Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 1514
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
P.K. MISRA & P. MURGESEN, JJ.
The Unemployed Secondary Grade Teachers Welfare Association & Others
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary & Another
Writ Appeal (Md) Nos.119 & 122 of 2008 and M.P. (Md) No.1 of 2008 In Respective W.As & M.P.Nos.4 and 5 in Wa.No.119 of 2008
Decided on : 14-05-2008
For the Appellants :Issac Mohanlal, G. Prabhu Rajadurai, K.S. Srinivasan, Advocates. For the Respondents:N. Kannadasan, Addl. Advocate General. Assisted by G. Sankaran, Govt. Advocate.
For Intervener :N. Mariappan, Veera Kathiravan, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that confining the selection process to candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange of a particular district violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16(2), and 19(1) of the Constitution.
Headnote:
Employment Exchange - Selection of Secondary Grade Teachers - Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules 10A - The court discussed the provisions of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 and the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Rules, 1960. The court concluded that confining the selection of Secondary Grade Teachers to candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange of a particular district violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16(2), and 19(1) of the Constitution. The impugned G.O.Ms.No.447, dated 16.07.1996 was quashed, and a direction was issued to consider the selection of eligible candidates registered in other District Employment Exchanges. The court allowed the discretion of the State Government regarding the termination of already appointed persons and directed that future vacancies be filled by inviting applications from all over the State.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a challenge to the selection and appointment of Secondary Grade Teachers in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioners argued that the selection process, which confined the selection to candidates registered in the Employment Exchange of a particular district, violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16(2), and 19(1) of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that confining the selection process to candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange of a particular district violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16(2), and 19(1) of the Constitution. The impugned G.O.Ms.No.447, dated 16.07.1996 was quashed, and a direction was issued to consider the selection of eligible candidates registered in other District Employment Exchanges. The court allowed the discretion of the State Government regarding the termination of already appointed persons and directed that future vacancies be filled by inviting applications from all over the State.
Issues: The main issue was whether the selection process for Secondary Grade Teachers, which confined the selection to candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange of a particular district, violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14, 16(2), and 19(1) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that confining the selection process to candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange of a particular district violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16(2), and 19(1) of the Constitution. The impugned G.O.Ms.No.447, dated 16.07.1996 was quashed, and a direction was issued to consider the selection of eligible candidates registered in other District Employment Exchanges. The court allowed the discretion of the State Government regarding the termination of already appointed persons and directed that future vacancies be filled by inviting applications from all over the State.
Final Decision: The writ appeals were allowed, subject to the court's observations. The court quashed the impugned G.O.Ms.No.447, dated 16.07.1996, and directed that future vacancies be filled by inviting applications from all over the State. The court allowed the discretion of the State Government regarding the termination of already appointed persons.
P.K. Misra, J.
These two appeals are directed against the common judgment of the learned single Judge dated 4.2.2008 in W.P.Nos.10583 and 6377 of 2007 respectively.
2. W.P.No.6377 of 2007 was filed for a declaration that the Government (Standing) Order No. 447 (Education of Science and Technology Department) dated 16.7.1996 in so far as it restricts the selection and appointment of Secondary Grade Teachers by Districtwise seniority in the employment office as ultra vires and unconstitutional.
In W.P.No.10583 of 2007, prayer was for issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing G.O.Ms.No.447 dated 16.7.1996 and the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.241 (School Education Department) dated 22.9.2007 and quash the same so far as it prescribes Districtwise Recruitment of Secondary Grade teachers in the Government / Panchayat Union / Municipal Schools in the State and for a further direction to the respondents to make recruitment on statewide basis.
3. The brief facts are as follows:-
From 1960 onwards, recruitment to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers in the Government Schools, Panchayat Union Schools and the Corporation Schools were being made at District level by calling for the names of the eligible candidates from the Employment Exchange and selection was made on the basis of interview. However, the Government changed the policy of selection in 1991 and holding of interview was dispensed with and the selection was being made on the basis of seniority in the roll of the respective District Employment Exchange. However, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1251 Education dated 14.12.1992, whereunder the task of appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers in the Government Schools, Panchayat Union Schools was entrusted to the Teachers Recruitment Board by holding selection test and interview. The selected candidates were appointed in various districts irrespective of their place of residence. Subsequently, however, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.447 dated 16.7.1996. The relevant provisions in such G.O. are as follows:-
"Order: As per above read Govt. Orders, the Secondary Grade Teacher vacancies are filled under Elementary Education and School Education Department through Tamil Nadu Teacher's Recruitment Board till date.
2. Now the Govt. on principle decided to appoint Secondary Grade Teachers through the concerned employment exchange considering the registration seniority instead of recruitment through Teachers Recruitment Board and the Director of Elementary Education send the proposal for consideration of the Government.
3. After the consideration the Govt. pass orders to appoint the required Secondary Grade Teachers necessary to the Elementary Education and School Education Departments under the following norms starting from this school year.
1) Secondary Grade Teachers are to be appointed on their employment registration seniority instead of existing procedure for it. The committee consisting of Chief Educational Officer as President and District Educational Officers/Elementary Education Officers as members shall conduct selections. Concerned appointing officers shall effect the appointments. List of vacancies shall be intimated by appointing officer to the committee.
5) As the list of persons seeking employment is pending since 1985, including the Backlog vacancies, from this year onwards appointments are to be effected following communal rotation.
6) Lady Teachers are to be appointed for 1st Std to 5th Std. If lady Teachers are not available, male Teachers not exceeding 10% shall be appointed.
4. The Secondary Grade Teachers Appointment procedure shall be applicable to the schools of Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe Welfare Schools under Social Welfare, Backward class and Most Backward Classes Welfare, Local Bodies and Corporation."
3.1 The aforesaid G.O. was always understood to mean that selection shall be made from among the candidates whose names had been registered in the Employment Exchange register for the conc
