Dr. J. Roop Kumar v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and M.P.(MD).Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 2015 and W.M.P.(MD).No.759, 760 and 761 of 2016 W.P.(MD).No.13366 of 2015:
1.Dr.J.Roop Kumar, Associate Professor in Physics, Alagappa Government College, Alagappa Puram, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District - 630 003.
2.Dr.M.Jeyaraj, Associate Professor in Physics, Alagappa Government College, Alagappa Puram, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District - 630 003.
3.Dr.P.Perumal, Associate Professor in Physics, Alagappa Government College, Alagappa Puram, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District - 630 003.
... Petitioners 1/20
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Director of Collegiate Education, D.P.I.Compound, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
3.C.Senchulakshmi 4.S.Navamani 5.T.Alli 6.M.Gandhimathi 7.T.Sampoornam 8.E.Kumarasamy 9.K.Bharathidasan 10.K.Murugeswari 11.J.D.Vigila 12.V.Thangamani 13.S.Fouzia 14.C.S.Suriyanarayanan 15.P.Vijayalakshmi 16.S.Jeya 2/20
17.K.Jothy 18.M.Vanan 19.M.Jayalakshmi 20.N.Rajalakshmi 21.S.Sundaram 22.K.Manoharan 23.T.Vanmathy 24.G.Mookkammal 25.G.Kalai 26.S.Ramesh 27.Arul Thalapathy 28.P.Kalaivani 29.B.Muthulakshmi 30.S.Rasani 31.V.Ranganathan 32.A.S.Gladys 33.V.Gowri 34.Santha Robinson 35.R.Muthulakshmi 3/20
36.R.Catherin Vimala 37.R.Geetha 38.D.Subramani 39.T.S.Tarabai Dhachayani 40.N.Vijayathara 41.A.Chokkappan 42.G.Lalitha Vengateshwari 43.K.Balakrishnan 44.K.Chitra 45.C.Kuthukala Matchika 46.Geetharajan 47.Myrtle Samuel 48.R.Sugirtharani Julina 49.M.Ravichandran 50.C.Umamaheswari 51.E.Palanichamy 52.T.Ponnan 53.R.Thiagarajan 53.P.H.Anand 4/20
55.P.Govindaraju 56.D.Saralathembavani 57.S.Grace Beaula 58.Rigivaneesa 59.P.Parvathi 60.V.Manivannan 61.S.Murthy 62.S.Kalavathy 63.V.Mallika 64.G.Natarajan 65.D.Sumathi 66.N.A.Anbarasan 67.P.Prem Kala Rani 68.M.A.Bhagerathy 69.T.Kolochi 70.R.Vedavalli 71.Selvin Mary 72.Geetharani.R 73.R.Prabhakaran 5/20
74.M.Chinnaiah 75.P.Kulalmolial 76.S.P.Saravanan 77.Savithri Sundar 78.Amutha Pandian 79.Ahalya Balan 80.K.Kalidasan 81.S.Nalini 82.S.Rajendran 83.P.Esther Joice 84.R.Bhavani 85.D.Kannammal 86.D.Greetamary Thenral 87.G.Grace Kamalini 88.R.Malathy 89.V.Usharani 90.D.Ganesan 91.R.Renukadevi 92.R.Manjula 6/20
93.Thamilzhazhi Korkaivendan 94.S.Jegannathan 95.K.Shankar 96.A.Thiruvalluvar 97.K.Murugesan 98.R.Banumathi 99.A.Leela Glory Bai 100.N.Palanirani ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned Seniority List of Selection Grade Lecturers/ Associate Professors drawn by the second respondent Director in Rc. No. 7755/ J2/ 2015 dated 10.04.2015, quash the same insofar as it reckons the petitioner's seniority only with reference to the date of their absorption into Government service (01.05.1985), and further direct the first and second respondents herein to redraw the Seniority List forthwith by reckoning the petitioner's seniority w.e.f the dates of their initial regular appointment as Assistant Professors (Dr.J.Roopkumar - 14.12.1981, Dr.M.Jeyaraj - 10.12.1982 and Dr.P.Perumal - 07.01.1983, and thereby placing them at Rank Nos.5, 44 and 46 respectively, and consequently give them promotion as Principals. 7/20
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar, For M/s.Isaac Chambers.
