The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings 2nd respondent in O.Mu.No.641/VI/E1/2011, dated 25.01.2011, and quash the same and direct the respondent No.2 to regularise this petitioner as vocational teacher Grade II, with all monitory benefits from 10.06.2002 as per the G.O.Ms.No.74 School Education (Elementary Education) Department dated 10.06.2002.
2.The petitioner was appointed as a part time vocational teacher on 31.07.1996 at Government Higher Secondary School, Veerasigamani, where he was working till 21.07.1999. Thereafter, he was transferred to Government Higher Secondary School, Serndamangalam, where he joined on 22.07.1999 and worked till 08.02.2007.
3.During this relevant period, the Government has come out with two Government Orders, namely, G.O.Ms.No.680 Education Department dated 20.09.1996 and G.O.Ms.No.74 School Educational (Vocational Education) Department dated 10.06.2002. As per G.O.Ms.No.680 Education Department dated 20.09.1996, 235 part time vocational teachers were brought in as full time vocational teachers and subsequently by G.O.Ms.No.74 School Educational (Vocational Education) Department dated 10.06.2002, 126 were also brought in as full time vocational teachers. Therefore, altogether by virtue of the two Government Orders all 361 part time vocational teachers were brought under regular time scale of pay.
4.Insofar as the petitioner is concerned though he would be entitled to get such benefit of full time vocational teacher in view of G.O.Ms.No.74 School Educational (Vocational Education) Department dated 10.06.2002, his name was not included in the 126 vocational teachers and he was not considered for conferring the status of full time vocational teachers. Therefore, he approached the respondents. His request was turned down by the impugned order dated 25.01.2011, passed by the second respondent. In the said impugned order it was stated that the petitioner would not be entitled to get regularised as full time vocational teacher from 10.06.2002 as provided under G.O.Ms.No.74 School Educational (Vocational Education) Department dated 10.06.200; he would be entitled to get such benefit only pursuant to the subsequent Government Order, namely, G.O.Ms.No.35 School Education Department dated 09.02.2007; therefore, he was considered to be conferred the status of full time vocational teacher only from 09.02.2007 and accordingly that status was accepted by him and he is working as such; therefore, his plea to consider his candidature to bring him under full time vocational teacher on 10.06.2002 based on G.O.Ms.No.74 School Educational (Vocational Education) Department dated 10.06.2002 cannot be considered and therefore, it was rejected. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come out with the present writ petition.
5.Heard both sides.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would invite the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.74 School Educational (Vocational Education) Department dated 10.06.2002, which reads thus: ?3. gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Fehpd; ghpe;Jiufis ed;F ghprPyid bra;J muR fPH;f;fz;lthW MizapLfpwJ.
(i) jw;nghJ KGneu bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fshf;f cj;njrpf;fg; gl;oUf;Fk; 361 KGf;fy;tpj; jFjp bgw;w gFjp neu bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fspy;> Vw;fdnt 235 egh;fSf;F murhiz epiy vz;.680 gs;spf; fy;tpj;Jiw ehs; 20.9.96 gFjp neu Mrphpah;fshf epakd xg;g[jy; tHq;fg;gl;lnghJ> tpLgl;lth;fshf gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Feuhy; Fwpg;gplg;gLk; 126 KGf;fy;tpj;jFjp bgw;w gFjp neu bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fis Kjw;fz; gFjpneu bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fshf fUj;jpayhff; (Notionally) fUjp 20.9.96 Kjy; Kd;njjpapl;L gzg;gad; Vjk; ,d;wp epakd xg;g[jy; tHq;fg;gLfpwJ.
(ii) ghh;it ,uz;oy; gof;fg;gl;l murhizapy; gFjpneu bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fshf epakd xg;g[jy; tHq;fg;gl;l 235 KGf;fy;tpj;jFjp bgw;w gFjp neu bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fs; kw;Wk; nkny gj;jp 3(i)y; gFjp neuj;bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fshf epakd xg;g[jy; tHq;fg;gLk; 126 KGf;fy;tpj;jFjp bgw;w gFjp neu bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fs; Mf bkhj;jjk; 361 KGf;fy;tpj; jFjpbgw;w gFjpneu bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fisa[k; khepyj;jpy; fhypahf / cghpahf cs;s bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah; / ,ilepiy Mrphpah; gzpaplq;fspy;> bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fshf ,t;thiz btspapLk; ehs; Kjy; ,ilepiy Mrphpah;fshf ,t;thiz btspapLk; ehs; Kjy; ,ilepiy Mrphpah; Cjpa tpfpjj;jpy;> cl;gLj;jp muR MizapLfpwJ.
