review Application (MD).Nos.40 to 47 of 2007 and Review Application (MD).Nos.49 to 52 of 2007
Decided On : 11-10-2007
For the Applicants :N.G.R. Prasad for Porkodi Karnan, C. Selvaraj, Senior Counsel V. Panneer Selvam, S. Srimathi, S.M.S. Johny Basha, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, S.N. Ravichandran, Advocate, R2 to 5, N. Kannadasan, Additional Advocate General.
No provision either under Act or Rules which enables Employment Exchanges to delete names of persons who are already in employment from live registers.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908), Order 47 Rule 5 - Vested rights of review applicants taken away without review applicants being heard -- Persons adversely affected by said directions not parties before Division Bench - Applicants have every right to seek review of judgment.
(B) Constitution of India (1950), Articles 16 and 19(1)(g) - Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act (1959) - Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Rules (1960) - Recruitment to posts of Secondary Grade Teachers - Deletion of names of persons already in service in Private Aided Schools from live registers of Employment Exchanges - No provision either under Act or Rules which enables Employment Exchanges to delete names of persons who are already in employment from live registers - Review Applications allowed.
(P.K. Misra, J.)
Against a common order passed in a batch of about 30 writ petitions, by a Division Bench in W.P.No.910 of 2007 batch, dated 05.04.2007, persons who were not parties thereto came up with the present Review Applications. While entertaining the Review Applications, it was felt that the issues raised in the Review Applications were of greater importance, requiring consideration by a Full Bench. Hence, the Review Applications were referred to the Full Bench.
2. The order of reference to the Full Bench reads as follows:
"(a) The Constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 16(1) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution are being violated by depriving such petitioners the opportunity of seeking employment to an office under the State merely on the ground that such persons are already employed in Private aided Schools.
(b) The conditions of service being dissimilar and the opportunities being better in Government Schools, they have every right of seeking better opportunity which is being denied.
(c) Directions have been issued in the writ petitions directing the reversion of some of the petitioners in the Review Applications thus affecting their accrued rights, even though they had not been given an opportunity of hearing and had not been impleaded in the connected writ petitions."
3. The genesis of this litigation is as follows:
(a) The recruitment to the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers were made through the Tamil Nadu Teachers Recruitment Board up to the year 1996. But by G.O.Ms.No.447, Education, Science and Technology Department dated 16.07.1996, the selection through Teachers Recruitment Board was dispensed with and a new procedure was introduced. Under the said procedure, Secondary Grade Teachers are to be appointed only with reference to their seniority of registration in the Employment Exchanges and their selection would be done by a committee consisting of Chief Educational Officer as its President and the District Educational Officer/District Elementary Educational Officer as its member.
(b) Though the post of Secondary Grade Teachers falls under the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service and the recruitment to the said post is governed by Statutory Rules issued under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Government issued another Order in G.O.Ms.No.59, School Education (M1) Department dated 12.06.2004 removing the restriction relating to the upper age limit prescribed as 35 years for appointment to the said post under Special Rules.
(c) In the light of the aforesaid orders, the Director of Elementary Education issued proceedings dated 07.07.2006 addressed to all the Chief Educational Officers and District Elementary Educational Officers, to fill up about 4039 posts of Secondary Grade Teachers in about 32 Districts of the State.
(d) In pursuance of the said proceedings of the Director, the Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram addressed a letter to the District Employment Officer, Ramanathapuram dated 14.07.2006 requesting him to sponsor a list of candidates for appointment to 117 posts of Secondary Grade Teachers.
(e) At this stage, some complaints appear to have been received by the District Employment Officer, Ramanathapuram that some of the candidates whose names were found in the rolls of the Employment Exchange were employed in Private Schools. Therefore, the District Employment Officer, Ramanathapuram collected information from Private Schools and removed the names of those candidates from the live register of the Employment Exchange. But some of the Private Schools did not furnish correct information. Therefore, the District Employment Officer, Ramanathapuram issued a communication dated -.12.2006 to the District Elementary Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram advising him to give appointments only after ensuring that the candidates were not employed in Private Schools.
(f) A similar communication was also issued by the District Employment Officer, Ramanath
