Madras High Court
P.Vengatachalam vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 1 February, 2022
W.A(MD)Nos.2163 of 2021(batch)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:01.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.A(MD)No.2163 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.10543 and 10547 of 2021
and
W.A(MD)No.2164 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.10545 and 10548 of 2021
and
W.A(MD)No.2178 to 2182 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.10694, 10697, 10699, 10701 & 10704 of 2021
and
W.A(MD)No.2183 to 2189 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.10696, 10695, 10698, 10700, 10702, 10703,
10705, 10706, 10707, 10708, 10710, 10709, 10714, 10712 of
2021
and
W.A(MD)No.2197 to 2211 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.10917, 10915, 10908, 10910, 10905 10906, 10919,
10918, 10113, 10914, 10909, 109011, 10903,10904, 10897,
10897, 10894, 10891, 10892, 10883, 10887, 10899, 10900,
10898, 10896, 10893, 10895, 10888, 10890, 10885 of 2021
W.A(MD)No.2163 of 2021:
P.Vengatachalam,
Block Resource Teacher Educator,
Block Resource Centre,
Chinnamanur,
Theni District. ... Appellant / Petitioner
1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.2163 of 2021(batch)
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of School Education,
Directorate of School Education,
D.P.I. Campus, College Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The State Project Director,
Samagra Shiksha,
D.P.I. Campus, College Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.
4.The Joint Director of
School Education(Personnel,
D.P.I. Campus, College Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.
5.The Chief Educational Officer,
Theni District,
Theni. ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set
aside the order dated 24.11.2021 passed in W.P(MD)No.16677 of 2021.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Subramanian for
Mr.M.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.Veerakathiravan,
Additional Advocate General, assisted by
Mr.P.Subbaraj,
Special Government Pleader
2/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.2163 of 2021(batch)
W.A(MD)No.2164 of 2021:
C.Arunadevi ... Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of School Education,
EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Campus,
College Road, Nungampakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The State Project Director,
Samagra Shiksha,
D.P.I. Campus, Nungampakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
4.The Joint Director of School Education(Personnel),
EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Campus,
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
5.The Chief Educational Officer,
O/o.the Chief Educational Officer,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai. ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set
aside the order dated 24.11.2021 passed in W.P(MD)No.16313 of 2021.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi
For Respondents : Mr.Veerakathiravan,
Additional Advocate General, assisted by
3/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.2163 of 2021(batch)
Mr.M.Siddharthan,
Additional Government Pleader
W.A(MD)Nos.2178 of 2182 of 2021:
K.Kasthuri Thilagam ... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2178 of 2021/
Writ Petitioner
M.Rajarajan ... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2179 of 2021/
Writ Petitioner
D.Jeyasri ... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2180 of 2021/
Writ Petitioner
Palaniyammal ... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2181 of 2021
Writ Petitioner
H.David Charles ... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2182 of 2021/
Writ Petitioner
vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of School Education,
EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Campus,
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
3.The State Project Director,
Samagra Shiksha,
D.P.I. Campus, Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
4.The Director of School Education (Personal),
EVK Sampath Maalai, DPI Campus,
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
4/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.2163 of 2021(batch)
5.The Joint Director of School Education(Personnel),
EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Campus,
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
6.The Chief Educational Officer,
O/o.the Chief Educational Officer,
Thanjavur,
Thanjavur District. ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set
aside the order dated 24.11.2021 passed in W.P(MD)Nos.16506, 16507,
16508, 16509, 16510 of 2021.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Sankaran
For Respondents : Mr.Veerakathiravan,
Additional Advocate General, assisted by
Mr.P.Subbaraj,
Special Government Pleader
W.A(MD)Nos.2183 to 2189 of 2021:
S.Jebaselvi ... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2183 of 2021
/Writ Petitioner
M.Rajalakshmi ... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2184 of 2021/
Writ Petitioner
M.Nirmala ... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2185 of 2021/
Writ Petitioner
R.Ravichandran ... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2186 of 2021/
Writ Petitioner
M.Ganesan ... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2187 of 2021/
Writ Petitioner
5/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.2163 of 2021(batch)
C.Sasikala ... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2188 of 2021/
Writ Petitioner
J.Porkodi Poomozhi ... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2189 of 2021/
Writ Petitioner
vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of School Education,
Directorate of School Education,
D.P.I. Campus, College Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The State Project Director,
Samagra Shiksha,
D.P.I. Campus, College Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.
4.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel),
D.P.I. Campus, College Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.
