Madras High Court
R.Latha vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 August, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.8546 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
W.P.(MD)No.8546 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 4 of 2013
R.Latha ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
through its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, St.George Fort,
Chennai.
2.The Director,
Directorate of Elementary Education,
DPI, Nungambakkam, Chennai.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Karur District, Karur.
4.The Assistant Elementary Education Officer,
Karur, Karur District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the
impugned panel for the year 2013 issued by the third respondent herein as on
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8546 of 2013
01.01.2013 and quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to
prepare and publish panel by including the name of the petitioner in the panel of
eligible Primary School Headmasters for promotion to the post of Middle School
Headmaster for the year 2013 as on 01.01.2013 and promote the petitioner as
Middle School Headmistress, if the petitioner is satisfied the other requirements
for promotion.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gnanagurunathan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Linga Durai
Government Advocate
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to quash the impugned panel issued by the third respondent for the
year 2013 and consequently, to direct the respondents to prepare and publish
panel by including the name of the petitioner in the panel of eligible Primary
School Headmaster for promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster for
the year 2013 and to promote the petitioner as Middle School Headmistress.
2.Heard Mr.M.Gnanagurunathan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8546 of 2013
3.The petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Grade Teacher in the
Panchayat Union School, Sengodampalayam, Tiruppur District, on 14.06.1984.
The petitioner's probation was declared on 13.06.1986. The petitioner was later
transferred to Karur Union on 11.07.1994. The petitioner was upgraded as
Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 01.09.1998. Since it was required for
upgradation, the petitioner has completed two years Teacher Training Course
conducted by Tamil Nadu Education Research and Training Institute (TET). It is
not in dispute that the petitioner is eligible to get posting as Secondary Grade
Teacher.
4.The petitioner was given Selection Grade in the post of Secondary
Grade Teacher from 01.09.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as
Primary School Headmistress on 13.09.2004 and was given Selection Grade in
the said post on 01.09.2008. The petitioner has come forward with the specific
case that she is eligible for promotion to the post of Middle School Headmistress.
A panel of eligible Primary School Headmasters for promotion to the post of
Middle School Headmasters as on 01.01.2012 was prepared and the petitioner's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8546 of 2013
name was found in Sl.No.7 and the petitioner was not considered for promotion.
However, the third respondent has prepared another panel of eligible Primary
School Headmasters for promotion to the post of Middle School Headmasters for
the year 2013 as on 01.01.2013 and the petitioner could not find her name in the
said panel. When the petitioner questioned the non-inclusion of her name in the
2013 promotional panel, it was orally informed that the petitioner had obtained
the degree without the qualification of Higher Secondary (Plus-2).
5.It is the case of the petitioner that she had studied SSLC in the year
1981 and completed two years Teacher Training Course conducted by Tamil Nadu
Education Research and Training Institute (TET) in the year 1983. The petitioner
states that she has acquired degree in B.Lit.(Tamil) in the year 1993 and M.A., in
the year 1999, apart from the degree in B.Ed., in the year 2011. In view of the
completion of Teacher Training Course in 1983, the petitioner claimed that she is
eligible, as she had acquired Teacher Training Course, which was treated as
equivalent to Plus-2. Stating that the Teacher Training Course undergone by the
petitioner after completing SSCL is equivalent to Higher Secondary (Plus-2) and
the Government also passed an order recognising the equivalence, the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8546 of 2013
comes forward with this Writ Petition challenging the impugned panel for the
promotion to the post of Middle School Headmasters for the year 2013 issued by
the third respondent.
6.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner after
completing SSLC had undergone a two years Teacher Training Course conducted
by the Tamil Nadu Education Research and Training Institute (TET). Since the
Teacher Training Course undergone by the petitioner is held to be equivalent to
Plus-2 by the Government as well as by this Court in several precedents, it is
submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is eligible
for promotion to the post of Middle School Headmistress and her name ought to
have been included in the panel.
7.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government
had also passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.242, dated 18.12.2012 by recognising the
equivalence. In other words, it was suggested by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner that vide G.O.Ms.No.242, dated 18.12.2012, the Government has
recognised the two years Teacher Training Course as equivalent to Plus-2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8546 of 2013
However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to satisfy this Court that
G.O.Ms.No.242, dated 18.12.2012 recognises the Teacher Training Course as
equivalent to Plus-2.
