Aruna and Others vs The Joint Director (Personnel) Elementary Education and Others

K.K. Sasidharan, J.—The petitioners are challenging the order dated 18 June 2014 appointing the fourth respondent in the respective writ

petitions as B.T. Assistants (History) overlooking their seniority.

W.P. No.18463 of 2014:

The petitioner was appointed to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in Ramanathapuram District. She joined duty on 25 November 2004.

The petitioner is fully qualified for appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant (History). The department of education prepared the panel for

promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant (History) for the year 2013. The panel was prepared as on 1 January 2013. In the said panel the names of

seven teachers were included for promotion. The panel was not acted upon on account of the litigation pending before the High Court. The name

of the petitioner was included in the panel for promotion as on 1 January 2014. Her name was placed at Sl.No.12. The name of the fourth

respondent was placed at Sl.No.14. The counselling for promotion took place on 18 June 2014. The second respondent without promoting the

petitioner promoted the fourth respondent in spite of the fact that she joined service long after the appointment of the petitioner.

W.P. No.18464 of 2014:

The petitioner was appointed to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in Dindigul District and she joined the service on 5 July 2004. The panel

for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant (History) was prepared as on 1 January 2013. Since litigations were pending before the High Court the

panel was not operated by the educational authority. The name of the petitioner was included in the panel prepared on 1 January 2014. However

disregarding her claim on the ground of seniority for promotion to the post of assistant (History), the fourth respondent who is junior to her was

promoted. The petitioner therefore challenges the order of appointment.

Stand taken by the Government:

The District Elementary Educational Officer, the second respondent herein filed separate counter affidavits and defended the proceedings.

According to the second respondent the panel for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant (History) was prepared as on 1 January 2013. The

petitioners failed to submit objections and as such their names were not included in the panel for promotion as on 1 January 2013. The panel

prepared as on 1 January 2014 contained the name of petitioners. The second respondent further contended that in the panel prepared as on 1

January 2013 the names of the fourth respondent in both the writ petitions were included and the same resulted in promoting them.

The fourth respondent in both the writ petitions have not entered appearance in spite of receiving notice. Their names were printed in the cause

list.

Submissions:

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the name of the fourth respondent in both the writ petitions were not found in the panel

prepared on 1 January 2013. The second respondent was therefore not correct in his contention that their names were included in the penal as on

1 January 2013. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are senior to the fourth respondent in both the writ petitions. According to the

learned counsel the fourth respondent in both the writ petitions were given a march over the petitioners overlooking the seniority and as such the

impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

The learned Additional Government Pleader justified the impugned order on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent.

Factual Analysis:

The factual matrix very clearly shows that the petitioners were appointed and thereafter joined service before the appointment of the concerned

promotees. The second respondent with a view to justify the promotion given to the promotees submitted that their names were included in the

panel prepared as on 1 January 2013. The petitioners have produced a copy of the panel for promotion prepared as on 1 January 2013. The

panel does not contain the names of the promotees herein. Therefore it is very clear that the second respondent promoted the concerned private

respondents notwithstanding the seniority of the petitioners. In fact the panel prepared as on 1 January 2014 contained the name of the petitioner in

W.P. No.18463 of 2014 at Sl.No.12. The name of the fourth respondent in the said writ petition is found at Sl.No.14. Similarly the name of the

petitioner in W.P. No.18464 of 2014 is shown at Sl.No.11 and the name of the fourth respondent in the said writ petition is shown at Sl.No.15.

The panel was prepared on the basis of the seniority in service. However, while making promotion the second respondent overlooked the seniority

of the petitioners and arbitrarily passed orders promoting the fourth respondent in the respective writ petitions. The petitioners are therefore

perfectly correct in their contention that the second respondent erred in giving promotion to the fourth respondent in both the writ petitions to the

post of B.T. Assistant (History). I am therefore of the view that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

Disposition:

In the result, the impugned orders dated 18 June 2014 are set aside. The appointment of fourth respondent in W.P. Nos.18463 and 18464 of

2014 are also set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the question of promoting the petitioners taking into account their seniority

position. In short, service seniority alone should be the criteria for promotion. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

In the upshot, I allow the writ petitions. Consequently the connected MPs are closed. No costs.