Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S. PUSHPAM versus THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER2

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


S. Pushpam v. The District Educational Officer2 - WRIT PETITION NO.1413 OF 1995 [2002] RD-TN 184 (21 March 2002)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED: 21/03/2002

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.K. MISRA

WRIT PETITION NO.1413 OF 1995

S. Pushpam ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Educational Officer

Kuzhithurai Educational District

Marthandam

Kanyakumari District.

2. The Correspondent

St. Joseph Higher Secondary School

Thiruthavapuram

Kuzhithurai

K.K. District.

3. C. Selvaraj

High School Assistant

St. Joseph Higher Secondary School

Thiruthavapuram

Kuzhithurai

K.K.District. ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr. R.Rajaram

For Respondents : Mr. R.Rajasekaran, G.A. for R1 Mr.S.M.Joseph Thathevs Jerome

for R2 & R3.

:O R D E R



Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order Mu.Mu.No.11846/ AA4/94 dated 16.12.1994 granting approval to the appointment of third respondent as an Assistant Headmaster in the St. Joseph Higher Secondary School, Thiruthavapura, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District. The aforesaid appointment in High School is made on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.887, Education Department dated 5.6.1979. The relevant provision is contained in paragraph-2 of the aforesaid order dated 5.6.1979.

" 2. The Government after careful consideration have decided that in the High Schools or in the Higher Secondary Schools (which includes High School classes also) with a pupils strength of 750 or more the senior most graduate or post graduate Assistant or Tamil Pandit Grade I or Physical Director getting B.T.Scale of pay available in the concerned High School or Higher Secondary School may be called as Assistant Headmaster and the special pay of Rs.25/- p.m. may be paid. They accordingly direct as follows: i) all High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools under all management viz., Government, Aided, Municipal and Corporation (Madras and Madurai) with a pupils strength of 750 or more will have an Assistant Headmaster." The petitioner contends that he was first appointed as B.T. Assistant on 1.9.1964, whereas respondent No.3 was appointed on 26.6.1969. It is further contended that in the alternative, in any case, the petitioner was found eligible to get selection grade scale of pay earlier than the third respondent, taking into account the entire length of service of the petitioner.

3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second and third respondents, it has been indicated that the petitioner was appointed as B.T. Assistant on temporary basis on 1.9.1964 in some other school. Subsequently, he was appointed in leave vacancy on 26.6.1969 and after several breaks in his service, he was appointed in a regular vacancy only with effect from 1.6.1973, whereas the third respondent was appointed on regular basis with effect from 9.6.1969 and as such the petitioner cannot be treated as senior to the third respondent.

4. A perusal of paragraph-2 of the G.O.Ms.No.887 dated 5.6.1979 makes it clear that the appointment as Assistant Headmaster of this school is to be made on the basis of seniority in the concerned High School or Higher Secondary School and not on the basis of seniority or experience in any other High School. In the present case, the petitioner was admittedly appointed in the concerned High School after the third respondent had been appointed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as senior to the third respondent in the concerned High School.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner having been granted selection grade of scale earlier to the third respondent should be treated as senior is not acceptable because such selection grade of scale is made available on the basis of total experience as teacher, not necessarily in a particular school and as such, it cannot be said that merely because the petitioner received selection grade of scale earlier, he should be treated as senior to the third respondent.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. Index: Yes

21.3.2002

kb

To

The District Educational Officer

Kuzhithurai Educational District

Marthandam

Kanyakumari District.

P.K. MISRA, J.




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.