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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1794

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. SRIMATHY, J.
P. Patrick Raymond & Others - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P.(MD). Nos. 5196 to 5198 of 2015 & M.P.(MD). Nos. 2,2,2,3,3 and 3 of 2015
Decided On : 02-06-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:T. Lajapathi Roy, Advocate. For the Respondents:V. Om Prakash, Government Advocate.

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 should be determined based on the date of absorption.

Headnote:

Seniority Panel - Departmental Transfer - Rule 35(a) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules - The court discussed the application of Rule 35(a) in determining seniority for promotion, the impact of departmental transfer on seniority, and the distinction between 'Union Seniority' and 'State Seniority' in the Elementary Education and School Education Departments.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought inclusion of their past service in the Elementary Education Department for the purpose of seniority in the School Education Department. The respondents contended that the petitioners' seniority should be fixed based on the date of absorption in the School Education Department.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners' claim for inclusion of past service in the Elementary Education Department was not tenable as they had willingly opted to switch to the School Education Department, thereby forgoing their seniority in the Elementary Education Department.

Issues: The main issue was the determination of seniority for promotion to the post of PG Assistants, High School Headmasters in the School Education Department, considering the petitioners' past service in the Elementary Education Department.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' claim for inclusion of past service in the Elementary Education Department was not valid as they had voluntarily switched to the School Education Department, thereby forfeiting their seniority in the Elementary Education Department.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The court upheld the respondents' decision to fix the petitioners' seniority based on the date of absorption in the School Education Department.

JUDGMENT

(Prayers: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in O.Mu.No.91875/C2/E1/2014, dated 08.12.2014 on the file of the respondent No.2 and the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.100183/W2/E2/2014, dated 12.12.2014, on the file of the respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, for a direction, directing the respondents to rework the Seniority Panel for the promotion to the post of PG Assistants, High School Headmasters in Department of School Education by including the post services rendered to the petitioner and other similarly placed persons in the Elementary Education Department, within the time period stipulated by this Court.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.100183/W2/E2/2014, dated 12.12.2014, on the file of the respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, for a direction, directing the respondents to rework the Seniority Panel for the promotion to the post of PG Assistants, High School Headmasters in Department of School Education by including the post services rendered to the petitioner and other similarly placed persons in the Elementary Education Department, within the time period stipulated by this Court.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.100185/W2/E2/2014, dated 12.12.2014, on the file of the respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, for a direction, directing the respondents to rework the Seniority Panel for the promotion to the post of PG Assistants, High School Headmasters in Department of School Education by including the post services rendered to the petitioner and other similarly placed persons in the Elementary Education Department, within the time period stipulated by this Court.)

Common Order:

1. These writ petitions have been filed to quash the impugned orders dated 08.12.2014 and 12.12.2014 and consequently, direct the respondents to rework the Seniority Panel for the promotion to the post of PG Assistants, High School Headmasters in Department of School Education by including the post services rendered by the petitioner and other similarly placed persons in the Elementary Education Department.

2. Since the issues involved in these writ petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of by this common order.

3. The brief facts of the writ petition are as follows:

The petitioners have participated in the examinations conducted by the Teacher's Recruitment Board in the year 2004 and were selected. The petitioners were appointed as B.T. Assistant in the year 2004 and 2005 under the Elementary Education Department, vide G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 05.09.2005 and 27.06.2003 and later on 01.06.2006, the petitioners were brought under the regular time scale of pay vide G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 27.06.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.120, dated 18.07.2006. In the said Government Orders, it has been categorically stated that the petitioners' seniority will be considered in accordance with the rank secured by the petitioners in the Teachers Recruitment Board Examinations. But the same was not at all followed at the time when the petitioners were absorbed under School Education.

4. According to the petitioners, several Juniors, who were appointed in the year 2005-2006 were given all promotions bypassing the petitioners and other persons, who are appointed through Teachers Recruitment Board, vide G.O.Ms.No.120, dated 18.07.2006. Several candidates, who are appointed in the School Education Department alone are considered for promotion bypassing the seniority. On 12.12.2011, the Panchayat Union Middle School, in which, the petitioners were working, were upgraded

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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