seniority in service

This topic contains 1 reply, has 2 voices, and was last updated by Dr. Ashok Dhamija Dr. Ashok Dhamija 10 months, 2 weeks ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #3592

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
    (Appellate Side Jurisdiction)

    W.A.No.89 of 2014

    Against
    W.P.No.19778 of 2011

    M.Ethirajulu
    S/o. M.Venkatapathy Naidu
    No.C2, DIET Quarters
    Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005. … Appellant

    -Vs-
    Government of Tamil Nadu
    Rep. by its Secretary to Government
    School Education Department
    Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009 and 3 others … Respondents

    SYNOPSIS

    S.No. DATE EVENTS

    1. 03.03.2002 The appellant and the 4th respondent appeared for the written examination for selection to the post of Junior Lecturer (DIET). The appellant possessed M.A.M.Ed., and the 4th respondent possessed M.A. (Telugu) & B.Ed., qualification.

    2. 10.03.2002 The appellant secured 74/150 and the 4th respondent secured 104/150.

    3. 09.09.2002 Since the 4th respondent did not possess M.Ed., and the minority language teachers with M.Ed., degree were not available, the Teacher Recruitment Board sought for clarification for appointment.The Secretary, Education Department issued clarification that those who studied minority languages (Telugu, Malayalam etc.,) as the main subject in undergraduate and post- graduate level could be appointed as language teachers and further suggested that the 4th respondent can be given three years’ time for securing M.Ed. degree (as the 4th respondent was qualified in M.A. degree in Telugu and B.Ed. degree and did not possess M.Ed. degree).

    4. 10.09.2002 The Government issued G.O.(Ms) No.146 dated 10.09.2002, stating that since sufficient number of minority language teachers were not available and that all the five aspirants, who appeared for selection for appointment of Junior lecturer (Telugu), did not possess M.Ed. qualification and since the 4th respondent had acquired high marks in the written examination and studied Telugu both at the undergraduate and post-graduate level, exemption for M.Ed. was granted to the 4th respondent.However, while issuing the appointment order on 14.12.2002, the 4th respondent was directed to complete the M.Ed degree course within three years.

    5. 19.12.2002 The 4th respondent joined as Junior Lecturer (Telugu), DIET, Krishnagiri.

    6. 20.12.2002 The appellant joined as Junior Lecturer (History) in DIET, Krishnagiri.

    7. 2004 The Madras University discontinued the M.Ed., degree correspondence course in 2002. Hence, the 4th respondent joined M.Ed. degree in Karnataka State Open University, Mysore in August 2003. The second/final year examination, which was scheduled to be held on 29th, 30th and 31st December 2005 were rescheduled and held on 2nd, 3rd and 4th January 2006 and that viva-voce held on 06.01.2006. The petitioner successfully qualified in the examination.

    8. January 2009 Panel was drawn for promotion from among the Junior Lecturers as on 01.01.2009. The 4th respondent was placed in Serial No.8 and the appellant was placed as Junior to the 4th respondent in Serial No.9.

    9. April 2010 The appellant gave objection, stating that he should be placed above the 4th respondent. The request was made on the ground that the appellant had acquired M.Ed. degree on the date of appointment, whereas, the 4threspondent acquired M.Ed. degree, three years after the appointment.

    10. 26.10.2010 The representation made by the appellant was rejected by the Director, SCERT, stating that the 4th respondent had fulfilled the conditions mentioned in her appointment order andthat the 4th respondent was senior to the appellant (on the date of drawal of panel for promotion).

    11. August 2011 The appellant filed Writ Petition, challenging the proceedings dated 26.10.2010 in W.P.No.19778 of 2011.

    12. 12.03.2012 The Hon’ble High Court, after hearing the appellant, issued a direction,directing the Director / 3rdrespondent to consider the claim of seniority of the appellant over the 4th respondent and pass orders.

    13. April 2012 M.P.No.3 of 2012 was filed by the 4th respondent to set aside the ex-parte order dated 12.03.2012 in W.P.No.19778 of 2011.

    14. 14.09.2012 Pursuant to the direction issued by the Hon’ble High Court, on 12.03.2012, the Director (SCERT) passed the order, fixing the appellant as senior over the 4th respondent.

    15. 03.10.2012 The Writ Petition was heard on merits and after hearing both the appellant and the 4th respondent, the Writ Petition was dismissed.

    16. March 2013 The above Writ Appeal has been filed, challenging the order dt.03.10.2012, dismissing the Writ Petition No.19778/2011. W.A. No.89/2014

    The case came to final hearing and the judgment favored the appellant. The appellant has cheated the judiciary by not producing his appointment order copies or his pass in departmental exams after the stipulated period of three years.

    Though we represented, we have not given a judgment to retain justice and honesty. Hence We request you to suggest fruitful measures in this regard.

    The honorable judge HULUWADI RAMESH sir would have given attention to our records. But what happened there, God only knows. He mentioned that (i) the respondent has not completed M.Ed in three years and (ii) NCTE does not favor any relxation to any state.

    But we know that many states have given relaxation / exemption for educational qualification for want of candidates.
    Sir, We feel that you may guide us like a GOD. Please tell what to do.

    Thanking You sir

    Chandraekaran
    9865408608

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
    (Appellate Side Jurisdiction)

    W.A.No.89 of 2014

    Against

    W.P.No.19778 of 2011

    M.Ethirajulu
    Chennai – 600 005.
    …. Appellant/Petitioner

    -Vs-

    Government of Tamil Nadu
    Rep. by its Secretary to Government
    Chennai – 600 009.
    and 3 others
    … Respondents/Respondents

    SYNOPSIS

    M/s.R.SARAVANAKUMAR
    E.VEDA BAGATH SINGH,
    J.RAJA RAO &
    U.SRIRAM

    COUNSEL FOR 4TH RESPONDENT

  • #3594

    Please ask your question in plain language, instead of reproducing pleadings of a court. It is not possible for us to get sufficient time to go through your detailed pleadings.     


    Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Facebook Comments