P. Pandiyammal vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—The prayer in the Writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent to re-fix the

seniority list for the post of Headmaster or Tamil Teacher in Middle School based on the length of service and qualification of the petitioner.

The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Kattakommanpatti Panchayat Union Elementary School,

Batlagundu Union, Dindigul District on 14.07.1988 and she was under probation for two years and she was confirmed as Secondary Grade

Teacher on 13.07.1990. The petitioner passed B.Lit. Degree in October 1995 and B.Ed. Degree in December 2005.

The case of the petitioner is that she did not relinquish the appointment as Primary School Headmaster and she signed in the service register on

16.09.1989. However, the 4th respondent made an endorsement on 08.09.1989 stating that the petitioner has relinquished her right to get

promotion. Because of the said entry made in the service register the petitioner''s name for promotion was not considered.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner produced a Government Order issued in G.O.Ms. No. 557 Education Department, dated 10.06.1993

wherein, it is stated that the post of Primary School Headmaster shall be filled by promoting senior most Secondary Grade Teachers working in the

Union. Irrespective of the fact whether they relinquished or not the appointment of Primary School Headmaster earlier and if any person wishes to

relinquish the appointment of Primary School Headmaster, such a relinquishment may be obtained in writing from the incumbent concerned,

temporary relinquishment for a period of not less than three years or permanent relinquishment may be accepted. Formal orders accepting the

relinquishments of the teachers should be issued in each and every case. Since the petitioner''s case is that the petitioner has not relinquished the

promotion based on the wrong entry made by the 4th respondent even before the petitioner signing in the service register the said relinquishment

said to have been given by the petitioner appears to have been made wrongly by the 4th respondent.

The learned Counsel also submits that based on the said Government Order one P. Vimalarani submitted representation before the District

Elementary Educational Officer, Dindigul who in turn in his proceedings dated 03.12.2003 ordered deletion of relinquishment erroneously made by

the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer. The petitioner also submitted a representation to the third respondent on 08.05.2007 and sought for

promotion after deletion of the relinquishment made in the service register.

The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the petitioner has not chosen to rectify the wrong entry made in her

service register immediately on the issue of G.O.Ms. No. 557 Education Department, dated 10.06.1993 and the petitioner alone should be

blamed.

In the light of the above pleadings, without expressing anything on merits, the third respondent is directed to consider the request of the

petitioner dated 08.05.2007, taking note of the G.O.Ms. No. 557 Education Department, dated 10.06.1993 and also the benefit extended to the

said P. Vimalarani and pass orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

It is made clear that the application submitted by the petitioner in the year 2007 shall not be treated as a belated application and if the petitioner

is eligible to get the benefits as per the Government Order the same shall be extended to the petitioner also.

With the above direction, the Writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.