Allowed

C.Jayaraman, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC21 Jun 2024WP/2896/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired forest school teacher challenged rejection of his claim for promotion as Higher Secondary School Headmaster from 12.09.1996 on the ground that he lacked qualifications prescribed by G.O.Ms.No.66 dated 07.07.2006. The court held the savings clause in that G.O. protected persons already appointed, quashed the rejecting order and allowed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 05.01.2015 quashed; no costs awarded.

C.Jayaraman, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.2896 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.No.2896 of 2015

C.Jayaraman

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Enviornment and Forest Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

¶11

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Panagal Building Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.

¶12

3.The Conservator of Forests, Vellore Forest Circle, Vellore. .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in Ref.No.S2/5497/2007 dated 05.01.2015 to quash the same and with consequential direction to the second respondent to promote the petitioner as Headmaster with effect

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.2896 of 2015

¶16

from 12.09.1996 the date of up gradation of Pudurnadu Forest Higher Secondary School within time frame.

¶17

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Dharani

¶19

For Respondents :Mr.S.Rajesh Government Advocate

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The writ petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the second respondent dated 05.01.2015 and to consequently direct the second respondent to promote him as Headmaster with effect from 12.09.1996 the date of upgradation of Pudurnadu Forest Higher Secondary School, within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court.

¶22

The petitioner was initially appointed as a forest guard on 29.11.1979 through employment exchange from where he was transferred to teaching service and appointed as a secondary grade teacher in the forest school. He was subsequently promoted as

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.2896 of 2015

¶25

P.G.Assistant on 19.09.1986. From 12.09.1996, the said school had been upgraded as a higher secondary school by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.206, Environment and Forest Department dated 12.09.1996. The petitioner would submit that under the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules, there was no Rule or qualification for the post of higher secondary school headmaster, as the service rules contain only upto the post of Post graduate assistant. After the upgradation of the school, the petitioner claimed promotion to the post of headmaster. Since a charge sheet was pending against him under Rule 17(b), he was not promoted and his junior was promoted as higher secondary school headmaster. Thereafter, the charges framed against the petitioner were dropped and the juniors who were promoted as headmasters were reverted. The petitioner was promoted as Higher Secondary School Headmaster on 30.05.2004. Subsequently, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.66, Environment and Forest (F.R.1) Department, dated 07.07.2006 which contained Adhoc Rules, which were deemed to have come into effect from 08.02.1992. Under

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.2896 of 2015

¶28

these Rules, the following qualifications are prescribed:

¶29

(i) A Master's degree of an University in the State of Tamil Nadu or a Master's degree of equivalent standard of certificate issued by the university of Madras for having undergone the certificate course in science and Humanities for Graduate Teachers in High School.

¶30

(ii) B.T.or B.Ed.degree of a University in the State of Tamil Nadu or a teaching degree a equivalent standard.

¶31

(iii) Experience for a period of not less than 10 years as post Graduate Assistant in a Forest Higher Secondary School and

¶32

(iv) Must have passed the Account Test for Executive Officers or Account Test for SubOrdinate Officer, part-I and part-II.

¶33

Since at the time of the petitioner being appointed as Headmaster, these

¶34

Rules were not in vogue, the petitioner had thereafter passed an account test for executive officers. He immediately sent a representation for promotion and fixation of pay with effect from the date of upgradation i.e from 12.09.1996. Since his representation was not considered, the

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.2896 of 2015

¶37

petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.11016 of 2015 seeking a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation dated 23.02.2005 and consider him for promotion. This writ petition was disposed of on 22.09.2006 and this Court directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. After the disposal of this writ petition, the petitioner sent another representation, which was disposed of through the impugned order. Meanwhile, the petitioner also retired from service on 30.06.2011.

¶38

3.In the order rejecting the petitioner's claim, the respondents stated that the petitioner was not qualified during 1996 for the post of higher secondary school headmaster and therefore, his promotion with retrospective effect would not arise. He would submit that the request is against the Adhoc Rules. That apart, the petitioner has also suffered disciplinary proceedings and had rejected the representation.

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.2896 of 2015

¶41

Heard the learned counsels and perused the materials available

¶42

on record.

¶43

The qualification of passing an account test for executive

¶44

officer, Part-I and Part II was introduced for the first time only by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.66, Environment and Forest (F.R.1) Department, dated 07.07.2006. Prior to that, there was no Rules or qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Head Master. The petitioner admittedly qualifies for the post of headmaster even on the date of coming into force of G.OMs.No.66 with reference to Clauses 1 to 3. The petitioner has also subsequently qualified by passing the account test in December 2006. His request for giving him the pay scale with effect from 12.09.1996 has been rejected primarily on the ground that he did not have the requisite qualification as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.66. However, on perusal of G.O.Ms.No.66 dated 07.07.2006, Clause 8 of the G.O. clearly provides as follows:

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.No.2896 of 2015

¶47

“ 8. Savings: Nothing contained in these rules

¶48

shall adversely affect any person appointed to the

¶49

post prior to the date publication of those rules in

¶50

the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette.”

¶51

Therefore, it is crystal clear that for those persons appointed prior to the publication of these Rules, the qualifications prescribed in this G.O. would not apply. The aforesaid factor has not been taken note of by the authorities concerned. Consequently, the impugned order passed is without any legal basis. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order of the second respondent dated 05.01.2015 is quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

21.06.2024

¶53

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes srn To

¶54