Madras High Court
The Joint Director (Personnel) vs P.Sagayarajan on 5 August, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A(MD)No.1278 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.A(MD)No.1278 of 2024
and
CMP(MD)No.9855 of 2024
1. The Joint Director (Personnel),
Commissioner of School Education Department,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Thanjavur,
Thanjavur District. ... Appellants
vs.
P.Sagayarajan ... Respondent
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the
order dated 14.12.2023 made in W.P(MD)No.23181 of 2022.
For Appellants : Mr.S.P.Maharajan
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 6
W.A(MD)No.1278 of 2024
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the Writ Court dated
14.12.2023 made in W.P(MD)No.23181 of 2022.
2. The respondent / writ petitioner was aggrieved by the proceedings
of the 1st appellant dated 28.09.2022, in and by which, the name of the
respondent was deleted from the seniority list prepared by the 1st appellant for
appointment by transfer from the post of upgraded Superintendent to the post of
regular Superintendent. While it was the contention of the respondent that the
appointment by transfer of an upgraded Superintendent to the post of regular
Superintendent is not a promotion and the pendency of the criminal case cannot
be a bar for such appointment by transfer, the appellants would claim that it is
actually a promotion and therefore, the pendency of the criminal case would be
a bar for such promotion. The Writ Court, after having perused the relevant
Government Order namely, G.O(Ms)No.111, School Education (R2)
Department, dated 22.04.2010, concluded that the posts of regular
Superintendent and upgraded Superintendent are equivalent cadre and
appointment of upgraded Superintendent as regular Superintendent does not
amount to promotion. On such conclusion, the Writ Court allowed the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petition and directed inclusion of the name of the respondent in the seniority
list. It is this order under challenge in this writ appeal.
3. We have heard Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. Mr.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for
the appellants would contend that though the post of upgraded Superintendent
was re-designated as regular Superintendent under G.O(Ms)No.111, School
Education (R2) Department, dated 22.04.2010, it was actually a promotion,
since the said Government Order in effect amounted to promotion of 384
upgraded Superintendents as regular Superintendents.
5. We are unable to read the Government Order in the way suggested
by Mr.Maharajan. Paragraph 2 of the Government Order, which is the
recommendation of the Director of School Education reads as follows:
''2. njhlf;ff;; fy;tp ,af;Feupd; gupe;Jiuapd;
mbg;gilapy; njhlf;ff; fy;tp Jiwapy; gzpGupAk;
Mrpupau;fSf;F epjp rk;ge;jkhd gzpfs; Jupjkhf
eilngwTk;> epu;thfj;ij Nkk;gLj;Jk; tifapy; cjtpj;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
njhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyfq;fspy; cs;s 384 gjtp
cau;j;jg;gl;l fz;fhzpg;ghsu; gzpaplq;fis Kiwahd
fz;fhzpg;ghsu; gzpaplq;fshf khw;wpaikj;J Miz
toq;fpLkhW gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Feu; muir Nfl;Lf;
nfhz;Ls;shu;.''
6. This recommendation was accepted by the Government. A reading
of paragraph 2 clearly states that the post of upgraded Superintendent has been
converted or re-designated as regular Superintendent. Therefore, the
contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that it amounts to
promotion cannot be accepted. Once we conclude that it is not a promotion,
then the pendency of the criminal case would not be a bar for including the
respondent in the seniority list. We, therefore, see no merit in this appeal.
Hence, the Writ Appeal fails. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.M, J.) (L.V.G, J.)
05.08.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Joint Director (Personnel),
Commissioner of School Education Department,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Thanjavur,
Thanjavur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
bala
JUDGMENT MADE IN
DATED : 05.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
