Madras High Court
The Director Of School Education vs T.G.Rama on 9 April, 2021
WA.No.78 of 2021
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated : 09.4.2021
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN
And
The Honourable Mr.Justice P.RAJAMANICKAM
Writ Appeal No.78 of 2021 & CMP.No.635 of 2021
1.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, Chennai-6.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Salem.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Vazhapadi …Appellants
Vs
T.G.Rama, Middle School
Headmaster, Government Middle
School, Muthampatti,
Vazhapadi Ondriyam,
Vazhapadi Block, Salem District. …Respondent
APPEAL under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 06.1.2020 made in W.P.No.34450 of 2019.
For Appellants : Mr.C.Munusamy, SGP (Education)
For Respondent : Mrs.Dhakshayani Reddy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.78 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.78 of 2021
Judgment was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J
The respondents in W.P.No.34450 of 2019 are the appellants
herein.
2. The respondent herein filed the said writ petition praying for
the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records of the second appellant dated 09.10.2018, quashing the same
and consequently directing the respondents to step up the pay of the
respondent herein on par with her junior Ms.P.Rajeswari as per the law
laid down by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.742 of 2018 dated 07.2.2018.
W.P.No.34450 of 2019 came to be allowed by the impugned order
dated 06.1.2020. Making a challenge to the same, the writ appeal is
filed.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
appellants made an attempt to draw the attention of this Court to the
additional typed set of papers and would submit that the reasons
assigned by the learned Single Judge to allow W.P.No.34450 of 2019
are per se unsustainable and prayed for interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.78 of 2021
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
herein – writ petitioner would submit that in a similar situation, the
Hon’ble First Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 18.3.2021 in
W.A.No.178 of 2021 [Director of School Education, DPI
Campus, College Road, Chennai-6 and two others Vs.
S.Premavathi], dismissed the writ appeal. She has further pointed
out that even factually, the respondent herein is senior to the said
Ms.P.Rajeswari and she also got incentive increment prior to the said
Ms.P.Rajeswari and since the impugned order, which is the subject
matter of challenge in W.P.No.34450 of 2019, contains elaborate
reasons, this Court may not interfere in exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and prays for
dismissal of the same.
5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and
perused the materials placed on record.
6. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition are narrated in
extenso in the impugned order passed in W.P.No.34450 of 2019, which
is the subject matter of challenge and for the sake of brevity, it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.78 of 2021
unnecessary to re-state the facts once again.
7. The respondent herein was appointed as a Secondary Grade
Teacher in the year 1990 at Krishnapuram Panchayat, Salem and got
transferred to Vazhapadi Block with effect from 20.6.1990. Her
services were regularized with declaration of probation. The
respondent herein was promoted to the post of Elementary School
Headmaster and got further promotion to the post of Middle School
Headmaster with effect from 01.6.2008. The respondent herein,
having found that her junior namely the said Ms.P.Rajeswari is getting
more pay than her and that there was an anomaly, invoked Rule 22 of
the Fundamental Rules and submitted a representation. However, the
representation given by the respondent herein was rejected by the
second appellant herein vide proceedings dated 09.10.2018. In the
challenge made by her by filing W.P.No.34450 of 2019, the respondent
herein became successful.
8. On a perusal of the facts extracted in the impugned order,
which is the subject matter of challenge, it is seen that the respondent
herein joined at Krishnapuram Panchayat on 05.1.1990 whereas the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.78 of 2021
said Ms.P.Rajeswari joined the services only on 07.12.1990.
Thereafter, the respondent herein got transferred to Vazhapadi Block
on 20.6.1990 whereas the said Ms.P.Rajeswari joined only on
19.6.1991.
9. The learned Single judge, in paragraph 7 of the impugned
order, recorded the said facts. The learned Single Judge also took note
of the order dated 19.2.2019 in W.P.(MD).No.24551 of 2018, which
has been subsequently followed in W.P.(MD).No.6358 of 2019 dated
25.4.2019. As per the said decisions, even after transfer of the teacher
to the new division placing the teacher at the bottom of the seniority
list, the fact remains that the junior had got into the new division only
at a later point of time and she cannot be permitted to take a march
over a senior teacher. The learned Single Judge, having found on the
facts and circumstances of the case that the said Ms.P.Rajeswari is
junior to the respondent herein, held that the respondent herein is
entitled to seek pay parity on par with her junior and accordingly
disposed of the writ petition by the impugned order with a direction to
the second appellant to treat the respondent herein on par with her
junior - the said Ms.P.Rajeswari and extend all consequential benefits
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.78 of 2021
within a stipulated time.
10. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the second
appellant dated 09.10.2018, which was the subject matter of challenge
in W.P.No.34450 of 2019, would disclose that the second appellant
herein proceeded on the footing that there are no rules available to
step up the pay forgetting the fact that Rule 22-B of the Fundamental
Rules is available. The facts of the case would also disclose that
admittedly, the said Ms.P.Rajeswari is junior to the respondent herein
and she is getting more pay. The learned Single Judge had taken note
of the rule position in the facts and circumstances of the case and the
order dated 19.2.2019 in W.P.No.(MD).No.24551 of 2018, which has
been followed in the order dated 25.4.2019 in W.P.(MD).No.6358 of
2019 and has rightly reached the conclusion to confer the benefits
upon the respondent herein on par with her junior - the said Ms.P.
Rajeswari.
11. In the considered view of this Court, the reasons assigned in
the impugned order are perfectly justifiable and there is no error or
infirmity apparent on the face of the records. This Court finds no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.78 of 2021
merits in the writ appeal.
12. Accordingly, the above writ appeal is dismissed confirming
the order dated 06.1.2020 in W.P.No.34450 of 2019. The appellants
are directed to comply with the order dated 06.1.2020 made in W.P.
No.34450 of 2019 as confirmed in this writ appeal within eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment or uploading of the
judgment in the website and communicate the decision to the
respondent herein – writ petitioner. No costs. Consequently, the
connected CMP is also dismissed.
09.4.2021
Speaking Order
Internet : Yes
RS
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.78 of 2021
M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J
AND
P.RAJAMANICKAM,J
RS
WA.No.78 of 2021 &
CMP.No.635 of 2021
09.4.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
