Madras High Court
The Secretary vs Mrs.S.Sujatha on 6 July, 2021
W.A.(MD) No.1305 to 1316 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1305 to 1316 of 2021
and C.M.P.(MD)No.4271 of 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1305 of 2021
1.The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Director of Elementary Education,
School Education,
DPI Campus,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006. ...Appellants
-Vs-
Mrs.S.Sujatha ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent against the
order dated 20.03.2020 made in W.P.(MD)No.5829 of 2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.1305 to 1316 of 2021
For Appellants : Mr.A.K.Manikkam,
(In all W.As.) Standing Counsel for Government
For Respondents : Ms.G.K.Chitradevi,
(In all W.As) for Mr.J.Anto Prince.
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.,]
Heard Mr.A.K.Manikkam, learned Standing Counsel for the
Government, appearing on behalf of the appellants and
Ms.G.K.Chitradevi, for Mr.J.Anto Prince, learned counsel appearing of
the respondents.
2. These Writ Appeals are directed against the common order
made in W.P.(MD) Nos.5829 of 2020 etc. batch, dated 20.03.2020.
3. The identical order was considered for its correctness in batch of
Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD)Nos.299 of 2021 etc., batch, and by judgment
dated 01.06.2021, the Writ Appeals were allowed. The operative
portions of the said judgment read as follows:
“57.In our considered view, the said decision
regularising the teachers, who were appointed in the year
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.1305 to 1316 of 2021
1990 can be of no assistance to respondents 1 to 18 herein.
The reason being the terms and conditions of their
appointment and how they were treated at the first instance.
Above all, respondents 1 to 18, having accepted the
appointments, joined the post, worked on consolidated
wages and having enjoyed the benefit of regularisation
granted in 2006, which itself was a big concession granted
to them, are wholly estopped from contending that the
services rendered by them as Junior Grade Teachers on
consolidated pay should also be reckoned for all purposes
including monetary benefits. The plea is thoroughly
misconceived. Equally the decision in W.P.Nos.21316 and
21317 of 2015 can in no manner advance the case of
respondents 1 to 18.
58.The learned counsel has placed reliance on the
decision in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering
Officers Association vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
[(1990) 2 SCC 715]. This decision can be made applicable
to determine the status of a person, who was appointed to a
post according to the rule and status of a person, who was
appointed on ad hoc basis and not according to rules. In
the first category of cases, it has been held that they should
be given the benefit of seniority and their period of service
shall be counted from the date of their appointment and not
from the date of their regularisation or confirmation. This
decision cannot be applied to the case of respondents 1 to
18, as they were appointed to a post, which was a post
created by downgrading an existing post, given a different
nomenclature, viz. Junior Grader Teacher with salary paid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.1305 to 1316 of 2021
on consolidated basis. The terms and conditions of
recruitment were made known to all the candidates
including respondents 1 to 18. Therefore, they can never
raise a plea that their recruitment having been done by
TRB, is in accordance with the Rule and therefore, their
seniority should be counted from the date of appointment.
It may be true that the recruitment was done by the TRB,
but it was a special recruitment for a specific purpose to a
special category of post with wages on consolidated basis.
Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
cannot be applied to the case of respondents 1 to 18.
59. That apart, the belated attempt made by the
respondents / writ petitioners is liable to be rejected for
several reasons. Firstly, they are estopped from contending
contray to the Government Orders, contrary to the terms
and conditions of the Government Orders and contrary to
the conditions contained in the agreement to which they
have agreed. Secondly, the challenge to the policy decision
to downgrade the post to that of the Junior Grade Teacher
was rejected and the decision of the Government has been
upheld. The request made by some of the teachers to reckon
the period of service prior to 01.06.2006 was directed to be
considered by the Director of School Education pursuant to
an order passed in a writ petition. The representation was
considered and rejected and the same has not been
challenged and after lapse of nearly fourteen years,
suddenly the respondents / writ petitions have come up with
this fanciful claim, which is absolutely untenable and
unsustainable in law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.1305 to 1316 of 2021
60. The present attempt of the respondents / writ
petitioners is to march over the regularly promoted PG
Assistants, who are only 62 number, whereas the Junior
Grade Teachers, like the respondents / writ petitioners are
more than 3000. Thus, the relief sought for by the
respondents / writ petitioners is misconceived and liable to
be rejected and accordingly, rejected.
61. In the result, the writ appeals are allowed and
the orders and directions issued in the writ petitions are set
aside and consequently, the writ petitions are dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.”
4. Following the said Judgment, these Writ Appeals are allowed on
the same lines and the orders and directions issued in the Writ Petitions
are set aside and consequently, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[T.S.S. J.,] [S.A.I. J.,]
06.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
vsm
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.1305 to 1316 of 2021
T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.,
and
S.ANANTHI, J.,
vsm
W.A.(MD)No.1305 to 1316 of 2021
and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.5464 to 5476 of 2021
06.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