For R-1 and R-2 : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, Additional Government Pleader.
For R-3 to R-100 : No Appearance.
W.P.(MD)No.961 of 2016:
Dr.J.Roop Kumar .... Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Director of Collegiate Education, D.P.I.Compound, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
3.D.Sumathi 4.P.Prem Kala Rani 5.Dr.P.Esther Joice 6.D.Greetamary Thenral 7.K.Srinivasan ... Respondents 8/20
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the first respondent State Government in G.O.(MS).No.473 (Higher Education-F1) dated 19.11.2015 insofar as Serial Nos. 12, 14, 24, 25 and 30 are concerned (approving the Regular Panel for promotion to the posts of Principal Grade-II for the year 2015-2016) and the consequential promotion orders issued under G.O.(1D) No.290 (Higher Education-F1) dated 15.12.2015, quash the same, and further Direct the first and second respondents herein to give promotion to the petitioner as Principal forthwith by placing him in the said Panel at Serial No.30 by reckoning his seniority at-least from the date of his absorption into Government service i.e., 01.05.1985.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar, For M/s.Isaac Chambers.
For R-1 and R-2 : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, Additional Government Pleader.
For R-3 to R-7 : No Appearance.
COMMON ORDER The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.13366 of 2015 is filed challenging the impugned Seniority List of Selection Grade Lecturers / Associate Professors dated 10.04.2015 insofar as the petitioner's seniority is concerned and to direct the respondents to redraw the seniority with effect from the initial date of appointment as Associate Professors. The appointment of the first petitioner is 9/20
on 14.12.1981, the second petitioner is on 10.12.1982 and the third petitioner is on 07.01.1983 and thereby placing them at Rank Nos.5, 44 and 46 respectively and consequently grant promotion.
2. The brief facts as stated in the affidavit is that the petitioners were working as Assistant Professors in the Alagappa Government Arts College, Karaikudi District. The College was originally established as a Private Aided College and subsequently, it was taken over by the Government. The Alagappa University was established under the Alagappa University Act, 1985 (Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1985). The erstwhile Alagappa College was also taken over by the Government under G.O.Ms.No.611 Education dated 13.06.1985. The first petitioner was initially appointed on 26.11.1981 against the said sanctioned post and joined duty on 14.12.1981. His service was regularized with effect from 14.12.1981. Likewise, the second petitioner was appointed on 10.12.1982 and his service was regularized with effect from 10.12.
1982 and the third petitioner was appointed on 07.01.1983 and his service was regularized with effect from 07.01.1983. After taking over the Alagappa College by the Government, the interse seniority ought to be fixed between the absorbed 90 teaching staff along with the TNPSC appointees, 10(a)(i) appointees and absorption of tutors.
cannot be any dispute, since their appointment is as per recruitment procedure. But the interse seniority is among the Alagappa University teaching staffs, 10(a)(i) appointees and tutors ought to be determined. The Government has passed the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.344 (Education - F2) dated 27.03.1989, whereby, the petitioners service was absorbed with effect from 01.05.1985. The Government has published interse seniority whereby, the date of absorption was taken as the date of appointment that is on 01.05.1985. Aggrieved over this, the faculty members repeatedly represented the Government and the Director. The Directorate of Collegiate Education issued guidelines vide dated 15.06.2011, whereby, the faculties are classified into six categories. The three petitioners herein were placed at Rank Nos.51, 53 and 54.
After undergoing a special test, the Tutors were promoted as Associate Professors and thereafter they are absorbed in the service. Since there were dispute in the interse seniority, Writ Petitions were filed before the Principal Bench in W.P.Nos.14485 of 2011 batch. This Court vide order dated 25.01.2012 directed the Government to redraw the seniority list with reference to the dates of initial appointment of the competing candidates except the serial number until 14, since they are TNPSC appointees. The contention of the petitioner is that inspite of this order, again the respondents have redrawn the seniority by fixing the petitioner's seniority from the date of absorption i.e. 01.05.1985.
