O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned order dated

06.11.2015 and consequently directing the third respondent to appoint the petitioner as Drawing Teacher in vacancy in the Schools under the control of the third respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has completed graduation in Mathematics in the year 1991. Thereafter, he has completed the Drawing Teacher Course under the Vocational Special Teacher course conducted by the Examination Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. Based on the said qualification of Drawing Teacher, the petitioner has enrolled in the Employment Exchange on 22.07.2008 and his registered number is 61871/2008. Thereafter, the petitioner has shifted his residence from Madurai to Dindigul and requested the fourth respondent to transfer his employment registration in which his seniority would be renewed periodically. As per the proceedings of the fourth respondent, the fifth respondent has registered the petitioner's name on 01.12.2008 with a new registration number 11499/2008. The petitioner belongs to Piramalai Kallar caste and he seeks appointment as a Drawing Teacher under the Government Kallar Reclamation School. In the month of October, 2010 the petitioner came to understand that on 10.09.2008, the third respondent called for list of eligible candidates enrolled with the Drawing Teacher qualification. On the basis of the said requisition, the fourth respondent sent a list of candidates, however, the petitioner's name was not there. The petitioner enquired before the third and fourth respondents and he came to understand that one Jeeva, the sixth respondent herein who is working under the third respondent School as Drawing Teacher has been appointed based on the list referred by the fourth respondent on

10.09.2008.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the said Jeeva have registered before the fourth respondent as Drawing Teacher on 22.07.2008 but the petitioner's name was not sponsored by the fourth respondent. Aggrieved by the non-sponsoring of his name, the petitioner submitted representation to the respondents but the respondents dragged the petitioner from pillar to post for more than five years. Thereafter, the third respondent rejected the petitioner's claim vide proceedings dated 06.11.2015 stating that as per G.O. Ms. No. 185 School Education Department dated 17.11.2014, no preference will be given to employment seniority, since the Government of Tamil Nadu filled the Special Teachers vacancies through written examination conducted by Teachers Recruitment Board. In the meanwhile, on 10.12.2015, the petitioner received a communication from the fourth respondent stating that as per the requisition of the third respondent, on 05.06.2008, the fourth respondent submitted a list of candidates including the name of the sixth respondent as if his registration entry as early as on 14.02.2003 but the petitioner's name was registered only on

22.07.2008. The fourth respondent did not send the petitioner's name on 05.06.2008. The contention of the petitioner is that since the petitioner as well as the sixth respondent have registered their names on 22.07.2008, but the respondents have taken the sixth respondent registration date as 14.02.2003 and has fixed the sixth respondent seniority in the year 2003. Aggrieved over, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

4. The third respondent had filed a counter stating that to fill up the vacancies to the post of Drawing Maser, suitable candidates from the live register of Madurai District Employment Exchange were sought for in the month of September, 2008 fixing the crucial date of 21.07.2006. A list containing 14 names strictly on the basis of seniority was sent from the District Employment Office at the ratio of 1:5. The said ratio is followed as per Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.18 Labour and Employment Department dated 25.02.2008. The previous G.O.Ms.No.65 Labour and Employment Departmen