(iii) khtl;lq;fspy; g[jpjhf bjhlq;fg;glt[s;s bjhHpw;gapw;rp gs;spfspy; nkny gj;jp 3(ii)y; ,ilepiy Mrphpah; Cjpa tpfpjj;jpy; cl;gLj;jp Mizaplg;gl;Ls;s bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fis gad;gLj;jpf; bfhs;SkhW gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Feh; nfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;.
4.,t;thiz epjpj;Jiwapd; m.rh.vz;.776/FS/P/2002 ehs; 27.4.2002y; bgwg;gl;l xg;g[jYld; btspaplg;gLfpwJ.?
Pursuant to the said Government order, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was included as eligible part time vocational teacher to be converted as full time vocational teacher. Even then, the petitioner also was not considered as one among the 361 persons for the said benefit. Since the petitioner was working at Government Higher Secondary School at Veerasigamani and Serdamangalam between 31.07.1996 and 08.02.2007 and even thereafter had been taking classes for subjects other than vocational subjects, necessary exemption has to be given by the State Government. Therefore, in this regard a letter was issued by the second respondent dated 11.05.2005, wherein the said request was made to the first respondent to give exemption to the petitioner and another similarly placed person, since they have already been included as one among the 361 of persons for conferring the benefit of full time vocational teacher. In spite of this, the present impugned order has been passed. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.
7.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would contend that the petitioner then was originally party time vocational teacher has subsequently been transferred to the above said school where he had taken classes for other subjects and he had not worked as vocational teacher. Though the State Government has taken a policy decision to bring all those part time vocational teachers in the main stream ie., the full time vocational teachers, two Government Orders were issued, namely, G.O.Ms.No.680 Education Department dated 20.09.1996, whereby 235 part time vocational teachers were brought in full time scale of pay and the remaining persons numbering 126 were again brought in to the full time vacation teacher post by G.O.Ms.No.74 School Educational (Vocational Education) Department dated 10.06.2002. The said benefits were conferred on the 361 people in two phases. Firstly 235 people from 20.09.1996 and secondly 126 people from the date of G.O.Ms.No.74 School Educational (Vocational Education) Department 10.06.2002 has been conferred. At the time of issuing G.O.Ms.No.74 School Educational (Vocational Education) Department dated 10.06.2002, since the petitioner was not working as vocational teacher his name was not included. Therefore, he was subsequently brought in full time scale stream only thereafter by issuing further Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.35 School Education Department dated 09.02.2007 and only on 09.02.2007 the petitioner has been brought on full time vocational category. Having accepted the said order and the benefit being conferred on the petitioner, the petitioner had been working all along, now suddenly he turned around to claim that he should be considered for full time vocational teacher along with others from the date of the earlier G.O.Ms.No.74 School Educational (Vocational Education) Department dated 10.06.2002. Therefore, the same was negated by the impugned order passed by the second respondent. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and therefore, it warrants no interference from this Court.
8.This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the respective learned counsel.
9.Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as vocational teacher on 31.07.1996. He had been continuously working as vocational teacher. Though he is a vocational teacher, at some point of time he was instructed to take classes for the subjects History etc., and therefore, when the Government has come forward with a policy decision to bring the part time vocational teacher to full time vocational teachers by way of G.O.Ms.No.680 Education Department dated 20.09.1996 and G.O.Ms.No.74 School Educational (Vocational Education) Department dated 10.06.2002, since the petitioner was taking classes for subjects other than vocational training, his name was not considered. That is the reason why the plea raised by the petitioner was rejected in the impugned order. This theory submitted by the respondents cannot be accepted for the simple reason that by proceedings dated 11.05.2005, the second respondent in categorical words stated that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.680 Education Department dated 20.09.1996 and G.O.Ms.No.74 School Educational (Vocational Education) Department dated 10.06.2002 361 part time vocational teachers were brought under full time vocational teachers. Out of the 361 persons, two persons namely one B.Balan and the petitioner Thirumalaisamy though had been working as Vocational Teachers since were taking classes for other subjects necessary exemption has to be given to these people to confer the benefits for these people including the petitioner. The said proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.139295/W26/92 dated 11.05.2005 is a crucial document and the import of the document has been reproduced for better appreciation of the issue:
?ghh;it 1y; fz;l murhizg;go jkpHfj;jpy; cs;s nky;epiyg;gs;spfspy; 20.09.96f;F Kd; gFjpneu bjhHpw; fy;tp Mrphpah;fshf epakdk; bgw;W bjhlh;e;J gzpg[hpe;J te;j 361 Mrphpah;fis KGneug; gzpaplj;jpy; 10.06.2002 Kjy; cl;gLj;j Miz bgwg;gl;lij bjhlh;e;J eltof;if nkw; bfhs;sg;gl;lJ.