5.The Chief Educational Officer,
Theni District,
Theni. ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set
aside the order dated 24.11.2021 passed in W.P(MD)Nos.16678, 16679,
16680, 16681, 16682, 16683 and 16685 of 2021.
For Appellants :Ms.Nalini Chidambaram,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.M.Saravanan
6/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.2163 of 2021(batch)
For Respondents :Mr.Veerakathiravan,
Additional Advocate General, assisted by
Mr.P.Thilakkumar,
Government Pleader
W.A(MD)Nos.2197 to 2211 of 2021:
M.Arockiya Rajkumar
... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2197 of 2021/Petitioner
L.Pandima Devi ... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2198 of 2021/Petitioner
A.Joselin Victor ... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2199 of 2021/Petitioner
Saralakshmi ... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2200 of 2021/Petitioner
Arokiya Amala Loyala
... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2201 of 2021/Petitioner
E.S.Suji ... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2202 of 2021/Petitioner
T.S.Mallika ... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2203 of 2021/Petitioner
K.Amutha ... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2204 of 2021/Petitioner
Sheela Wincy ... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2205 of 2021/Petitioner
R.Victoria ... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2206 of 2021/Petitioner
Angelin Kavitha
... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2207 of 2021/Petitioner
Irine ... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2208 of 2021/Petitioner
S.Berla Pushparani
... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2209 of 2021/Petitioner
J.Mercy Jeba Angel
... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2210 of 2021/Petitioner
S.Jayasheela
... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.2211 of 2021/Petitioner
7/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.2163 of 2021(batch)
vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of School Education,
EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Campus,
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The State Project Director,
Samagra Shiksha,
D.P.I. Campus, Nungampakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
4.The Joint Director of School Education(Personnel),
EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Campus,
College Road, Nungampakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
5.The Chief Educational Officer,
O/o.the Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram. .... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set
aside the order dated 24.11.2021 passed in W.P(MD)Nos.16310, 16312,
163400, 16431, 16432, 16435, 16436, 16438, 16440, 16441, 16443,
16439, 16663, 16665 and 16669 of 2021.
For Appellants :Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi
For Respondents :Mr.Veerakathiravan,
Additional Advocate General, assisted by
Mr.P.Subbaraj,
Special Government Pleader
8/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.2163 of 2021(batch)
COMMON JUDGMENT
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
These writ appeals are directed against the order dated 24.11.2021
passed in W.P(MD)Nos.16677 and 16313 of 2021.
2. The appellants, who are the Block Resource
Teachers Educators (BRTEs) challenge the Clauses
4(I)(m)(c) of G.O.(1D) No.134, School Education (Pa.Ka.5) (1)
Department dated 18.08.2021. The Government of Tamil Nadu
implemented a Scheme 'Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan' (now integrated as
'Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan'(in short 'SSA'). The said 'SSA' Scheme aimed
at universalizing elementary education for all children in the group of age
6 to 14 years and to improve the quality of imparting education in
Government, Government Aided Primary, Middle, High and Higher
Secondary Schools. Under the said Scheme, the Block Resource Teachers
Educators(in short 'BRTEs') were selected. By G.O.Ms.No.16 School
Education (Q2) Department dated 05.02.2002, the Post of BRTE and the
Post of regular B.T. Assistants were held to be inter changeable. While so,
another Government Order was issued in G.O.Ms.No.158 School
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.2163 of 2021(batch)
Education(C2) Department dated 07.09.2006, directing transfer of 500
BRTEs as B.T. Assistants in various Government Schools. As per the said
G.O., the first respondent had directed to transfer 500 BRTEs as Graduate
Assistants in various Government Schools periodically based on the
seniority. Accordingly, 500 BRTEs were being absorbed or transferred in
the Government High and Higher Secondary Schools every academic year
from 2006 – 2007. The said G.O., however, provided for an option to the
BRTEs to make representation expressing their willingness to remain in
the 'SSA' Scheme instead of getting conversion to the Government
Schools as B.T. Assistant. Their willingness was accepted and they were
allowed to continue as BRTEs by the Joint Director of School Education
Personnel.
