W.P.No.15093 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on

15.12.2022

Pronounced on

08.02.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

W.P.No.15093 of 2018

and

W.M.P.No.17851 of 2018

S. Alfred Xavier

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu

Rep. by its Secretary to Government,

Higher Education Department,

Fort St. George,

Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner,

Director of Technical Education,

Chennai-600 025.

3.Government Polytechnic College,

Rep. by its Principal,

Nagercoil.

4.E.M.Srinivasan

5.Hebziba Angela Durairaj

...Respondents

1/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.15093 of 2018

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

praying to issue a Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first

respondent bearing G.O.Ms.No.23, Higher Education (I2) Department, dated

25.01.2018 to quash the same insofar as non inclusion of the name of the

petitioner above Mr.E.M.Srinivasan in the 28^th place and consequently direct

the first respondent to incorporate the petitioner name in Serial No.28 in the

seniority list above Mr.E.M.Srinivasan for the post of Principal in order to

get promotion to the post of Upgraded Senior Lecturer with effect from

03.02.1999, upgraded Head of Department with effect from 03.02.2009 and

Principal with effect from 25.01.2018 respectively.

For Petitioner

: Mr.A.R.Suresh

for Mr.K.Sannjay

For R1 to R3

: Mr.T.Chezhiyan,

Additional Government Pleader

For R4 & R5

: No Appearance

2/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.15093 of 2018

ORDER

Heard Mr.A.R.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.T.Chezhiyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents

1 to 3.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

2.1. The petitioner herein was originally inducted as an Instructor

under the official respondents/Government Polytechnic College on contract

basis, with one artificial break between every academic year. The post of

Instructor was redesigned thereafter as 'Lecturer'.

2.2. Through G.O.Ms.No.334, Education, Science and Technology (I2)

Department, dated 28.04.1995, the services of the petitioner and similarly

placed lecturers were regularised with effect from the date of the said

Government Order i.e., on 28.04.1995. The respondents 4 and 5 were also

regularised through the same Government Order and were placed in the ranks

below the petitioner in the seniority list. Since the petitioner claimed

regularisation from the date of his initial appointment i.e., from 21.12.1990,

he had preferred applications in O.A.Nos.1485 to 1489 of 2004 and by an

3/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.15093 of 2018

order dated 06.04.2004, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai

(hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) had declared the entitlement of the

petitioner and others for regularisation of their services from the date of their

initial appointments. Though the order of the Tribunal had become final, the

Government had not implemented the order immediately and ultimately on

19.01.2012, G.O.Ms.No.6, Higher Education (I2), dated 19.01.2012 came to

be passed, regularising the services of the petitioner from the date of his

initial appointment. In the said Government Order, the Government had also

advised the Director of Technical Education (DOTE) to forward and submit a

requisition seeking for condonation of the artificial break in the services of

the petitioner during his contract period. Though DOTE had sent their

recommendations on 28.01.2015, 14.03.2016, 30.07.2016 & 30.08.2017,

seeking for condonation of the break in services of the petitioner, the same

was considered only on 24.11.2017 through G.O.Ms.No.338, Higher

Education (I2), dated 24.11.2017.

2.3. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the inordinate delay

on the part of the Government in considering the Tribunal's order dated

0