Madras High Court
Unknown vs / on 7 December, 2023
W.P.No.8291 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P. No.8291 of 2021
and W.M.P.Nos.8832 of 2021
1. Ramesh M
2. R.Ananthakumar
3. G.Mekala
4. M.Rajalingam
5. K.Saravanan
6. P.Sutha
7. Tamilarasan R
8. T.Thamizharasan
9. P.Manjula
10. S.Jeyalakshmi
11. V.S.Kavitha
12. Parasuraman. R
13. X Arokiyastella Mary
14. E.Kavitha
15. A.Nirmala
16. Sankaran S
17. Sathish Kumar G
18. K.Selvakumar
19. L.Selvi
20. Usha Nandhini G
21. J.Vasu
22. Visalakshi T.A
23. K.Bharathi
24. K.Gayathiri
25. S.Geetha
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8291 of 2021
26. R.Kalaivani
27. Narmadadevini E
28. Premalatha A
29. K.Sasikumar
30. K.Sathyabama
31. Selvamathavan S
32. Senthilkumar L
33. Senthilkumar D
34. Arul Jothi A
35. M.Selvaraju
36. M.Chitra
37. Umadevi S ... Petitioners
/vs/
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel)
DPI Campus,
Chennai – 600 006.
4. The Joint Director School Education (Vocational)
DPI Campus,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8291 of 2021
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to redesignate
the post of petitioners from computer instructors Grade-I to PG Assistant
(Computer Science) and accordingly include the post of PG Assistant
Computer Science as part and parcel of PG Assistant (academic subject)
and thereby make it a Feeder Category for further promotion to the post of
higher secondary Head Master in the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary
Educational Service Rules by giving due weightage of seniority of the
petitioners from the date they have acquired the qualification as per the
NCTE Regulations.
For Petitioner ...
Ms.Dakshayani Reddy
Senior Counsel
for Ms.S.Suneetha
For Respondents ... Mr.S.Silambanan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.T.Chezhiyan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the
respondents herein to redesignate the post of petitioners from Computer
Instructors Grade-I to P.G. Assistant (Computer Science) and accordingly
include the post of P.G. Assistant (Computer Science) as part and parcel of
P.G. Assistant (academic subject) and thereby make it a Feeder Category
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for further promotion to the post of higher secondary Head Master in the
Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service Rules by giving due
weightage of seniority of the petitioners from the date they have acquired
the qualification as per the NCTE Regulations.
2. Mr.S.Silambanan, learned Additional Advocate General submitted
that as per the G.O.Ms.No.720, Education Department, dated 28.04.1981,
there are prescribed qualification and mode of selection for each category of
Post Graduate Assistants in Academic Subjects, Post Graduate Assistants in
Languages and Post Graduates teachers in Academic Subjection; similarly
there are rules for recruiting the Head Masters and Head Mistress in Higher
Secondary schools as well; the law in this point has been well settled that it
is the rule making or appointing authority who has to prescribe a mode of
selection and educational qualification for P.G.Assistant and the Courts
cannot interfere and prescribe any other qualification for treating the
individual cases as eligible for P.G.Assistants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Admittedly the petitioners have not been recruited as
P.G.Assistants and they have been employed through Electronic
Corporation of Tamil Nadu (ELCOT). Even though they were instructors in
the beginning they have been giving academic instructions to the Computer
Science students after the subject of Computer Science has assumed so
much significance and has been included as a subject in the general stream
itself. But that alone will not condone the essential requirement of
appointment to the post of P.G.Assistant.
4. In this regard it is relevant to cite the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in C.Senthikumar Vs. The Chairman, University
Grant Commission Vs. six others in W.A.No.2484 of 2018 dated
13.11.2018 wherein it is held that the Courts and Tribunals cannot
prescribe the qualifications by entrenching upon the power of the
concerned authority so long as the qualifications prescribed by the
employer is reasonably relevant and has a rational nexus with the functions
and duties attached to the post and are not violative of any provision of
Constitution, statute and rules. The above position has once again been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
reiterated in a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.2876 of 2018 (C.Manikandan Vs.
Teacher Recruitment Board and 2 others). In the said judgment, reliance
was placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court held in P.U.Joshi
and other Vs. Accountant General Ahmedabad and others reported in
(2003) 2 SCC 632 and it is asserted that the Courts cannot interfere in any
such policy matters of the Government. The relevant portion of the said
judgment is extracted hereunder:
“15. In P.U.Joshi and others vs. Accountant General Ahmedabad
and others reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court cases 632 at paragraph
10 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"Questions relating to the constitution, pattern,
nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition,
prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service
including avenues of promotions and criteria to the fulfilled for such
promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive
discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the
limitations or restrictions envisaged in the constitution of India and
it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the
Government to have a particular method of recruitment of eligibility
criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its
views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the
competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and
alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications,
eligibility criterial and other conditions of service including avenues
of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies
may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is
entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into
more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by
undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as
well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories
of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the
existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing
conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when
he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or
safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued
at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to
challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into
force new rules relating to even an existing service."
16. ... It is for the rule making or the appointing authority to
prescribe the mode of selection and educational qualifications for the post
of PG Assistant, Courts should not trench upon the power of the rule
making or appointing authority, to prescribe the qualifications, which
according to such authority is relevant for the post. What is the
educational qualification required for the post depends upon the functions
and duties attached to the post. Unless the qualifications prescribed are
wholly irrelevant for the post, or against the statute or violative of the
constitutional provisions, Court should not interfere.”
5. The Government has been issuing several Government Orders by
safeguarding the employment of the petitioners and at one point the
essential requirement of securing a B.A. Degree was even relaxed. But that
does not entitle the petitioners to assume a designation upon themselves as
P.G.Assistants unless the appointing authorities for any reasons known to
them, gives such approval.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Ms.Dakshayani Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner attracted the attention of this Court to the TRB notification dated
11.02.2021 wherein the post of P.G.Assistant / Physical Education Director
Grade - I and Computer Instructor Grade - I have been called for. It is
submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that when the
subject of Computer Science is accepted as a regular subject, the
individuals who are handling the same ought not to have been called as
Computer Instructor, instead they should also be designated as
P.G.Assistants.
7. Just because a different nomenclature is adopted for any posts, I
do not find there is any discrimination. Because the word “Computer
Instructor” is in no way demeaning the job done by the Computer Science
teachers. The anxiety of the petitioner is getting the designation as
'P.G.Assistant' is with an intention of getting further promotional avenues
open to the cadre of P.G.Assistants. But, P.G.Assistants are recruited at the
start itself as P.G.Assistants. Hence their career prospectus can be different
from that of the career journey of Computer Instructors.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. It can be true that the petitioners like other P.G.Assistants handle
Computer Science classes to the Higher Secondary students. And the mode
of selection of other P.G.Assistants and the education requirement to be
possessed by them is fundamentally different from the mode of selection
adopted in the case of the petitioners and the educational qualification
possessed by them. It is up to the petitioners and like others to make any
representation to the respondent department to consider them to be
redesignated as P.G.Assistant and it is up to the Government to consider
their request or not.
9. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed. No
costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.12.2023
Index: Yes
Speaking order
bkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.N.MANJULA ,J.
bkn
To:
1. The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel)
DPI Campus,
Chennai – 600 006.
4. The Joint Director School Education (Vocational)
DPI Campus,
Chennai – 600 006.
07.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