3. The BRTEs are to train the Teachers in the Government Schools.
There was yet another G.O.(1D) No.652, School Education
Department(pa.ka.3(2) Department, dated 31.10.2017, wherein the first
respondent directed transfer of 350 BRTEs who were selected during the
academic year 2005-2006 and appointed prior to G.O.Ms.No.181 School
Education (C2) Department dated 15.11.2011 to Government Schools as
Graduate Assistants. Later, the said G.O was partially modified by another
G.O.(1D) 751, School Education (pa.ka(2) Department dated 12.12.2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.2163 of 2021(batch)
The above said G.O. provided for transfer of 350 BRTEs selected and
appointed prior to G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 15.11.2011 in the academic year
2017-2018 by conducting counselling. A guideline was also issued for
implementing the above said G.Os dated 31.10.2017 and 12.12.2017.
Therefore, by virtue of the above said G.Os, it has been stated that those
BRTEs who were willing to get transfer to Government Schools as
B.T. Assistants can participate in the counselling and they were given an
option to relinquish. While so, G.O.(1D)No.218 School Education(Pa.Ka.
5(1) Department dated 20.06.2019 was issued framing guidelines for
general counselling for transfer of the Teachers working in the
Government Schools. In Paragraph No.17 of the said G.O, it was
specifically stated that so far as BRTEs are concerned, separate guidelines
would be issued. However, no such guideline was issued by the first
respondent. Hence, a Writ Petition in W.P.No.27085 of 2019 was filed
before the Principal Bench of this Court seeking a direction to the
respondents to frame separate guidelines as per Clause 17 of
G.O.(1D)No.218 dated 20.06.2019. Pursuant to the said direction,
G.O.(1D).No.134 School Education[pa.ka.5(1)] Department, dated
18.08.2021, was issued which was impugned in a batch of writ petitions.
The petitioners were aggrieved only by Clause 4(I)(m)(c) of the said
G.O., which is extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.2163 of 2021(batch)
“(m) 2021 – 2022 -Mk; fy;tp Mz;oy;
gzpK:g;g[ mog;gilapy; 500 Mrphpah; gapw;Weh;fs; (2002 – 2003 Kjy;
epakpf;fg;gl;l 32 Mrphpah; gapw;Weh;fSk; 2005-2006-y; epakpf;fg;gl;l
468 Mrphpah; gapw;Weh;fSk; Mf bkhj;jk; 500 gapw;Weh;fs;) (jkpH; -5
Mq;fpyk;-67, fzpjk;-271, mwptpay; 148, kw;Wk; rK:f mwptpay;-9)
muR cah;epiy / nky;epiyg; gs;spfSf;F gzpK:g;g[ mog;gilapy; gl;ljhhp
Mrphpah;fshf gzpaplkhWjy; bra;jply; ntz;Lk;. jw;nghJ njh;t[ bra;ag;gLk;
gzpapy; K:j;j 500 Mrphpah; gapw;Weh;fs; gzpkhWjYf;F tpUg;gkpd;ik
bjhptpj;J gzpapy; bjhluf;nfhhpdhy; mjid mDkjpf;f njitapy;iy. ,ij
nghy; xt;bthU Mz;Lk; gzpapy; K:jj; 500 Mrphpah; gapw;Weh;fs; gl;ljhhp
Mrphpah;fshf gzp khWjy; bra;jy; ntz;Lk;.
(c)Mrphpag; gapw;Weh;fspd; gzpapl khWjy; fye;jha;t[ elj;jg;gLk;
ehspy; Mrphpah; gapw;Weh;fSf;fhd midj;J gzpaplq;fSk; (khepy
jpl;l ,af;ffk;, khtl;l jpl;l mYtyfk; (tl;lhu tsikak;) gzpepakd
K:g;gpd; mog;gilapy; k;) fhypg; gzpaplkhf (Zero Vacancy) fUjg;gl;L
gzpepakd K:g;gpd; mog;gilapy; khWjy; fye;jha;t[ elj;jg;glntz;Lk;.”
4. The grievance of the writ petitioners was that the post of BRTEs
and the regular B.T Assistants are interchangeable and they may be
transferred in the High/Higher Secondary Schools. When the counselling
was conducted in the year 2012 – 2013, there was an option for
continuing as BRTEs by relinquishing their right of conversion to
Government Schools. But, the impugned clause in G.O.(1D).No.134
School Education(pa.ka.5(1) Department, dated 18.08.2021, the said
option was taken away. Besides their grievance is that BRTEs are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.2163 of 2021(batch)
compelled to get conversion to Government Schools as B.T. Assistants on
the basis of seniority. The writ petitioners having seniority within 500
BRTEs are compelled to get conversion to the Government Schools.
Therefore, it is contended that 500 persons having seniority are not given
the option to continue as BRTEs which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India.