However, the 10(a)(i) appointees who were regularized through G.O.Ms.No. 1840 Education Department dated 16.12.1988, were granted seniority from their original date of appointment under 10(a)(i) (which is on various dates). In short the respondents proceeded to fix the seniority as if the 10(a)(i) appointees were appointed in the year 1981 and the petitioners' appointment is in the year 1985. The aggrieved parties agitated before the learned Single Judge in W.P. (MD).No.14485 of 2011 batch, wherein the petitioners herein were also shown as the respondents. After hearing rival submissions, the Learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.01.2012 has directed the respondents as under: "56. In the result, the Writ Petitions filed in W.P.No.
14485, 15159, 15364 of 2011 are allowed and consequently, the impugned orders are set aside insofar as the Serial No.15 onwards in the impugned seniority list. While setting aside the orders impugned, the following directions are issued: (i) The first respondent is directed to redraw the seniority list by taking into consideration of the date of initial appointment of the petitioners and the private respondents who are arrayed from Serial No.15 onwards in the impugned seniority list.
(ii) Insofar as the persons shown in the impugned seniority list from 1 to 14 are concerned, their seniority list fixed is upheld as they are admittedly direct recruits appointed through proper process".
The learned Single Judge has directed the respondents to redraw the seniority list by taking into consideration the date of initial appointment of the 12/20
petitioners and the private respondents who are arrayed as parties from Serial No.15 in the impugned list therein. Pursuant to the order, the aggrieved private respondents had preferred Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1108/2012 and 1109/2012 and the same is pending. In the meanwhile, the respondents have redrawn the seniority list by placing the petitioners below the persons who were appointed under Rule 10(a)(i). The respondents have taken the date of absorption of the petitioners as initial date of appointment and placed the petitioner below 10(a) (i) appointees, thereby the respondents have not followed the direction of the Learned Single Judge. Either the respondents ought to have followed the initial appointment for all the petitioners and the private respondents or they should follow the absorption date as the initial appointment. Again, the same discrepancies crept in the impugned seniority list. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
3. Pending this Writ Petition, the respondents have published interse seniority through G.O.Ms.No.473 dated 19.11.2015 which was communicated by the Directorate of Collegiate Education through proceedings dated 10.12.2015 and the impugned promotion was granted on 15.12.2015. In the G.O. the private individuals are directed to submit objections within two months. The respondents have not waited for two months and immediately 13/20
within two days, have issued the impugned seniority list and they were promoted also. After the publication of the seniority list, the petitioner namely, J.Roop Kumar had immediately filed the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.961 of 2016 Writ Petition on 12.01.2016 challenging the seniority list as well as the promotion granted to the employees mentioned thereunder. Since both the Writ Petitions have common facts, both are taken up together and a common order is passed.
4. Heard Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar, For M/s.Isaac Chambers, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents and perused the records.
5. The contention of the petitioner is that the Learned Single Judge has directed the respondents to follow the initial date of appointment for all the stakeholders. The 1st petitioner's initial date of appointment is on 14.12.1981, the second petitioner is on 10.12.1982 and the third petitioner is on 07.01.1983 and their absorption in the Government service is on 01.05.1985. The respondents have taken the absorption date as 01.05.1985 and placed the petitioners below their juniors. The claim of the petitioners is with regard to the 14/20
persons in the Serial Number from 24 to 34. The said persons were appointed subsequent to the petitioners that is in the year 1986 and hence they ought to be placed below the petitioners. But the official respondents have placed the respondents 24 to 34 above the petitioners in the seniority list and were granted promotion. The details of said 24 to 34 respondents are given below: S.No .
