Dismissed

The Joint Director (Personnel) v. P Sagayarajan

Madras HC5 Aug 2024WA(MD)/1278/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge judge held that the re-designation of upgraded Superintendent to regular Superintendent was a conversion of the post, not a promotion, thus pendency of a criminal case did not bar appointment. The High Court dismissed the appeal upholding the seniority list order.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Seniority list maintained; Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

The Joint Director (Personnel) Vs P Sagayarajan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A(MD)No.1278 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.08.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.A(MD)No.1278 of 2024 and CMP(MD)No.9855 of 2024

¶7

The Joint Director (Personnel), Commissioner of School Education Department, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶8

The Chief Educational Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. ... Appellants

vs.

P.Sagayarajan

... Respondent

Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 14.12.2023 made in W.P(MD)No.23181 of 2022.

¶13

For Appellants : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Page No.1 of 6

¶16

W.A(MD)No.1278 of 2024

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

( Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

¶19

Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the Writ Court dated 14.12.2023 made in W.P(MD)No.23181 of 2022.

¶20

The respondent / writ petitioner was aggrieved by the proceedings of the 1^st appellant dated 28.09.2022, in and by which, the name of the respondent was deleted from the seniority list prepared by the 1^st appellant for appointment by transfer from the post of upgraded Superintendent to the post of regular Superintendent. While it was the contention of the respondent that the appointment by transfer of an upgraded Superintendent to the post of regular Superintendent is not a promotion and the pendency of the criminal case cannot be a bar for such appointment by transfer, the appellants would claim that it is actually a promotion and therefore, the pendency of the criminal case would be a bar for such promotion. The Writ Court, after having perused the relevant

¶21

Government Order namely, G.O(Ms)No.111, School Education (R2) Department, dated 22.04.2010, concluded that the posts of regular Superintendent and upgraded Superintendent are equivalent cadre and appointment of upgraded Superintendent as regular Superintendent does not amount to promotion. On such conclusion, the Writ Court allowed the writ

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Page No.2 of 6

¶24

W.A(MD)No.1278 of 2024

¶25

petition and directed inclusion of the name of the respondent in the seniority list. It is this order under challenge in this writ appeal.

¶26

We have heard Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶27

Mr.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for

¶28

the appellants would contend that though the post of upgraded Superintendent was re-designated as regular Superintendent under G.O(Ms)No.111, School Education (R2) Department, dated 22.04.2010, it was actually a promotion, since the said Government Order in effect amounted to promotion of 384 upgraded Superintendents as regular Superintendents.

¶29

We are unable to read the Government Order in the way suggested by Mr.Maharajan. Paragraph 2 of the Government Order, which is the recommendation of the Director of School Education reads as follows:

¶30

'' 2. njhlf;ff ; fy;tp ,af;Feupd; gupe;Jiuapd; mbg;gilapy; njhlf;ff; fy;tp Jiwapy; gzpGupAk; Mrpupau;fSf;F epjp rk;ge;jkhd gzpfs; Jupjkhf eilngwTk;> epu;thfj;ij Nkk;gLj;Jk; tifapy; cjtpj;

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

Page No.3 of 6

¶33

W.A(MD)No.1278 of 2024

¶34

njhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyfq;fspy; cs;s 384 gjtp cau;j;jg;gl;l fz;fhzpg;ghsu; gzpaplq;fis Kiwahd fz;fhzpg;ghsu; gzpaplq;fshf khw;wpaikj;J Miz toq;fpLkhW gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Feu; muir Nfl;Lf; nfhz;Ls;shu;. ''

¶35

This recommendation was accepted by the Government. A reading of paragraph 2 clearly states that the post of upgraded Superintendent has been converted or re-designated as regular Superintendent. Therefore, the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that it amounts to promotion cannot be accepted. Once we conclude that it is not a promotion, then the pendency of the criminal case would not be a bar for including the respondent in the seniority list. We, therefore, see no merit in this appeal. Hence, the Writ Appeal fails. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

(R.S.M, J.) (L.V.G, J.) 05.08.2024 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No bala

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

Page No.4 of 6

¶39

W.A(MD)No.1278 of 2024

¶40

¶41

The Joint Director (Personnel), Commissioner of School Education Department, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶42

The Chief Educational Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

Page No.5 of 6

¶45

W.A(MD)No.1278 of 2024

¶46

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶47

bala

¶48

JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A(MD)No.1278 of 2024 DATED : 05.08.2024

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6 of 6

The Joint Director (Personnel) v. P Sagayarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Joint Director (Personnel) v. P Sagayarajan

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

Subbaiah .K Vs Valli

Great Lakes Multi-State Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Vs G. Manohar

The President, Vs M. Chinnasekkan

The State of Tamilnadu Vs Tvl.Sri Karpagamoorthi Agencies

The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board Vs Hazarath Syed Musthafa Darood

P.Radha Krishnan Vs The District Collector