nkw;fz;l Mrphpah;fs; ghh;it 1y; fz;l murhizg;go 20.09.96f;F Kd;g[ gFjpneu bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fswhf epakdk; bgw;Ws;sdh;. Mdhy; fPH;f;fz;lthW ntW ntW gzpg[hpe;J tUfpd;wdh;.
1.JpU.gp.ghyd;
24.06.96 Kjy; 31.03.97 murpdh; nky;epiyg;gs;sp> fy;tp ntYhh;. 01.08.97 Kjy; 21.10.99 murpdh; (k) nky;epiyg;gs;sp> thyhIhngl;il. ntYhh;. 22.10.99 Kjy; ,d;Wtiu murpdh; nky;epiyg;gs;sp> Mw;fhL. ntYhh;.
2.jpU.vk;.jpUkiyrhkp 31.07.96 Kjy; 21.07.99 murpdh; nky;epiyg;gs;sp> tPurpfhkzp> jpUbey;ntyp. 22.07.99 Kjy; ,d;Wtiu murpdh; nky;epiyg;gs;sp> nre;jkq;fyk;> jpUbey;ntyp.
nky;epiyg;gs;spfspy; bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah; epiy 2 gzpaplk; jw;nghJ fhypahf cs;sJ.
Vdnt nkw;fz;l ,U Mrphpah;fSf;F murhiz vz;.74/fy;tp ehs; 10.06.2002d;go 20.09.96f;F Kd;g[ gFjpneu bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fshf epakdk; bgw;W bjhlh;e;J xnu gs;spapy; gzpg[hpahky; ntW ntW gs;spfspy; gzpg[hpe;J tUtjhy; mjw';F jtph;g;g[ tHq;fp jw;nghJ fhypahf cs;s bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah; epiy ? 2 gzpaplj;jpy; murpd; Miz tHq;Fk; ehs; Kjy; cl;gLj;jp chpa mDkjp Miz tHq;f ghpe;Jiu bra;J fUj;JUtpid gzpe;jDg;g[fpnwd;.?
From the above proceedings issued by the second respondent, it become crystal clear that the petitioner is one among the 361 persons eligible for such benefits conferred by G.O.Ms.No.74 School Educational (Vocational Education) Department dated 10.06.2002, but only because the petitioner at the time was working though designated as Part Time Vocational Teacher was taking classes for other subjects, the benefits of conferring full time scale of pay on the petitioner was delayed or was not decided immediately. Therefore, in order to meet out the situation the second respondent has written to the first respondent to give exemption but no order has been passed by the said respondent and such document made it abundantly clear that the petitioner is one among the 361 persons eligible to get the benefits from 10.06.2002 itself. Therefore, the benefits now conferred on the petitioner is only pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.35 (School Education Department dated 09.02.2007 is certainly prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner because he was entitled to get the benefit from 10.06.2002. In view of the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner shall be entitled to claim the said full time vocational teacher post along with 361 teachers from 10.06.2002.
10.Resultantly, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed in part, directing the respondents, especially respondents 1 and 2 to confer the status of Full Time Vocational Teacher to the petitioner from 10.06.2002, the date on which G.O.Ms.No.74 School Educational (Vocational Education) Department has been issued, as that of the similarly placed persons have been conferred the said status. It is needless to state that once the status is conferred on the petitioner from the said dated 10.06.2002, the petitioner shall be entitled to all service, monetary and other attendant benefits. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To
1.The Secretary, (School Education Department), Tamil Nadu Government, Secretariat, Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The Tamil Nadu School Educational Director, (Higher Education), O/o. School Education Directorate), Chennai ? 600 006.
3.The Chief Education Officer, O/o.Chief Education Office, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
4.The Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Sentdamaram ? Post, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District..