Madras High Court
The Secretary vs Mr.S.Rajamohan on 7 July, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1327 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1327 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.5533 of 2021
1.The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
D.P.I Campus, College Road,
Chennai-600 006
3.The Director of Elementary Education,
School Education, D.P.I Campus,
College Road, Chennai-600 006.
: Appellants/Respondents 1 to 3
Vs.
Mr.S.Rajamohan : Respondent/Writ Petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.A.(MD)No.1327 of 2021
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
praying to set aside the order passed in W.P(MD)No.5846 of 2020, dated
20.03.2020 on the file of this Hon'ble Court and allow this Writ Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.A.K.Manickam
Standing Counsel for Government
For Respondent : Mr.G.Anto Prince
JUDGMENT
***************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
We have heard Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Standing Counsel for
Government appearing for the appellants and Mr.G.Anto Prince, learned
Counsel appearing for the respondent.
2.This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated
20.03.2020, in W.P(MD)No.5846 of 2020.
3.Identical issue has been considered by this Court in W.A.
(MD)No.299 of 2020 etc., batch dated 01.06.2021. The operative portion
of the judgment reads as follows:
“5 4 . Firstly, respondents 1 to 18 should have locus
standi to raise such an issue. Only if they satisfy such
condition, they can question the panel, which was
impugned in the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1327 of 2021
5 5 . In the preceding paragraphs, we have held
that respondents 1 to 18 cannot compare themselves with
that of the appellants and this comparison itself is on
account of their plea that they are entitled to be regularised
in service with effect from the date of original appointment
as Junior Grade Teacher on consolidated wage. We have
categorically held that such a plea is untenable and not
sustainable. Consequently, respondents 1 to 18 have no locus
standi to question the penal, which was impugned in the writ
petition.
5 6 . It is further submitted by the learned counsel
for respondents 1 to 18 that in respect of the Graduate
Assistant Teachers and P.G. Assistant Teachers, the
Department regularised their services by G.O.Ms.No.336
dated 30.12.2009 and those teachers were appointed under
various Government Orders during the year 1990 on fixed
consolidated pay for two years. The teachers filed W.P.No.
221 of 1991 in which an order was passed that all
appointments made pursuant to the Government Orders
shall be treated as regular appointment with effect from the
date of initial appointment and the writ appeals filed by the
Government in W.A.Nos.14002 to 14041 of 2001 and 307 of
2006 were dismissed and the Government implemented the
judgment by issuing G.O.Ms.No.336 dated 30.12.2009 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1327 of 2021
sanctioned time scale of pay from the date of their
respective appointments. The said decision would apply to
the case of respondents 1 to 18 also.
5 7 . In our considered view, the said decision
regularising the teachers, who were appointed in the year
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.
5 8 . The learned counsel has placed reliance on
the decision in the case of Direct Recruit Class I I Engineering Officers
A ssociation vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [(1990) 2 S C C 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1327 of 2021
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
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.
5 9 . 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1327 of 2021
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.
6 0 . 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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1327 of 2021
4.Following the same, this Writ Appeal is also allowed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
07.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MR
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.1327 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
MR
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.1327 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1327 of 2021
07.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
