The court declined to interfere with the single judge's order directing authorities to consider the respondents' claim for benefits under G.O.(Ms.)No.210. The court held the appellants were not aggrieved as no substantive mandamus was issued, leaving the determination to the authorities.
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.A(MD)Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE and
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
W.A.(MD)Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2016 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.9788 to 9790 of 2016
...Appellants in both W.As.
Vs.
B.Rajaram ... Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.1348 of 2016 G.Vethasigamoni Baskaran ... Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.1349 of 2016
PRAYER: Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).Nos.10096 and 10097 of 2012, dated 27.07.2012.
1/10
W.A(MD)Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2016
For appellants : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja Additional Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.K.Ragadeesh Kumar for M/s. S.Xavier Rajini
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
(Judgment was delivered by N.SESHASAYEE,J.)
This twin appeals arise out of an order of the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD).Nos.10096 and 10097 of 2012, dated 27.07.2012.
2/10
W.A(MD)Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2016
3/10
W.A(MD)Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2016
5.1 Explaining his arguments, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the schools in this stated can be divided into three categories:(a) Government and Panchayat Union Schools; (b) Aided Minority Schools; and (c) Aided Nonminority Schools. In the case of Aided Minority Schools, the choice of appointing an individual to the post of Headmaster rests exclusively with the Management, and therefore there will never arise a situation of addressing any pay anomaly between the Headmaster of the Primary School and the Headmaster of the Middle School. Indeed, the situation itself is generated when certain stagnation has felt in the feeder category. So far as the Aided Non-Minority Schools are concerned, in
4/10
W.A(MD)Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2016
most cases, the management will be running a single School, in which case, the promotional avenues are dictated by Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974. In a single School, as per the Rule, the promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster is based on merit, ability and where merit and ability is found equal as between few, then inter se seniority will be reckoned for filtering the first among the equals.
5.2 Now, both Aided Minority Schools and Aided Non- Minority Schools have to be excluded for conferring benefit under G.O.210 for the reasons stated. What remains are the Panchayat Union Schools and Government Schools. So far as the Panchayat Union Schools are concerned, a common seniority is maintained for all the teaching staff within the Panchayat Union, and here some may be stuck as Secondary Grade Teacher in the Primary Schools, and few will be stuck as Primary School Headmasters and few will be stuck as Secondary Grade Teachers in the Middle School. Prior to 5th Pay Commission, the Secondary Grade Teachers, the Primary School Headmasters and the Middle School Headmasters were all treated equally, but the 5th Pay Commission made a segregation by separating the Primary School Headmaster for a better treatment with a higher
5/10
W.A(MD)Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2016
scale of pay scale from the Secondary Grade Teachers, and because a common seniority is maintained, travelling in the career-ladder became a difficulty, and in terms of the 5th Pay Commission recommendation only those actually occupied the posts are entitled to a higher scale of pay. To set right this anomaly, G.O. (Ms.)No.210, dated 14.08.2009, was brought into force. Therefore, the reason for bringing into existence of G.O.(Ms.)No.210, dated 14.08.2009, must be understood in the context. Reliance was placed on the Order of a Full Bench of this Court in R.A.No.227 of 2015 dated 09.12.2016, Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By the Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai - 600 009 Vs. G.Eswaran and Others [(2017) 2 MLJ 257], which has accepted the aforesaid proposition.
6/10
W.A(MD)Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2016
appeals in
appeals in Secretary to Government, School Education Department Vs S.Stanislaus [W.A.Nos.34 of 2017 batch, dated 03.01.2019]. An identical view was also taken by yet another Division Bench in Rev.Aplc.(MD).Nos.236 to 241 of 2019 in W.A.(MD).Nos.1377 of 2014 etc., batch, dated 19.03.2018. He submitted that there is nothing in G.O.(Ms.)No.210, dated 14.08.2009, to indicate that it will not apply to Private Aided Schools and the dominant view of this Court is also in aid of the same. He added that the authorities of the earlier Division Bench were not placed before the Division Bench Rev.Application (MD).Nos.90 to 95 of 2014.
7/10
W.A(MD)Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2016
Private Schools. The larger issue however is, irrespective of how the writ petitioners / respondents herein are described by the learned single Judge in his order, whether they are entitled to the relief which they claimed. Hence, this Court does not find any need to interfere with the final decision of the learned single Judge and it is left to the authorities concerned to consider in the light of the law as discussed in the earlier paragraphs. Now, it is for the second appellant, the Director of Elementary Education to decide the issue of these writ petitioners/respondents in these appeals, as per law.
[N.S.S.,J.] & [P.V.M.,J.]
23.04.2024
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No NCC:Yes./No akv
8/10
W.A(MD)Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2016
To
9/10
W.A(MD)Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2016
N.SESHASAYEE, J. and P.VADAMALAI,J.
akv
W.A.(MD)Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2016
23.04.2024
10/10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the benefit under G.O.(Ms.)No.210 dated 14.08.2009 is available to headmasters of Private Aided Schools?
Whether the appellants are aggrieved by the single judge's direction to consider their case for the benefit?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Government of Tamil Nadu v. G.Eswaran and OthersRelied on¶46
Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By the Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai - 600 009 Vs. G.Eswaran and Others [(2017) 2 MLJ 257]
Secretary to Government, School Education Department v. S.StanislausReferred¶52
Secretary to Government, School Education Department Vs S.Stanislaus [W.A.Nos.34 of 2017 batch, dated 03.01.2019]
State of Tamil Nadu
Director of Elementary Education
Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin
Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Aalvarthirunagari
B.Rajaram
G.Vethasigamoni Baskaran
N.Seshasayee
P.Vadamalai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
