Three private respondents appealed against an order in W.P.No.15235 of 2012 that was not before them. The appellants argued the issue was covered by a preceding Division Bench judgment. The court found the legal issue was no longer res integra and dismissed the appeal.
Dismissal of the writ appeal with no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.11.2018
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.2219 of 2013
1.M.Therasa Arputha Mary
2.M.Rajam
3.S.Jothi Banu
4.K.Rose Mary
5.K.Kousalya
6.V.Sundaravalli
7.D.N.Sangeetha Devi .. Appellants
Vs
1.T.Thulasaiah
2.The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9.
3.The Director,
Directorate of Elementary Education,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 6.
4.The District Elementary Educational
Officer, Tiruvallur.
5.The Assistant Elementary Educational
Officer, Tiruthani, Thiruvallur.
6.D.Wilson
7.R.Loganathan
8.S.Balasundaram .. Respondents
Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the order dated 14.08.2012 made in W.P.No.15235 of 2012.
W.P.No.15235 of 2012: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Certiorarified Mandamus Calling for the records relating to orders in (1) Circular Proceedings Na.Ka.No. 12118/D1/2011 dated -12.2011 of the second Respondent and (2) Panel dated 28.3.2012 as on 1.1.2012 for promotion as Graduate Teacher (English) in Tiruthani Union Tiruvallur District issued by the fourth Respondent (i) quash the Circular Pro.Na.Ka.No. 12118/D1/2011 dated -12.2011 of the second Respondent to the limited extent of directions in Para 6 thereof and (ii) quash the consequential panel dated 28.3.2012 issued by the fourth Respondent in so far as it related to inclusion of names of Respondents 5 to 7 herein and the non-inclusion of Petitioner name and to issue consequential directions to the Respondents 1 to 4 to include the name of the petitioner in the panel as on 1.1.12 for promotion as Graduate Teacher (English) in Thiruthani Union and to promote him as such with retrospective effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with consequential benefits.
For Appellants .. Mr.R.Saseetharan For Respondents.. Mr.C.Munusamy, (Edun) Spl. Govt. Pleader for R2 to R5 R1 - No appearance JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) This writ appeal has been preferred by the private respondents, who have got nothing to do with the order dated 14.08.2012 made in W.P.No.15235 of 2012.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 to 5.
3.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.529 of 2013 etc., batch dated 05.02.2014. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
42.The learned Judge in the impugned judgment on a threadbare analysis of the factual aspects and legal position, has come to the conclusion that the writ petitioners seek to agitate totally a different
subject on the basis of a degree obtained after undergoing a course of one year duration and can be compared with the regular undergraduate degree of three years duration and therefore, directed the official respondents not to recognise the candidature of such persons both for appointment as well as for promotion. The Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) has taken into consideration the said aspect and rightly rejected the claim of the writ petitioners that they are ineligible for TET on the ground that the claim made by them on the basis of the degree of one year duration is invalid and this Court finds no merit in the stand taken by TRB.
4.Since the issue involved is no longer res integra, the
writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Director,
Directorate of Elementary Education,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 6.
3.The District Elementary Educational
Officer, Tiruvallur.
4.The Assistant Elementary Educational
Officer, Tiruthani, Thiruvallur.
W.A.No.2219 of 2013
jp[co]
srg 20/12/2018
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the issue is no longer res integra is sustainable in light of the Division Bench judgment.
Whether appellants are entitled to promotion as Graduate Teachers based on one-year degree courses recognized by the TRB.
Whether the orders restricting eligibility for promotion based on one-year degree courses should be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.A.No.529 of 2013Relied on¶12
M.Therasa Arputha Mary
M.Rajam
S.Jothi Banu
K.Rose Mary
K.Kousalya
V.Sundaravalli
M.M.SUNDRESH
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