8.Be that as it may, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a
few judgments of this Court to support his contention that this Court has accepted
the two years Teacher Training Course as equivalent to Plus-2. In W.P.Nos.24495
to 24497 of 2012, in the case of K.Chandrasekaran and others vs the Secretary
to Government of Tamil Nadu and others, the learned Single Judge of this Court
has held that the Teacher Training Course should be taken equivalent to Higher
Secondary Course (Plus-2). Paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the said judgment are
relevant and the same is extracted herein below:
“3.According to the petitioners, they did not study Higher
Secondary Course (+2). The Teacher Training Course which they were
undergone for two years after completing SSLC should be construed to be
equivalent to Higher Secondary Course (+2). Therefore, according to the
petitioners, they are also eligible for promotion as B.T.Assistants based on
their respective U.G., as well as B.Ed degree.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would bring to my notice
the common order passed in a batch of writ petition by the Hon'ble
Ms.Justice K.Suguna in W.P.Nos.25432 of 2011 and etc., batch cases dated
02.07.2012, wherein, the learned Judge after having considered
elaborately all the above aspects, including the instruction impugned in
these writ petitions, has held that the Teacher Training Course should be
construed to be equivalent to Higher Secondary Course (+2) and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8546 of 2013
therefore, though the petitioners therein had not undergone Higher
Secondary Course(+2), they will be entitled for promotion as
B.T.Assistants, since the U.G. and B.Ed. degrees obtained by them after
completing the Teacher Training Course is sufficient qualification for such
promotion. In my considered opinion, the petitioners who stand in the
similar footing are also entitled for the same relief.”
9.The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a judgment of
the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Government of
Tamil Nadu vs C.Umamaheshwari, in W.A.No.3259 of 2019. The issue that
arose before the Honourable Division Bench of this Court was whether the
qualification of the Writ Petitioner therein having a Diploma in Teacher
Education can be treated on par with Plus-2. The Writ Petition filed by the
Teacher therein was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by holding
that the Diploma in Teacher Education is equivalent to Plus-2. The said judgment
was affirmed by the Honourable Division Bench in the above judgment. The
Honourable Division Bench in the said judgment has held that the learned Single
Judge has rightly considered that the two years course of Diploma in Teacher
Education undergone by the respondent therein is equivalent to Higher Secondary
Course, as it was decided by another Honourable Division Bench of this Court in
the case of E.Ganesan vs Government of Tami Nadu in W.A.No.3259 of 2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8546 of 2013
10.This Court, in view of the binding precedents, is unable to resist the
contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
11.The learned Government Advocate, however, submitted that the
Honourable Division Bench of this Court in a recent judgment in
S.Deenadhayalan vs State of Tamil Nadu in W.A.No.519 of 2020, dated
16.04.2021, has not approved the Diploma in Teacher Training as equivalent to
10-+2 pattern.
12.It is to be noted that the facts of the case dealt with by the Honourable
Division Bench in the above case are entirely different and the Writ Petitioners
therein had only a qualification of 8th standard to join the service of the
respondents as subordinate staff after undergoing the graduation course
straightaway without even studying SSLC and Plus-2. In order to maintain
consistency in judicial verdicts, this Court has to follow the judgment of
Honourable Division Bench of this Court, as no new circumstances or
distinguishing factor is brought to the notice of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8546 of 2013
13.As a result, the impugned panel for promotion for the year 2013 by
the third respondent is quashed and the respondents are directed to prepare the
panel by including the name of the petitioner in the panel of eligible Primary
School Headmasters for promotion to the post of Middle School Headmasters for
the year 2013. It is stated that the petitioner is working as Headmistress of
Primary School and that her juniors were promoted to the post of Middle School
Headmasters based on the panel prepared in the year 2012. Hence, the
respondents are also directed to consider the promotion of the petitioner with
effect from the date on which, the petitioner's juniors were promoted to the post
of Middle School Headmasters as per 2012 panel. The entire exercise shall be
completed within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
14.With the above directions, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
18.08.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
cmr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8546 of 2013
To
1.The Secretary,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, St.George Fort,
Chennai.
2.The Director,
Directorate of Elementary Education,
DPI, Nungambakkam, Chennai.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Karur District, Karur.
4.The Assistant Elementary Education Officer,
Karur, Karur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8546 of 2013
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
cmr
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.8546 of 2013
18.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
