The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for the issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus to cal for the Seniority list dated 08.05.2009 on the file of the 3rd Respondent pursuant to the proceedings of reference in Na.ka.No.6481/D1/09 dated 12.03.2009 of the 2nd Respondent with regard to the Secondary Grade Teacher appointed in the year 1995 and to quash the same with a further direction to the Respondents to enforce the panel prepared and published on 01.01.2009.
2.The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher vide Teachers Recruitment Board in the year 1994. After the interview process was over, the Petitioner joined duty on 27.07.1995 at Panchayat Union Primary School, Saaminathapuram. During his service she was transferred to some other places within the Union and she has completed 14 years of unblemished record of service.
3.It is the further case of the petitioner is that as far as the Secondary Grade Teacher working in the Panchayat Union School, they are governed by the special rules for Tamilnadu Elementary Education Subordinate Service Rules framed under G.o.Ms.No.1383 Education (PUS-1) Department dated 23.08.1988. As per Rule 9, each Panchayat Union shall be a separate unit for the purpose of appointment and promotion. The post of Secondary Grade Teacher is one of the feeder categories for promotion to the post of Headmaster in Elementary School. As per the Rule 8, the crucial date on which candidates should be qualified for promotion to the next cadre is on the first day of January every year.
4.The Specific case of the Petitioner is that the teachers who were appointed in the year 1995 by the Teacher Recruitment Board, a separate Ranking System is followed based on the Marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and also in the interview conducted by the Board. The petitioner secured as Rank No.1633. Apart from that the 3rd and 4th Respondents, according to the petitioner, followed the above rule till date and as per the panel published on 01.01.2008, the seniority of the petitioner is No.2 as far as Sanarpati Union in Dindigul District is concerned.
5.It is also brought to the notice of this court that 8,500 candidates were appointed to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the year 1995, among them the Rank of the Petitioner is 1633. Further the candidates appointed in the year 1995 became eligible for promotion in the year 2007. In the year 01.01.2009 the petitioner secured the top position in the panel as the immediate senior of the petitioner was promoted on 1.1.2008 itself. In the meanwhile one Aysha Sithika gained top position with the Aid of G.O.Ms.388 as per court order. However, all of a sudden by the impugned proceedings in NA. Ka No.6481/B3/9 Dated 12.03.2009 the 2nd Respondent directed the 3rd Respondent to prepare a new panel based on the revised seniority prepared by the 2nd Respondent and the same was circulated in the form of Compact Disk. The said Compact Disk pertains to 1995 Batch alone.
6.The further allegation of the petitioner is that the present compact disc maintains seniority rank which includes the name of sum persons who did not succeed in interview and who did not get appointment in the selection process of the year 1994-1995. Further, in the present list, the petitioner is driven to 10th position from the 2nd place. Further, as per G.O.No.557 issued by the education department dated 10.06.1993, seniority list has been prepared on the 1st day January in every year, in respect of each Panchayat Union and the same should be circulated to all the candidates. Further, the petitioner specifically alleged even in the present list published by the 3rd and 4th respondent on 08.05.2009, the seniority rank is totally confused and the entries number 6,7,11 and 12th entries are example for absolute non application of mind. Hence, the petitioner sought for Certiorified Mandamus with regard to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.6481/D1/09 dated 12.03.2009 of the 2nd respondent and to quash the same.
7.Per contra, it is stated by the 3rd respondent in the counter affidavit filed which is also adopted by the 4th respondent that in order to maintain a uniform position regarding the rank numbers were given to the teachers of 1995 batch and the compact disc containing correct rank number without any deviation. Further, it is submitted by the aforesaid respondent that the panel for promotion to the post of Primary school head master for the year 2008 was prepared by incorrect rank number as provided by the petitioner and she wrongly placed in the 2nd position. Further, it is stated that except to the petitioner, no other teachers have come forwarded that they are grievance having in respect of preparation of compact disc. So, the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
8.I heard Mr.N.Ananthapadmanaban, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. This Court after careful perusal of the entire materials available on record including a counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent and endorsed by the 4th respondent also.
9.It is the admitted fact that the petitioner is appointed as secondary grade teacher in the year 1995 based on the examination conducted by the teacher recruitment board. It is also admitted fact as per as the secondary grade teacher appointed in the year 1995, they have been placed as a unit and for their seniority and promotion the crucial date was fixed on 1st day of January every year. It is also an admitted fact that till 2008, the secondary grade teachers selected through teacher?s recruitment board were given promotion based on their rank assigned to them. However, it is the case of the respondent that in the year 2008, there were vide spread complaint received by the 2nd respondent regarding the bogus rank number used by several teachers and in order to maintain a uniform position, the compact disc consisting seniority list was issued. Though, this specific allegation is raised by the respondent, to substantiate the same, no documentary evidence is given by the respondents.
10.It is duty of the respondents to substantiate the allegation by furnishing legally acceptable evidence. It cannot be stated in year that the compact disc was introduced due to vide spread complaint in respect of bogus rank number. Moreover, it is shocking to note that the panel for promotion for the year 2008 to the post of primary school head master was prepared based on the incorrect number given by the petitioner herself and she was placed secondary position. This contention is unacceptable and the same would show that the respondents are lethargic in preparing in the panel. It is for their duty to prepare the panel as per the seniority list maintained by them. All of a sudden they cannot do through the petitioner from the 2nd place to 10th position. Further, the respondents are not justified the preparation of compact disc without prior notice to the concerns teachers. Moreover the respondents are not able to substantiate the compelling necessity of the introduction of seniority list in the compact disc. Apart from that the seniority of the petitioner is from the year 1995 that cannot be shuffled all of a sudden in the year 2008 that too without any prior notice to the petitioner and the respective teachers concerned.
11.In the light of the above discussion, this court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has substantiated their case by way of documentary evidence and the respondents are not justify the case in the preparation of panel for seniority by way of compact disc. The said exercise was nothing but arbitrary. Hence, the same would not stand in the way of the seniority of the petitioner maintained till 2008.
12.In the result:
a) this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the 2nd respondent in respect of including her name in the seniority list in the appropriate place by narrating all the facts within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
b) the 2nd respondent is hereby directed to consider her case by giving personal opportunity and put her name in the seniority list pertaining to the order dated 08.05.2009.
c) after placing her in the appropriate place in the seniority list and to give appropriate promotion to the petitioner, by giving all monetary benefits.
d) the said exercise shall be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2.The Director of Elementary Education, Chepauk, Chennai-600 006.
3.The District Elementary Education Officer, Dindigul District.
4.The Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Shanarpatti, Dindigul Taluk and District.
.