SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Mad) 1023

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
R. Kannan & Another
Versus
The Government of Tamilnadu & Others
W.P.Nos.5516 & 5517 of 2011 & M.P.Nos.2, 2, 3 & 3 of 2011
Decided on: 04-06-2014

Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioners:Chandrasekaran for M/s. T. Sundaravadanam, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 to R3 & R5, V.Subbiah, Special Government Pleader, R4, No appearance, R6, Naveenkumar Murthi, Advocate.

The impugned G.O.Ms.No.159, School Education Department, dated 10.07.2009 passed by the 1st Respondent and the consequential orders dated 23.12.2010 and 18.01.2011 passed by the 5th Respondent are illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional one and assuch, the same is liable to be set aside in limini.

Headnote:

The Court held that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.159, School Education Department, dated 10.07.2009 passed by the 1st Respondent and the consequential orders dated 23.12.2010 and 18.01.2011 passed by the 5th Respondent are illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional one and assuch, the same is liable to be set aside in limini.

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioners were initially appointed to the post of Physical Education Teachers after completing B.A., B.P.Ed., and joined the service on 06.01.1984 and 17.04.1985 respectively in the Government Higher Secondary Schools Dhaniamangalam, Madurai District and Keeranallur, Kancheepuram District. The Petitioner in W.P.No.5516/2011 from the year 2007 onwards is working in the present School as Physical Education Director – Grade II taking classes for Plus one and Plus two Higher Secondary Students. The Petitioner in W.P.No.5517/2011 joined the Government Higher Secondary School, Iyyampetttai, Kancheepuram District during the period 1986 to 1996 and later worked in Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Kancheepuram from 1996 to 2006. From the year 2006 onwards, he is working in the present School as Physical Education Director – Grade II taking classes for Plus one and Plus two Higher Secondary Students. Both the Petitioners are eligible for the post of Regional Inspector of Physical Education (Men and Women) (herein after referred as RIPE) now renamed as District Inspector of Physical Education (herein after referred as DIPE), Madurai District and Kancheepuram District and they are now looking after in addition to the original post of Physical Education Director – Grade II.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.159, School Education Department, dated 10.07.2009 passed by the 1st Respondent and the consequential orders dated 23.12.2010 and 18.01.2011 passed by the 5th Respondent are illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional one and assuch, the same is liable to be set aside in limini.

Issues: 1. Whether the impugned G.O.Ms.No.159, School Education Department, dated 10.07.2009 passed by the 1st Respondent and the consequential orders dated 23.12.2010 and 18.01.2011 passed by the 5th Respondent are illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional? 2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to be appointed as District Inspector of Physical Education?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.159, School Education Department, dated 10.07.2009 passed by the 1st Respondent and the consequential orders dated 23.12.2010 and 18.01.2011 passed by the 5th Respondent are illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional one and assuch, the same is liable to be set aside in limini. 2. The Court held that the Petitioners are not entitled to be appointed as District Inspector of Physical Education.

Final Decision: The Court held that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.159, School Education Department, dated 10.07.2009 passed by the 1st Respondent and the consequential orders dated 23.12.2010 and 18.01.2011 passed by the 5th Respondent are illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional one and assuch, the same is liable to be set aside in limini.

ORDER

1. The Petitioners have preferred the instant Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in calling for the records pertaining to the original Government Order G.O.Ms.No.159, School Education Department (Me.Ni.Ka.2), dated 10.07.2009 and the order passed by the 5th Respondent in Na.Ka.No.08726/W3/E2/2010 dated 23.12.2010 and the order passed by the 5th Respondent in Oo.Mu.No.118415/ W3/E2/2010 dated 18.01.2011 and to quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional. Further, they have sought for passing of an order by this Court in directing the 2nd and 5th Respondents to appoint them to the post of District Inspector of Physical Education.

2. The Long Germane Facts:

(i) The Writ Petitioners were initially appointed to the post of Physical Education Teachers after completing B.A., B.P.Ed., and joined the service on 06.01.1984 and 17.04.1985 respectively in the Government Higher Secondary Schools Dhaniamangalam, Madurai District and Keeranallur, Kancheepuram District.

(ii) The Petitioner in W.P.No.5516/2011 from the year 2007 onwards is working in the present School as Physical Education Director – Grade II taking classes for Plus one and Plus two Higher Secondary Students. The Petitioner in W.P.No.5517/2011 joined the Government Higher Secondary School, Iyyampetttai, Kancheepuram District during the period 1986 to 1996 and later worked in Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Kancheepuram from 1996 to 2006. From the year 2006 onwards, he is working in the present School as Physical Education Director – Grade II taking classes for Plus one and Plus two Higher Secondary Students. Both the Petitioners are eligible for the post of Regional Inspector of Physical Education (Men and Women) (herein after referred as RIPE) now renamed as District Inspector of Physical Education (herein after referred as DIPE), Madurai District and Kancheepuram District and they are now looking after in addition to the original post of Physical Education Director – Grade II.

(iii) According to the Petitioners, the post of RIPE was established exclusively for persons who are working as Physical Education Director - Grade II in the Higher Secondary Schools. But the Respondents 1 and 2 decided to fill up the vacant posts 25 + 6 posts only with the Physical Education Director – Grade I Officers as per G.O.Ms.No.159, School Education Department, dated 10.07.2009.

(iv) The 2nd Respondent, in letter dated 29.11.2010, instructed all the Regional Chief Educational Officers to send the proposal of the Physical Education Director – Grade I alone to the combined cadre post of District Inspector of Physical Education on or before 16.12.2010 and based on the said letter, the Chief Educational Officers throughout the State sent their proposals excluding the Physical Education Director – Grade II persons for the promotional post of District Inspector of Physical Education. (v) Even though the Physical Education Director – Grade I and Physical Education Director – Grade II are treated as equal, they were not included in the promotion panel. Furthermore, the promotional post of 'DIPE' is basically based on the field work and it requires the knowledge of practical experiences and it is not merely functioning as desk work. The entire Physical Education Director – Grade II officers are promoted from the entry level post of Physical Education Teacher who are experienced with more practical and technical sound knowledge than the Physical Education Director – Grade I officers most of them are direct recruits whose qualifications are U.G. Degree of B.A./B.Com./B.Sc. with M.P.Ed., qualification and the Physical Education Director – Grade II are possessing with U.G. Degree of B.A./B.Com./B.Sc. with B.P.Ed., qualification both are equal category and similar work and qualified to handle only the Higher Secondary Classes.

(vi) The 1st Respondent/Government of Tamil Nadu, all of a sudden, issued G.O.Ms.No.159, School Education Department, dated 10.07.2009 directing the 2nd





































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top