Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
O. Selvam & Others - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of School Education, O/o. Commissioner of School Education, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P.(MD) Nos. 429, 644, 787 & 807 of 2022 & W.M.P.(MD) Nos. 327, 328, 517, 518, 609, 612, 652, 653 & 667 of 2022
Decided On : 04-03-2022
Writ Petition - Transfer of Deputy Inspectors of Schools as B.T.Assistants - Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service - Rule 8 and Rule 11 discussed - Interpretation of the Rules and the interchangeability of posts - Court's decision based on the interpretation of the Rules and the lack of violation of service conditions
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions challenged the validity of the proceedings of the Joint Director of School Education and the consequential proceedings of the Chief Educational Officer, which directed the transfer and posting of Deputy Inspectors of Schools as B.T.Assistants. The petitioners contended that the transfers were contrary to the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Subordinate Service.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Special Rules allowed for the transfer of Deputy Inspectors of Schools as B.T.Assistants and that the posts were interchangeable. The Court held that the service conditions of the petitioners were not violated, and they had no right to claim a particular post as a matter of choice.
Issues: Interpretation of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service, interchangeability of posts, and violation of service conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the Special Rules and found that the posts of Deputy Inspectors of Schools and B.T.Assistants were interchangeable, and the transfers did not violate the service conditions of the petitioners.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the Court held that the circular and transfer orders did not affect the service conditions of the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Na/Ka/No. 69836/C2/E1/2021, dated 06.01.2022 and quash the same as illegal.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent in Na/Ka/No.69836/C2/E1/2021, dated 06.01.2022 and the consequential impugned order passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.4934/A3/2021, dated 07.01.2022 and quash the same.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.69836/C2/E1/2021, dated 06.01.2022 and the consequential impugned order passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.4934/A3/2021, dated 07.01.2022 and quash the same.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No. 69836/C2/E1/2021, dated 06.01.2022 and quash the same as illegal.)
Common Order
1. Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same, they were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The lis on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the proceedings of the Joint Director of School Education, dated 06.01.2022 and the consequential proceedings of the Chief Educational Officer, dated 07.01.2022.
3. To be noted, the proceedings, dated 06.01.2022, issued by the Joint Director of School Education, is an instruction issued to the Chief Educational Officers across the State. In other words, it is a circular issued by the Joint Director of School Education to all the Chief Educational Officers.
4. Some petitioners were initially appointed as B.T.Assistants and some petitioners were promoted as B.T.Assistants from the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. All the petitioners have passed Deputy Inspector's Test and other requisite Tests as per the Rules and became qualified to be transferred and posted as Deputy Inspector of Schools, which is the equal cadre of B.T.Assistant carrying identical scale of pay. The post of Deputy Inspector of Schools is governed by the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service and by virtue of the qualifications and tests passed by the B.T.Assistants, they were transferred and posted as Deputy Inspector of Schools. Through the impugned order, dated 06.01.2022, the Joint Director of School Education directed the Chief Educational Officer of the respective Districts to transfer and post the Deputy Inspectors of Schools as B.T.Assistants on or before 07.01.2022 and the said proceedings is resulted in filing of the present writ petitions by the the petitioners.
5. Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(MD) Nos.429 & 807 of 2022, mainly contended that the direction issued in the impugned proceedings stipulates that the Deputy Inspectors of Schools are to be transferred as B.T.Assistants within one day and there is absolutely no reason for such urgency. No procedures are contemplated for transferring the Deputy Inspectors of Schools as B.T.Assistants. The power conferred on the Chief Educational Officers will result in colourable exercise of power leading to unreasonable action. The Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service was superseded and Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Subordinate Service Rules (for brevity “Special Rules”) were issued vide G.O.Ms.No.12, School Education Department, dated 30.01.2020. As per the said Rules, the post of Deputy Inspector of Schools falls under Class-I Category-1 and the post of Graduate Teacher comes under Class-I Categ
Interpretation of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service and the interchangeability of posts based on the Rules.
The court held that the order of transfer was illegal and quashed it, directing the competent authority to take a decision afresh in strict compliance with the law. The court also directed the appell....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that voluntary departmental transfer may result in the forfeiture of seniority in the previous department, and the seniority in the new department ....
Point of law: An order of transfer of an employee is a part of the service conditions and such order of transfer is not required to be interfered with lightly by a court of law in exercise of its dis....
The requirement of the subject should have precedence in transferring teachers from unaided to aided school. Seniority should only be considered when there are multiple teachers in the subject in whi....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
