Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. POORNIMA, J.
K.Raja – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.P(MD) No.8079 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD).No.6598 of 2016
Decided on : 24-04-2025
(A) Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Promotion - The petitioners, Physical Education Teachers, sought promotion to Physical Director Grade II, claiming discrimination based on educational qualifications. The court found that the petitioners' qualifications were accepted at the time of their appointment and ruled that denying promotion based on those qualifications was arbitrary. (Paras 8, 16, 18, 19)
(B) Natural Justice - The court emphasized that once qualifications are accepted and service confirmed, the employer cannot later reject those qualifications for promotion unless fraud is proven. (Paras 16, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were appointed as Physical Education Teachers with M.P.Ed. degrees but were excluded from promotion panels due to their qualifications being deemed ineligible. They argued that their qualifications were accepted at the time of appointment and sought promotion based on that acceptance.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to promote the petitioners as Physical Director Grade II with all consequential benefits.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners were eligible for promotion based on their accepted qualifications and if the denial of promotion was arbitrary.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the denial of promotion based on qualifications accepted at the time of appointment was arbitrary and against natural justice principles.
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Letter (1D) No.77/M1/2008 dated 15.02.2011 and quash the same and direct the respondents to promote the petitioners as Physical Director Grade II from the date on which their juniors were given promotion with all consequential benefits.
2. The case of the petitioners in brief are as follows :
a) The petitioners and others are working as Physical Education Teachers, claiming promotion to the post of Physical Director Grade II with seniority and other benefits. Since the matter is to be adjudicated, points to be decided, cause of action and relief are all the same. The petitioners joined together and filed a single writ petition and brought to pass a common order.
b) The petitioner passed 10th standard in the year 1987, 12th standard in the year 1989 and passed B.A. Economics in the year 1994 and M.P.Ed., in the year 1996. The 2nd petitioner passed 10th Standard in the year 1984, 12th Standard in the year 1987, and passed B.A. Economics in the year 1990 and M.P.Ed., in the year 1993. The 3rd petitioner passed 10th Standard in the year 1986, 12th Standard in the year 1988 and passed B.Sc., in the year 1991 and M.P.Ed., in the year 1993. The 4th petitioner passed 10th standard in the year 1984, 12th Standard in the year 1986, and passed B.A., in the year 1989 and M.P.Ed., in the year 1991.
c) The petitioners were consolidated appointed as Physical Education Teachers on 15.11.1996, 20.11.1996 and 12.03.1998 respectively and posted at Government High School and Government Higher Secondary Schools under the School Education Department. They have been working as Physical Education Teachers from the year 1996 i.e., nearly 20 years without any promotion. The next avenue of promotion to the post of Physical Education Teacher is Physical Director Grade II. The respondents published the panel for promotion to the post of Physical Director Grade II as of 01.01.2013 by its proceedings in Na.Ka.No.37606/C4/E2/2012 dated --.02.2015. They had enclosed the list of ineligible Physical Education Teachers. The petitioner's name has been included in the ineligible list in Sl.Nos.14, 15 and 17 because of the reason that they acquired M.P.Ed., Degrees directly. The petitioners made a representation to the respondents on 24.02.2015 to consider and include their names in the panel for promotion to the post of Physical Director Grade II.
d) The M.P.Ed., course is concerned, it was started at Alagappa University, Karaikudi, in the year 1986 as an integrated course i.e., one-year B.P.Ed., Syllabus and one-year M.P.Ed., Syllabus i.e., two years course. Prior to 1986, B.P.Ed., was one year course, and M.P.Ed., was one year course. In the year 1986, Alagappa University, Karaikudi started an M.P.Ed., Two-years integrated course i.e., one year B.P.Ed., Syllabus and one year M.P.Ed., Syllabus.
e) The petitioners passed M.P.Ed., at Alagappa University. Therefore, they are fully qualified for promotion to the post of Physical Director Grade II. The Government also issued G.O.(Ms)No.26, School Education (M1) Department dated 27.02.2003 for the post of Physical Education Teacher included M.P.Ed., as qualification for the appointment. The panel for promotion to the post of Physical Director Grade II was published for the qualified persons as of 01.01.2010. In that panel also they excluded the persons who studied M.P.Ed., directly.
f) Immediately, they made representation to the respondents that they have studied integrated courses namely one-year B.P.Ed., and one-year M.P.Ed., Syllabus. Considering the same, the second respondent issued proceedings on 25.08.2011 including the persons who studied M.P.Ed., directly and they have been promoted as Physical Director Grade- II. Therefore, again excluding the petitioner's name for the very same reason that they have studied M.
Denial of promotion based on accepted qualifications is arbitrary and violates principles of natural justice.
The court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to approval of his appointment as Physical Education Director from 04.06.2007, as the school met the eligibility criteria and he possessed the necessa....
Incentive increment is granted only for higher qualifications and not for basic qualifications. The cancellation of incentive increments for all higher qualifications as per G.O.Ms.No.37 Personnel Ad....
Promotion is a fundamental aspect of service that must be equitably provided to all eligible employees, adhering to constitutional mandates of fairness and equality.
A candidate's qualifications must be assessed based on the facts at the time of expected vacancy, ensuring fair consideration according to established educational regulations.
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
