Madras High Court
P.M.Rajakumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 July, 2025
2025:MHC:1716
W.P.(MD) No.22415 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 16.07.2025
Pronounced On : 21.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P. (MD) No.22415 of 2016
P.M.Rajakumar, B.Sc., B.Ed,
Secondary Grade Teacher,
Hindu Middle School,
Kudangulam,
Tirunelveli District ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by its Secretary to Government,
Education Department
Secretariat, Chennai-9
2. The Director of Elementary Education
College Road, Chennai - 6
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer
Tirunelveli.
4. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer
Radhapuram - 627 111.
Tiruunelveli District.
5. The Secretary,
Hindu Middle School,
Kudangulam,
Tirunelveli District ... Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 06:27:20 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.22415 of 2016
PRAYER in W.P.:
To issue order, directions or writ orders in particular a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records connected with
the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Na.Ka.No.
489/19/A5/2016, dated 27.05.2016, and quash the same, and directing
the respondents to upgrade the post of Secondary Grade Teacher of the
petitioner as B.T. Assistant with effect from 01.06.2002 in the light of
G.O.(Ms.)No.79, School Education Department, dated 14.6.2002, with
all consequential benefits, in the light of the judgment passed in W.P.
(MD) No.1664 of 2005 dated 02.11.2006, in the case of R.Padma Sheela
Rani Vs. State of TamilNadu and others and pass such further or other
orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case and thus render justice.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Petitioner : Mr. K.K.Kannan
for Mr.S.N. Ravichandran
For Respondents : Mr.Amjad Khan,
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. The petitioner, Mr. P.M. Rajakumar, is presently working as a
Secondary Grade Teacher in a Government-aided Middle School in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 06:27:20 pm )
Kudankulam, Tirunelveli District. He seeks issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned proceedings dated
27.05.2016 passed by the third respondent and to direct the respondents to
upgrade his post as B.T. Assistant with effect from 01.06.2002, in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.79, School Education (U1) Department, dated 14.06.2002.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on
01.07.1992 and subsequently, the petitioner acquired B.Sc., and B.Ed.,
qualification on 1994 and 1995 respectively and he was approved in that
post by proceedings dated 29.12.1996 with effect from 01.06.1995.
4. Pursuant to G.O.(Ms.)No.79 dated 14.06.2002, the Government
took a conscious decision to upgrade Secondary Grade Teacher posts in
Middle/High Schools, specifically in English, Mathematics and Science as
B.T. Assistant posts, on the reasoning that Secondary Grade Teachers
lacked adequate qualification to teach the revised syllabus in upper
primary classes. The said G.O. mandated that such upgraded posts shall be
filled by persons with B.Ed. qualification. Based on this policy, several
appointments were made after 01.06.2002 in upgraded posts, and those
teachers are paid B.T. Assistant scale.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 06:27:20 pm )
5. The petitioner contends that he satisfies both limbs: (a) he is
B.Ed qualified, and (b) he has been handling the same classes and subjects
that upgraded B.T. Assistants handle. He further submits that his request is
not for appointment afresh, but only for upgradation of the post held by
him in accordance with the policy of the Government, as interpreted in
earlier judicial decisions, including R. Padma Sheela Rani v. State of
Tamil Nadu [W.P.(MD) No. 1664 of 2005, dated 02.11.2006], and
Vallalar High School v. Government of Tamil Nadu [W.P. No. 26483 of
2005].
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate would
submit that the petitioner cannot seek benefit under G.O.(Ms.)No.79 dated
14.06.2002, as he was appointed prior to that date and the said G.O.
applies only to vacancies that arose after 01.06.2002. It is further
submitted that G.O.(Ms.)No.79 contemplates upgrading of the post only
when it falls vacant. Since the petitioner continued in service, his post
never fell vacant, and therefore, no upgradation was possible.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 06:27:20 pm )
7. On 03.01.2024 when this case came up for hearing this court
passed the following order:
“This writ petition has been filed challenging the
order dated 27.05.2015, passed by the third respondent,
rejecting the petitioner's request to upgrade the post of
Secondary Grade Teacher as B.T.Assistant with effect
from 01.06.2002, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.79, School
Education (U1) Department, dated 14.06.2002.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the
respondents 3 & 4 stating that G.O.Ms.No.79, School
Education (U1) Department, dated 14.06.2002, relied
upon by the petitioner, is not applicable to him for the
following reasons:
(a) The petitioner was appointed as a
Secondary Grade Teacher prior to the issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.79, School Education (U1) Department,
dated 14.06.2002. Therefore, he is not entitled to the
benefits in terms of the said Government Order.
(b) G.O.Ms.No.79, School Education (U1)
Department, dated 14.06.2002, can be invoked only
when the post of Secondary Grade Teacher fell vacant
and the said post shall be upgraded as B.T.Assistant
post by the Chief Educational Officer and thereafter,
the said post shall be filled up by appointing a qualified
B.T.Assistant Teacher.
