S. Pitchairathinam vs The Government of Tamilnadu and Others

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Mr. V. Selvanayagam, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. A. Arumugam, the

learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3.

The petitioner had submitted that he was appointed as a Junior cum Warden in the Boys Home Usilampatty, in the rank of graduate Teacher

from 24.08.1967. The petitioner had obtained P.G. Qualification and he was working as a Post Graduate teacher from 21.09.1978 at

Nattarmangalam Higher Secondary School. When the Checkkanurani High School, in which the petitioner was working, was upgraded as a

Higher Secondary School, during the academic year 1980-1981, the petitioner had applied for appointment of Head master of the Higher

Secondary School, as he was the senior most and a qualified candidate for such appointment. However, without assigning any reason, another

person, who was working as Head Master in the High School, had been transferred and posted as the Head Master of the Checkkanurani Higher

Secondary School in which the petitioner was working. Similarly, when the Rajadhani High School was upgraded during the academic year 1986-

1987 as Higher Secondary School, the petitioner had made an application requesting the second and third respondents to promote and appoint

him as the Head Master of the Checkkanurani Higher Secondary School. Once again his request was turned down and the person, who is junior

to him had been transferred and posted as Head Master of the Higher Secondary School. Similarly, the petitioner''s request had not been

considered by the respondents for appointment as Head Master, even though the petitioner had been fully qualified for the said post. Therefore,

the petitioner had challenged the order passed by the third respondent, dated 31.08.1994, in R.O.C. No. B-1/16643/93 and had prayed for a

suitable direction, to consider and promote the petitioner as Head Master in any of the Higher Secondary Schools run by the third respondent

under the control of the second respondent.

In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, it has been stated as follows:

As the applicant has not passed the requisite qualification before 1.3.93 he is not qualified to be included in the panel. The panel for the year 1994-

95 was not drawn due to administrative reasons. Further, now the petitioner has passed the requisite qualification, his name has been

recommended for the inclusion of the list of Headmaster, Higher Secondary School for the year 1995-1996.

The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 had submitted that the petitioner had been qualified and that his name had been

recommended for inclusion as Headmaster in the Higher Secondary School for the year 1995-96. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not

granted the post of Head Master, in view of the pendency of the application in O.A. No. 2205 of 1996, now re-numbered as W.P.29545 of

2006. In such circumstances, the petitioner had been eligible to be appointed as Head Master with the proper scale of pay from the year 1995-

1996. It is submitted that the panel for the year 1994-1995 had not been drawn due to administrative reasons. It is submitted that the petitioner

would be eligible for the monetary benefits due to the post of Head Master from the year 1995-1996 and such notional calculation of the monetary

benefits would be calculated and granted to the petitioner till his date of superannuation.

On such submissions being made, the third respondent is directed to calculate the monetary benefits that would be notionally due to the

petitioner and submit his report to the first respondent for his due consideration, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

On receipt of such report, the first respondent is to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight

weeks thereafter.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.