5. The further contention of the appellants was that as per Clause
4(I) (c) of the G.O., all the Posts of BRTEs throughout the State were
treated as 'Zero vacancy' and the transfer counselling would be conducted
for the entire State and thereby compelling all the BRTEs to participate in
the counselling. Since the earlier G.Os did not compel all of them to go
for counselling and had given an option to continue to be BRTEs, treating
the entire posts as 'Zero' vacancy' is not correct.
6. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
respondents submitted that the BRTEs are liable to be transferred as
B.T. Assistants on seniority basis in the Government Schools and they
cannot claim a vested right to remain as BRTEs all along the entire
services when separate guidelines have been issued in the impugned
Government Order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.2163 of 2021(batch)
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
8. In the matter of transfer, transfer of a Government employee is
the prerogative of the Government and an employee cannot claim that he
or she should be allowed to continue in the same place as BRTEs by
exercising the option of relinquishment. It is to be noted that the
question of relinquishing is applicable only for promotions not for transfer
or conversion.
9. In fact, the Writ Court at the time of admission had allowed the
writ petitioners to participate in the counselling without prejudice to their
rights. However, final orders were to be withheld. It is also to be noted
that out of 500 in the seniority, 420 of them have already participated in
the counselling and only a few of them have challenged the specific clause
in G.O.(1D).No.134 School Education(pa.ka.5(1) Department, dated
18.08.2021.
10. The Writ Court while dismissing the writ petitions had placed
reliance on the following judgments:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.2163 of 2021(batch)
(i) Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal
Poshani, reported in 1989 AIR 1433.
(ii) In Union of India v. H.N.Kirtania reported in 1989
AIR 1774.
(iii) In State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal, Appeal(Civil)
No.226 of 1997, dated 12.04.2001.
(iv) In State of U.P v. Gobardhan Lal reported in (2004)
11 SCC 402.
(v) In Namratha Verma v. State of U.P. (SLP.No.36717
of 2017, dated 06.09.2021).
(vi) In State of M.P. vs. S.S.Kaurav reported in 1995 AIR
1056.
11. The above cases are all related to transfer of an employee made
on administrative grounds or in public interest, which cannot be interfered
by the Court unless there are strong pressing grounds rendering the
transfer order illegal or violative of the statutory Rules and any ground of
malafides.
12. No doubt, earlier these BRTEs were given an option for
continuing as BRTEs or go to Government Schools as B.T. Assistants.
When G.O.No.218 dated 20.06.2019 issued certain guidelines for the
general transfer of Teachers in the Panchayat/Municipality/Corporation
and Government Primary and Middle School and High/Higher Secondary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.2163 of 2021(batch)
Schools, in Clause 17, it was directed to have a separate guidelines for
the BRTEs. The G.O now impugned has given the guidelines wherein 500
senior BRTEs were to be transferred as B.T. Assistants and the same
exercise should be followed year after year. The G.O is specific that if any
of the BRTEs is not willing for a transfer and continues to be a BRTE, the
same need not be permitted. As mentioned earlier, when out of
500 BRTEs, 420 people have not challenged the said G.O.,
and participated in the counselling and also got accommodated in the
respective places, the appellants alone cannot be given a different
treatment.
13. Now, these petitioners have also participated in the counselling,
but the orders are withheld. The argument of the appellants that the last
comes should go first, is not applicable to the case of transfer as the said
principle would normally be applied in case of retrenchment. The above
Clause which is put to challenge also cannot be said to be discriminatory
as it is only based on the seniority 500 BRTEs had been sent to the
Government Schools. Therefore, there is no merit in the arguments of the
learned counsel for the appellants and the writ appeals are liable to be
dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.2163 of 2021(batch)
14. The Writ Court had observed that as the general counselling is
yet to be commenced for BRTEs, if the appellants are not inclined to take
part, they can opt for general counselling and they would be given priority
at the time of general counselling. The said direction given by the Writ
Court is confirmed.
15. In the result, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No Costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[P.S.N.,J] [P.V.,J.]
01.02.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
pm
Copy to:
1.The Principal Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of School Education,
Directorate of School Education,
D.P.I. Campus, College Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The State Project Director,
Samagra Shiksha,
D.P.I. Campus, College Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.2163 of 2021(batch)
4.The Joint Director of
School Education(Personnel,
D.P.I. Campus, College Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.
5.The Chief Educational Officer,
Theni District,
Theni.
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)Nos.2163 of 2021(batch)
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.
and
P.VELMURUGAN,J.
pm
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)No.2163 of 2021(etc. batch)
01.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
