The Original Application in O.A.No.1212 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") is now Writ Petition in W.P.No.14209 of 2007 before this Court.
2. Heard Mr.G.Elanchezhian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Muthu Kumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. The petitioner joined in the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department as a Typist on 10.04.1987. She possessed B.A., B.Ed., qualification. She was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher based on G.O.Ms.No.63, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 01.04.1997 by the second respondent. However, after seven years, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 19.03.2003 cancelling the appointment and reverting the petitioner as Typist.
4. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.1212 of 2003 (W.P.No.14209 of 2007) to quash the aforesaid order dated 19.03.2003 of the second respondent and for a consequential direction to continue her as a Secondary Grade Teacher by regularising the service with all consequential benefits.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed based on the order of the first respondent dated 11.07.2002. However the said order was not furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner was not heard before passing the order dated 11.07.2002 / 19.03.2003. The learned counsel submits that therefore the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. In this regard, the petitioner states that when she was posted as Secondary Grade Teacher from the post of Typist, she was posted to higher scale of pay and received higher benefits. Hence, when she was deprived of certain benefits including the status, she should have been heard.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that had she been heard before passing the adverse order, she could have pointed out that her appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher was in terms of G.O.Ms.No.63, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 01.04.1997. The learned counsel further submits the appointment was made pursuant to the recommendations of the second respondent in his letter dated 18.08.1997 to the first respondent and it is also further stated that in the order appointing the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher, it is made clear that the appointment was made as per G.O.Ms.No.63, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 01.04.1997.
7. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate seeks to sustain the order reverting the petitioner to the original position and relies on the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, in this regard.
8. I have considered the submissions made by either side. On the face of it, the impugned order is arbitrary and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, since the petitioner was not heard before cancelling the order appointing her as Secondary Grade Teacher. It is well settled that before passing an adverse order resulting in civil consequences, the concerned person should be heard before passing such an order.
9. Furthermore, the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher was in terms of G.O.Ms.No.63, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 01.04.1997. The said G.O is extracted hereunder:-
VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED
10. The petitioner was appointed when no qualified Secondary Grade Teachers were available for appointment to the post. Therefore, the persons with B.Ed., qualifications were directed to be appointed and it was further clarified in the said Government Order that such person would be sent for training in Child Psychology for a month, so that, those persons holding B.Ed., qualification, can be accommodated in the Secondary Grade Teacher post.
11. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that in similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Secretary & Correspondent Uswathun Hasana Oriental (Arabic) Girls Higher Secondary School V. The State of Tamil Nadu (D.B.-A.Kulasekaran, J.) reported in 2002 Writ L.R.173 held that the B.Ed., qualified persons already appointed in Secondary Grade Posts, could continue as Secondary Grade Teachers and a direction was given to impart training in Child Psychology on them, that is required for the Secondary Grade Teachers. Paragraph 10 and 27 of the said judgment is usefully extracted here-under:-
"10. It is admitted that the Government after 10.07.1995 in some occasions in order to clear the backlog vacancies in terms of communal reservation appointed B.Ed., graduate teachers in the vacancy of Secondary Grade subject to the condition that they must undergo training for a period of one month for child psychology conducted by the District Educational Training Centre (DIET) and similarly considering the urgency, the vacancy of teachers in Tamil and Telugu languages in the Secondary Grade Graduate Teachers in the respective languages were appointed with the above said conditions.
27. We appreciate the stand taken by the learned Additional Advocate General, which is a pragmatic stand and has an unshakable base of experience. In order to avoid an undue hardship to these teachers who have been serving for years together in the lower classes even after studying for a graduation degree that too on meagre salaries, it will be better if an exercise is taken for the confirmation of these teachers. The modalities of which may be decided by the State Government. The State Government may decide to give the practical training or may even choose to individually examine each case on its own merits. There may be individual cases where the Management was absolutely justified in employing a graduate teacher and there could be others where there was no such justification. We do not wish to draw the details and leave it to the State Government. However, the State Government shall take up this exercise as we have indicated above providing relief to at least such teachers who have been inducted prior to the dismissal of the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge. We direct accordingly while dismissing the appeals and the writ petitions. No costs."
12. The learned counsel also relies on a decision of this court in W.P.No.4402 of 2006, dated 20.03.2007, which has also arisen in the same department. That case also relates to the appointment of persons with B.Ed., qualification to the Secondary Grade post. In the said case, the existence of G.O.Ms.No.63 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 01.04.1997 was not brought to the notice of this court. In spite of the same, this court was of the view that the experience gained by the teachers as Secondary Grade Teachers, after appointment to the post, is sufficient to continue them in the post. It is also held in the said case that cancelling the appointment without notice is bad in law.
13. I am of the considered view that the impugned order is clearly in violation of G.O.Ms.No.63 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 01.04.1997, besides the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice. Further, in view of the two categorical decisions of this court, referred to above, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.
14. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to post the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher and to regularise her in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher from the date of her appointment to the said post, by sending her for training in Child Psychology for a month as contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.63 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 01.04.1997. The respondents are also directed to complete the exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
rns To
1. The Commissioner of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Chepauk Chennai 5.
2. The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer Madurai