The Madras High Court disposed of writ petitions filed by teachers seeking regularisation of services and arrears. The court held that individual orders were unnecessary, referring petitioners to a Division Bench judgment.
No individual order issued; petitioners directed to rely on Division Bench judgment.
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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.11.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
W.P.(MD).Nos.24 and 27 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD).Nos.2 and 2 of 2015
10.R.Bhuvaneswari
11.V.Vivekananthan
12.C.Thirugnanamurty
13.T.Thirugnanam 14.D.Devadasam Ravikumar 15.B.Sabitha 16.G.Muralidharan 17.K.Navamani 18.J.Gowri ... Petitioners in W.P.(MD).No.24/2015
2
PRAYER in W.P.(MD).No.24 of 2015: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to regularise the services of the petitioners herein from the date of their respective initial appointment with all arrears of salary, increment, monetary and attendant benefits, in the light of the order dated 03.11.2014 in W.P.No.17644 of 2014 on the file of this Court, within a reasonable time as may be fixed by this Court.
PRAYER in W.P.(MD).No.27 of 2015: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to pay the increment, monetary and attendant benefits herein from the date of their respective initial appointment in the light of order dated 03.11.2014 in W.P.No.17644 of 2014 on the file of this Court, within a reasonable time as may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Jeganathan in both WPs For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy Special Government Pleader in both WPs
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions are filed by 31 petitioners, who were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers with B.T. qualification on consolidated pay in the Aided Primary Schools. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3
appointment without required qualification was regularised on condition that they should undergo Child Psychology Test. However, neither their past service nor the payment made in excess was protected. But, by virtue of Division Bench judgment, the attempt by the State to recover the excess payment was stayed and even thereafter, there was several writ petitions filed before this Court touching upon G.O.(Ms.)No.155 which was issued consequential to earlier Government Orders in G.O.(Ms.)No.559, dated 11.07.1995 and G.O.(Ms.)No.203, dated 19.03.1996. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court, after placing the history of passing this G.O., in respect of Secondary Grade Teachers wrongly appointed in Primary School without requisite qualification and subsequent direction to them to get Child Psychology Training, judgment was passed on 21.03.2018, wherein the Honourable Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:
“ 10. The learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners relied on certain other orders passed by various single Benches including one of us (TSSJ) and on perusal of the same, we find that in none of those decisions, the full affect of G.O.Ms.No.155 and the conditions therein have been thoroughly examined. Apart from that, the decision in the case of Pallivasal Primary School has not been specifically noted. Therefore, we are of the considered view that those decisions cannot be referred to advance the case of the respondents/writ petitioners, though some of them have attained finality. Needless to state that if there has been a wrong decision, it cannot be treated as precedent.
12. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though there were about 3000 Teachers who were appointed in such improper manner as of now 300 Teachers would be entitled to monitory benefits and as remaining persons were already paid and they were protected by the Division Bench order from the effect of recovery. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent should not permitted to approach the Government by way of representation.”
4
order need be issued in this writ petition. The observation of the Honourable Division Bench in Para-13 of the judgment in Writ Appeal Nos.74 of 2015 and 957 of 2016 shall be applicable to the petitioners herein, if they are otherwise found fit. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-I)
To
W.P.(MD).Nos.24 and 27 of 2015 14.11.2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petitions seeking regularisation of services and payment of arrears should be disposed of by reference to the Division Bench judgment.
J.Karthikeyan and others
The Director of Elementary Education and others
DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
