Allowed

M.C.Sherly, v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC17 Sept 2014WP/9413/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition filed for promotion as B.T. Assistant Social Science. It held that the petitioner, holding a Diploma in Teacher Training Course, was eligible for promotion as such qualification is equivalent to 10+2 pattern. The petition was disposed of without waiting for the outcome of a pending writ appeal challenging the earlier judgment.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's case for promotion as B.T. Assistant if she meets other qualifications.

M.C.Sherly, Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.09.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶5

W.P.No.9413of 2014

¶6

M.C.Sherly .. Petitioner

¶7

..vs..
1.The Secretary to
Government of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Joint Director of School Education,
(Personnel),
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chief Education Officer,
Ooty,
Nilgiris Department .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel as on 1.1.2013 for promotion as B.T.Assistant Social Science (Malayalam) in the appropriate places and to promote her as such with retrospective effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with consequential benefits.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.Karan

¶10

For respondents : Mr.A.Kumar

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The petitioner studied X Standard, thereafter underwent Diploma in Teacher Training Course during 1986 – 1989 and she was appointed as Secondary Grade Assistant Teacher after her name was sponsored through District Employment Exchange. The petitioner was fully qualified to be considered for the post of B.T.Assistant from the present post of Secondary Grade Teacher but the third respondent has not included the name of the petitioner in the panel list as on 01.01.2013 in the promotion list stating that the petitioner has not studied 10 + 2 + 3 pattern for promotion.

¶13

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner that the petitioner is a degree holder and this Court in

¶14

W.P.Nos.24495 of 2012 to 24497 of 2012 held that the persons who had undergone Diploma in Teacher Training Course and thereafter, studied B.Ed also eligible to be considered for promotion as B.T.Assistant Teacher and therefore, the petitioner is also eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of B.T.Assistant and the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for such promotion.

¶15

The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that the order passed in W.P. W.P.Nos.24495 of 2012 to 24497 of 2012 is challenged in a Writ Appeal and the Writ Appeal is pending.

¶16

It is seen from the affidavit and also from the typed set of papers that the petitioner, after studying X Standard, studied Diploma in Teacher Training Course and thereafter studied B.A., and also acquired B.Ed. She was appointed as Secondary Grade Assistant Teacher on the basis of her educational qualification, namely, X Standard and Diploma in Teacher Training Course. Thereafter, the petitioner passed B.A., and B.Ed course. Therefore, she is eligible to be considered for promotion for the post of B.T.Assistant. In the aforesaid judgment, this aspect was considered and this Court held that the person who holds Diploma in Teacher Training Course is also entitled to be considered for promotion and the Diploma in Teacher Training Course is equivalent to 10 + 2 pattern education. Though the order in those Writ Petitions is challenged by way of Writ Appeal, as on date, no final order is passed. Hence, the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid judgment.

¶17

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as B.T.Assistant if the petitioner satisfies the other qualifications. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) Dated: 26.09.2014

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶23

2.The Joint Director of School Education, (Personnel), Chennai – 600 006.

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

3.The Chief Education Officer, Ooty,

¶26

Nilgiris Department.

¶27

+1 cc to Government Pleader,SR.44815.

¶28

pvr (co) krd 26/9

¶29

W.P.Nos.9413of 2014

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.C.Sherly, v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.C.Sherly, v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Palanisamy, Vs the District Manager

A.Mathiyazhagan Vs Elangovan

S.Madhavan Vs M.Vijayakumar I.A.S

N.Velayutham Vs The Managing Director

Rajasekar Vs the Chief Engineer/

B. Ramachandran Vs The Secretary to the