(c) In the case on hand, since the petitioner is
serving as a Secondary Grade Teacher, the said post
cannot be shown as vacant. Therefore, when the post
did not fell vacant, invoking G.O.Ms.No.79, School
Education (U1) Department, dated 14.06.2002, would
not arise and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the
benefits under G.O.Ms.No.79, School Education (U1)
Department, dated 14.06.2002.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the
attention of this Court to the following authorities in
support of his contention that G.O.(Ms.)No. 79, School
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 06:27:20 pm )
Education (U1) Department, dated 14.06.2002, is
applicable to the case of the petitioner:
(a) An order, dated 23.07.2023, passed by
another learned Single Judge of this Court in a batch of
writ petitions, namely, W.P.No.2751 of 2015 batch.
(b) An order, dated 19.07.2024, passed by
another learned Single Judge of this Court in a batch of
writ petitions, namely, W.P.Nos.33611 to 33613 of
2016.
4. However, learned Government Advocate
appearing for the official respondents would submit
that the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioner have no applicability for the facts of
the instant case, as the said decisions dealt with either
regularization of service or with cases where teachers
were appointed after 14.06.2002 being the date of G.O.
(Ms.)No.79, whereas the petitioner herein was
appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the year
1992 itself.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks
further time to produce some more authorities in
support of his contentions.
6. For the said purpose, post the matter on
15.10.2024 under the same caption “for dismissal”.
8. Again, when the case was taken up for hearing on 16.07.2025,
the learned Government Advocate submitted before this Court that the
petitioner had relied upon the proposition laid in the judgment passed in
W.P.No.2751 of 2015 batch and W.P.Nos. 33611 to 33613 of 2016,
however, said proposition stood set aside by the Division Bench in
W.A.(MD) No. 1384 of 2014. He accordingly placed reliance on the said
Writ Appeal judgment and requested that the writ petition be disposed of
in terms of the binding decision in the writ appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 06:27:20 pm )
9. On consideration of rival submissions and perusal of records, it is
not in dispute that the petitioner is B.Ed qualified and has been handling
subjects such as Maths and Science for upper primary students. It is also
not in dispute that under G.O.(Ms.)No.79 dated 14.06.2002, the
Government directed that Secondary Grade posts in certain subjects and
standards shall be upgraded and filled by B.Ed. holders.
10. However, the core issue here is whether the petitioner’s post
already filled and held prior to 01.06.2002 can be notionally upgraded
retrospectively and whether such upgradation would entitle him to claim
B.T. Assistant scale of pay from that date.
11. This issue is no longer res integra. The Division Bench in The
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. M.Mary Jacklin Pushpa (W.A.(MD) No. 1384
of 2014 and batch, dated 02.04.2025), after reviewing the Government
Orders and various judicial pronouncements, held that a Secondary Grade
Teacher is entitled to claim the benefit of upgradation under G.O.(Ms.)
No. 79 dated 14.06.2002, only if a post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the
Middle School was vacant and the teacher was handling classes VI to VIII
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 06:27:20 pm )
and possessed B.A., B.Ed. qualification as on 01.06.2002. The G.O. does
not contemplate individual upgradation solely based on qualification
unless post-level vacancy and workload conditions are satisfied. The
Division Bench emphasised the difference in recruitment method,
qualifications, and post nomenclature.
12. The petitioner herein was appointed in 1992 and continued in
the same post. The upgraded posts under G.O.(Ms.)No.79 were to be filled
against future vacancies and not to be retrospectively applied to existing
incumbents. The writ petitioner’s post was never declared vacant, nor was
it upgraded in terms of the G.O. Therefore, the benefit claimed is contrary
to the terms of the policy and has already been negatived by the aforesaid
binding Division Bench judgment.
13. The claim based on “equal pay for equal work” also fails in this
context. As held by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh
[(2017) 1 SCC 148], such principle applies only where the incumbents are
similarly situated in all respects qualifications, mode of recruitment, nature
of duties, and responsibilities. Here, the Government has drawn a valid
classification between those appointed prior to G.O.(Ms.)No.79 and those
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 06:27:20 pm )
appointed pursuant to it in upgraded posts. This classification has been
upheld as constitutionally valid.
14. In view of the binding precedent of the Division Bench and in
the absence of vacancy-based upgradation or policy extension to existing
incumbents, the petitioner’s claim is unsustainable.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
21.07.2025
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
LS
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu
Education Department
Secretariat, Chennai-9
2. The Director of Elementary Education
College Road, Chennai - 6
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 06:27:20 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.
LS
4. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer
Radhapuram - 627 111.
Tiruunelveli District.
5. The Secretary,
Hindu Middle School,
Kudangulam,
Tirunelveli District.
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
21.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 06:27:20 pm )
