This writ petition challenging the non-consideration of objections to a seniority list was dismissed after the petitioner failed to appear. The court held the petition lacked merit regarding promotion and pension benefits.
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.
W.P.No.20654 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.20654 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012
G.Ramaswamy
... Petitioner
-Vs-
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the objections made by the petitioner against the integrated seniority list issued by the third Respondent dated 28.12.2010 issued in Na.Ka.No.11573/A3/E1/2007 and consequently, include the name of the
Page 1 of 6
W.P.No.20654 of 2012
petitioner in the appropriate place in the above integrated seniority list and to grant consequential benefits of promotion, fixation of pay, payment of arrears of salary with interest and revision of pension from the date of retirement and other retirement benefits based on such revision of seniority with interest.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondents : Mr.V.Veluchamy Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for direction directing the
respondent to consider the objections raised by the petitioner against the integrated seniority list issued by the third respondent dated 28.12.2010 and include him in the appropriate place in the integrated seniority list.
learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
Chief Educational Officer, Thiruvarur and retired on 31.08.1999. The
Page 2 of 6
W.P.No.20654 of 2012
third respondent had published the seniority list on 06.08.2009. Therefore, the petitioner submitted his objections. However, his objections was not considered and the third respondent had proceeded to release the revised seniority list on 28.12.2010.
the ratio stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.1968/Education Department dated 02.11.1978 has been followed while preparing the integrated seniority list for the first level post Viz., Junior Assistant post. Once the persons belonging to both wings have been integrated in the lower post, there is no need to follow the same ratio in each and every promotional posts. The Junior Assistant is the lowest first level post and the posts of Assistants, Superintendents and PA to District Educational Officer/ District Elementary Educational Officer are promotional posts from the respective feeder category and posts. Therefore, there is no need to adopt the ratio in each of the posts of Assistants, Superintendents, PA to District Educational Officer/District Elementary Educational Officer. However, the ratio in the post of Assistant have also been fixed among
those persons who were working as Assistant as on 31.03.1970. There is
Page 3 of 6
W.P.No.20654 of 2012
no ratio in the post of Superintendent as on 31.03.1970 as there were no person belonging to B wing working in the post of Superintendent as on that date. The seniority for the post of Superintendent has been fixed with reference to General rule 36 (b)(i) as per the seniority fixed in the feeder category of Assistant. Therefore, the objections raised by the petitioner was rejected.
04.09.2023
Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order mn/nsl
Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20654 of 2012
To
Page 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20654 of 2012
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn
W.P.No.20654 of 2012
04.09.2023
Page 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the respondents to include the petitioner in the seniority list based on his objections.
G.Ramaswamy
State of Tamil Nadu
Director of School Education
Joint Director of School Education
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
