Allowed

C. Arokciya Vanitha v. the Director of Elementary

Madras HC5 Jan 2022WP(MD)/14164/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order refixing a teacher's seniority below a colleague. It held that re-fixing seniority attracts civil consequences and requires strict adherence to natural justice, setting aside the order for violation of principles.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to the 2nd respondent for fresh disposal with notice and enquiry within 3 months.

C. Arokciya Vanitha Vs the Director of Elementary — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.14164 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ORDER RESERVED ON : 03.01.2022 ORDER PRONOUNDED ON : 05.01.2022 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.14164 of 2015 and MP(MD).Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of 2015

¶4

C.Arockiya Vanitha Secondary Grade Teacher Panchayat Union Primary School Sevoor, Ramanathapuram District ... Petitioner

¶5

¶6

1.The Director of Elementary Education College Road, Chennai 600 006

¶7

2.The District Elementary Educational Officer Ramanathapuram District Ramanathapuram

¶8

3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer Bogalur 623 527 Ramanathapuram District

¶9

4.The Headmaster

¶10

Panchayat Union Primary School

¶11

Sevoor, Ramanathapuram District

¶12

5.K.Gandhi

¶13

Secondary Grade Teacher Panchayat Union Primary School Sevoor, Ramanathapuram District ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 2^nd respondent, District Elementary Educational Officer in Na.Ka.No.3449/Aa4/2013 dated 01.08.2014 placing the petitioner below 5^th respondent in the Master Attendance Register and the impugned seniority list issued by the 3^rd respondent AEEO for the year 2015 placing the petitioner at Serial No.10 instead of placing at Serial No.7, quash the same and further direct the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to place the petitioner above the 5^th respondent in Master Attendance Register and above Mr.N.Marimuthu in Seniority List for the year 2015.

¶15

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

¶16

1/4

¶17

W.P.(MD).No.14164 of 2015

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthu Vel Advocate For M/s.Isaac Chambers For R1 to R4 : Mr.G.Sivaraja Government Advocate For R5 : No Appearance

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the second respondent refixing the seniority of the writ petitioner below the 5^th respondent.

¶21

2.In the writ petition, the petitioner has contended that she was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 06.11.2004 and she joined Panchayat Union Middle School, Sevoor, Ramanathapuram District on 09.11.2004. According to the petitioner, she reported for duty on 09.11.2004 with medical fitness certificate from a private doctor and the Headmaster of the said School had counter signed the joining report of the petitioner and permitted the petitioner to work in the same School. Since the third respondent insisted for production of medical fitness certificate from a Government Civil Surgeon, the petitioner produced the said certificate on 10.11.2004. The petitioner has further contended that the 5^th respondent herein reported for duty only on 10.11.2004 and his name was placed below the Writ petitioner in the attendance register. Suddenly, in the year 2014, the 2^nd respondent has chosen to pass the impugned order refixing the seniority of the writ petitioner below the 5^th respondent alleging that the petitioner has not produced appropriate medical fitness certificate from a Government Civil Surgeon on 09.11.2004. The said order is under challenge.

¶22

3.Though 5^th respondent has been served, he has not chosen to appear either in person or through a counsel.

¶23

4.The 2^nd respondent has filed a counter contending that the 5^th respondent has lodged a complaint alleging that the writ petitioner has been placed above him erroneously. After scrutinising all the documents , he came to know that appropriate physical fitness certificate was produced by the writ petitioner only on 10.11.2004 whereas the joining report indicates that the writ petitioner has already joined duty on 09.11.2004. In view of the said discrepancies and after going through all the records, the present impugned order has been passed.

¶24

5.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner contended that she was placed above the 5^th respondent on 09.11.2004 and for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ past 10 years, her seniority over and above the 5^th respondent is

¶25

2/4

¶26

W.P.(MD).No.14164 of 2015

¶27

being maintained without any disturbance. The learned counsel further contended that the 5^th respondent had given a representation to the 2^nd respondent and based upon the said representation, the 2^nd respondent has conducted an enquiry and has passed the impugned order refixing the seniority under which the writ petitioner has been placed below the 5^th respondent. The learned counsel further contended that no notice was issued calling for explanation from the writ petitioner or any enquiry was conducted before the impugned order was passed.

¶28

6.A perusal of the impugned order shows that the impugned order has not been preceded by any notice or enquiry before refixing the seniority. Re-fixation of seniority will attract Civil consequences and without issuing any notice, such an order could not be passed. Hence, the impugned order is set aside for violation of principles of natural justice.

¶29

7.This writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the file of the 2^nd respondent for fresh disposal on merits and in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner and the 5^th respondent. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶30

msa

¶31

NOTE:

¶32

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶33

¶34

1.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai 600 006.

¶35

2.The District Elementary Educational Officer https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶36

3/4

¶37

W.P.(MD).No.14164 of 2015

¶38

3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Bogalur 623 527, Ramanathapuram District.

¶39

4.The Headmaster, Panchayat Union Primary School,

¶40

Sevoor, Ramanathapuram District.

¶41

+1 CC to M/s.ISAAC CHAMBERS, Advocate (SR-781[F] dated 07/01/2022) +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-764[F] dated 07/01/2022 )

¶42

W.P.(MD).No.14164 of 2015 and MP(MD).Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of 2015 05.01.2022

¶43

NSN(CO) SB(20.01.2022) 5P 7C

¶44

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

¶45

4/4

C. Arokciya Vanitha v. the Director of Elementary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Arokciya Vanitha v. the Director of Elementary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samuel Muthiah Vs Joseph Thangiah

Meeran Mydeen Vs S. Subbiah Pillai

Vappakani Vs Seik Mohammed Abbas

Palaniammal(Died) Vs K.M.Natarajan

Karuthammal Vs Sivanammal

A.K.C.Murugan Vs Arumugam @ Ravi