Names Date of original appointment G.Mookkammal 10.09.1982 G.Kalai 13.09.1982 S.Ramesh 01.10.1982 Arul Thalapathy 13.10.1982 P.Kalaivani 15.10.1982 B.Muthulakshmi 15.10.1982 S.Rasani 15.10.1982 V.Ranganathan 18.10.1982 A.S.Gladys 18.10.1982 V.Gowri 20.10.1982 Santha Robinson 29.10.1982 On perusing the above details, admittedly the 1st writ petitioner was appointed on 26.11.1981 and prior to the appointment of the aforesaid persons mentioned in the tabulation, therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the interse seniority prepared by the respondents is erroneous and the respondents have not followed the direction of the Learned Single Judge order dated 25.01.2012 passed in W.P.(MD).No.14485 of 2011 batch. 15/20
6. The next contention of the petitioner is that in some cases the respondents have not followed initial appointment but has unilaterally fixed some date. For this, the petitioner cited the case of one P.Esther Joice. On perusal of G.O.Ms.No.1840 dated 16.12.1988, the said P.Esther Joice in Serial No. 607, her date of initial appointment in 10(a)(i) service is 26.06.1986. The said P.Esther Joice initial date of appointment is 26.06.1986 and absorption date is 16.12.1988, but while granting promotion, the respondents have unilaterally fixed her date of appointment as 07.01.1985 and granted promotion. But the 1st petitioner's initial appointment is 14.12.1981 and the absorption date is 01.05.1985. Hence, the said P.Esther Joice is junior to the petitioner, but the respondents have placed the said P.Esther Joice above the petitioner.
If the respondents are taking the initial date of appointment, then the petitioner's initial date of appointment should be taken covering the service rendered in the Alagappa University also. The respondents again committed the same mistake by keeping the petitioner's date of absorption as the date of initial appointment. Whereas, the date of initial appointment for 10(a)(i) were kept as initial appointment itself and the date of absorption was not taken into account. Therefore, there is a clear discrepancy in keeping 10(a)(i) appointment above the petitioner. Actually, 10(a)(i) appointees were absorbed in the regular service through G.O.Ms.No.1840 and it is stated in G.O.
covering in the said G.O. would be regularized from the date of issuance of G.O. i.e. on 16.12.1988. But the respondents have implemented the Learned Single Judge order as far as the 10(a)(i) appointees and had granted the date of initial appointment which was mentioned against each person and the same was taken as the initial appointment. But as far the appointees in Annamalai College are concerned, the petitioner's initial date of appointment in the Annamalai is 1981 but the respondents have taken the absorption date as initial appointment i.e. on 1985. The respondents have clearly messed up the entire issue and the Learned Single Judge order was misinterpreted and have placed the Alagappa appointees as the date of absorption whereas, the 10(a)(i) appointees as the date of initial appointment in 10(a)(i) service.
7. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner Roop Kumar was appointed on 14.12.1981, whereas Esther Joice was appointed on 26.06.1986. But the petitioner Roop Kumar date of absorption in Government Service is on 01.05.1985. Therefore, the petitioner should be placed in the seniority list between S.Rajendran (Serial No.23) and Esther Joice (Serial No.24). If the petitioner is kept in between these two persons, the petitioner will be eligible for promoting as Principal. The said Esther Joice was already promoted in the existing vacancies. Therefore, the petitioner ought to 17/20
have been promoted in the existing vacancies as well. Hence, the plea of the respondents that the promotion is not automatic it is against any existing vacancies cannot be entertained, since the subsequent name Esther Joice was considered for promotion and promoted in the existing vacancies. Therefore, the 1st petitioner is entitled to promotion. Since the 1st petitioner is retired from service, he is entitled to promotion notionally. The respondents are directed to confer promotion as well as the service benefits to the 1st petitioner. Based on this, the pensionary benefits shall be modified. As far as the monetary benefits are concerned, 25% of monetary benefits shall be paid to the 1st petitioner. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. As far as the second petitioner and the third petitioner is concerned, when their chance for promotion arises, by that time they had attained superannuation and hence the second petitioner and the third petitioner is not entitled to promotion.
18/20
9. With the above direction, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
15.02.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Nsr To 1.The Principal Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Higher Education, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Director of Collegiate Education, D.P.I.Compound, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
19/20
S.SRIMATHY, J.
Nsr 15.02.2023 20/20