Nithila vs The Director of Elementary Education College and Others

T. Raja, J.

The petitioner Tmt. Nithila, challenging the impugned order of reversion dated 01.04.2003 passed by the District Elementary Educational Officer, Dharmapuri, the second respondent herein, filed O.A. No. 1338 of 2003 before learned Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, on the ground that the said order of reversion was passed without giving any opportunity of being heard. It was also her claim that when she was eligible to be promoted as B.T. Assistant as per the Promotion Priority List, the second respondent ought not to have passed the order of reversion dated 01.04.2003, without conducting any enquiry. Subsequently, the Original Application filed before the learned Tribunal came on transfer to this Court as W.P. No. 13877 of 2006.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the impugned order, repeated the grounds taken in the Original Application that the impugned order of reversion has been passed by the second respondent without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and hence the same should be set aside. Adding further he submitted that the order of reversion states that the 4th respondent alone was eligible to hold the post of Middle School Headmaster, since he joined duty on 02.07.1973 but that has been wrongly misconceived by the 2nd respondent. The 4th respondent was not an eligible candidate since his name was not even shown in the priority list. As a matter of fact, when a candidate''s name was not found in the priority list he should not be given the promotion. These facts have been overlooked by the 4th respondent. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, relying on the reply filed by the District Elementary Educational Officer, Dharmapuri, would submit that the grievance of the petitioner no longer exists since she has also been promoted as a Middle School Headmaster in May 2002. He further submitted that during 2001 a Tamil Pandit post was lying vacant in the Middle School situated at Old Sub-Jail Road and so the Headmaster of the School was promoted as Tamil Pandit. Thereafter, the Assistant Educational Officer, Krishnagiri stated that if the Tamil Pandit post was filled up in the Middle School, there would be two Tamil Pandit posts in the school and therefore he had recommended that the Tamil Pandit posts be transferred as B.T. Posts and filled up by eligible senior candidates in the interest of the children studying in the school. In view of the recommendation of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Krishnagiri the petitioner Tmt. V.S. Nithila was promoted as B.T. Assistant Teacher and the post was also transferred as B.T. Teacher post. Then she was further promoted as Headmaster of the Middle School during May 2002. The 4th respondent Mr. K. Periasamy, who joined the service as a Secondary Grade Assistant on 02.07.1973 made an appeal against the promotion of the petitioner stating that the petitioner had joined duty as Secondary Grade Teacher only on 11.10.1977 and hence sought to promote him.

Considering the appeal, the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai stated that the District Elementary Educational Officer, Dharmapuri has no powers to transfer a specific post to another category of post and the District Elementary Educational Officer, Dharmapuri should have only transferred the vacant post of Tamil Pandit in the Middle School at Old Sub Jail Road to another needy school. It was further stated that in the said vacant post Thiru K. Periasamy, the 4th respondent, could have been promoted as he was the senior person, in the senior list maintained in the Municipal Unit. As there was a specific direction by the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai, to take action as per rules and to submit a report to him and considering the merits of the 4th respondent that he was senior than the petitioner, he was promoted as Middle School Headmaster by reverting the petitioner as Secondary Grade Assistant by the impugned proceedings Roc. No. 6259/B2/02 dated 01.04.2003. Therefore, when the rules are rightly followed by giving promotion to a senior most person, namely, the 4th respondent, by reverting the petitioner, the impugned order cannot be challenged.

A close reading of the impugned order dated 01.04.2003 issued by the District Elementary Educational Officer, Dharmapuri promoting the 4th respondent Thiru K. Periasamy as Headmaster of the Middle School, clearly shows that the petitioner joined the service as Secondary Grade Assistant on 11.10.1977 whereas the 4th respondent Thiru K. Periasamy joined duty as Secondary Grade Assistant on 02.07.1973. That apart, even as per date of birth of the petitioner and the 4th respondent, namely, 20.04.1953 and 10.06.1947 respectively, it shows that the 4th respondent is senior. Besides, after filing of the counter no rejoinder whatsoever has been filed disputing the validation of the rules giving promotion to the 4th respondent. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order.

Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.