Madras High Court
R.Thangavelu vs The Director Of School Education on 6 February, 2025
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A.No. 160 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.No. 160 of 2025
R.Thangavelu ...Appellant
Vs.
1.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600 006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Erode - 638101.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Coimbatore.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Pollachi. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the
order dated 15.04.2024 made in W.P.No.33311 of 2023.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Amalraj
For Respondent : Mr.U.M.Raichandran
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 160 of 2025
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The petitioner challenged the order dated 20.09.2021, in and by
which, his probation was declared with effect from 06.08.2011 on the basis
that he was appointed on 07.08.2009.
2. The petitioner was selected for appointment along with 24 others
for the year 2008 - 2009 and the others were appointed on 09.06.2008. The
petitioner was not favoured with an appointment order, since the authorities
thought it fit to verify his education certificates as he had completed his
education in the State of Karnataka. Challenging his non-appointment, the
petitioner filed W.P.No.27561 of 2008 seeking to appoint himself and also
sought for a restraint, requiring the respondents, not to appoint anyone else
to the post, to which, he was selected.
3. This Court, allowed the said writ petition, directing the respondents
to complete the evaluation of the certificate of the petitioner within a period
of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. A restraint was
also issued, restraining the respondents from making any appointment to the
post, to which, the petitioner was selected. Thereafter, after evaluating the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
certificates of the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed to the post of
Physical Education Teacher with effect from 04.08.2009. The order dated
04.08.2009, specifically states that he is appointed as a probationer with
effect from the date he assumes charge. The petitioner accepted the said
order and joined the service. Thereafter, complaining that his probation was
not declared, the petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.No.34407 of
2019 and this Court, by order dated 03.02.2020 directed the respondents to
declare his probation, based on the earlier evaluation.
4. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner's probation was declared
by the order impugned in this writ petition on 20.09.2021 with effect from
06.08.2011 i.e., two years from the date, on which, he was originally
appointed (07.08.2009). Now the petitioner has mounted the challenge to
the order dated 20.09.2021, contending that he should be treated as having
been appointed along with the other selectees in his batch i.e., with effect
from 09.06.2008. The Writ Court has denied relief to the petitioner on the
ground that the petitioner has accepted the order dated 04.08.2009 and
having joined duty only on 07.08.2009, he cannot claim to have been
appointed along with the other selectees.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend
that non-challenge to the order dated 04.08.2009 cannot be put against the
petitioner, since this Court had injuncted the respondents from appointing
another person in his place. We are unable to countenance the submissions
of the learned counsel.
6. As rightly found by the Writ Court, the petitioner was favoured
with an order that he should be appointed after verification of his
certificates within the period of two weeks from the date of the order.
Eventually, the petitioner was favoured with an order of appointment on
04.08.2009, which clearly stated that the petitioner would be considered as a
probationer till completion of two years from the date, on which, he
assumes charge.
7. Having not challenged the said order, it is not open to the petitioner
to now urge that he should be deemed to have been appointed on an earlier
date. The contention of the petitioner militates against the pronouncement
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MeghaChandra & others -Vs- Nigam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SIRO and others reported in 2020 (5) SCC 689 where, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had held that the seniority can be counted only from the date
on which the candidate was borne into the service and not from any date
anterior to it. This Writ Appeal therefore, fails and it is accordingly,
dismissed. No costs.
(R.S.M., J.) (G.A.M., J.)
06.02.2025
kkn
Index: No
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : No
To:
1.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600 006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Erode - 638101.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Coimbatore.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Pollachi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
KKN
06.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
