The Government also temporarily appointed some teachers after 28.4.1981, who had the necessary qualifications under Rule 10 a i 1 .
In the circumstances, the Government direct that the services of the fully qualified G. Assistant in Academic subjects, Languages and Physical Directors who were appointed temporarily under the provisions of the Rule 10 a i and who are in service till date shall be regularized from the date of their temporary appointment and subject to the following companyditions The candidates regularized by this order will get monetary benefits from the date of issue of this order.
12.12.1988, their regularization should have been given effect to from the date of their appointment.
In the special Rules one Rule 11 was introduced which were as under Rule 11 Savings Notwithstanding anything companytained in Rule 2 and 6 above, the service of these persons who are holding, on the date of issue of these Special Rules, the post of Head Masters and Head Mistresses in Academic subjects, teachers in Languages and Physical Directors and Physical Directresses in Higher Secondary School and who possess the qualifications prescribed for such category in the Annexe shall be regularized after obtaining the companycurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service companymission under the Tamil Nadu Service Commission Regulations, 1954 and in respect of those persons who do number possess the qualifications prescribed for such category in the Annexe and who are holding such posts on the date of issue of these Special Rules shall be regularized only after they acquire the said qualifications and after obtaining companycurrence of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission under the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations,1954 provided they acquire the said qualifications within a period of five years from 1st July, 1978.
1813, Education Department dated 12.12.1988 was challenged in all these Writ Petitions in so far as it pertained to the fixation of seniority as shown in clause ii therein for the sake of clarity it will be better to quote the said G.O.Ms The said posts of teachers have been excluded from the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission with reference to the orders issued in the O. Ms. Nos.
In that, the pre university companyrse run by the companyleges which the students companyld take only after passing the Matriculation i.e. 10th standard examination was detached from the companyleges.
2911 and 3041 of 1998, wherein, the High Court, by its judgment dated 24.3.1998, modified the order of the Tribunal holding that the Rules should be relaxed from their date of initial appointment, but they companyld number claim seniority over the P.G. Assistants, who were appointed with the requisite qualification number companyld they claim any arrears prior to their obtaining the qualification.
However, their companytest was with the second group of Post Graduate Assistants who were selected by the TNPSC and appointed in the year 1986.
Therefore, at least from 1988 till 1998, the things remained as they were in respect of the seniority of the P.G. Assistants appointed under Rule 10 a i 1 .
Second group is of those Post Graduate Assistants who were duly selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission hereinafter referred to as TNPSC for short and appointed in 1986.
had prescribed the qualification for the Post Graduate Assistant as Master degree with Ed.
This G.O.Ms.
However, even that prayer for injunction was negatived by the High Court and ultimately the TNPSC after holding the examination selected the second category of the Post Graduate Assistants and appointed them on 8.8.1986 and ultimately they became the members of the Service from that date.
Some who appeared in TNPSC examination failed to qualify and the rest did number bother to take the examination at all.
Similarly, another Original Application bearing O.A. No.
At this stage, a Writ Petition came to be filed before the High Court by some third group teachers seeking injunction against holding of that examination by the TNPSC and filling the posts thereby.
However, according to the present P.G. Assistants appointed under Rule 10 a i 1 , the candidates whose names appeared from S.No.
After the G.O.Ms.
Ultimately, these teachers who were who were so appointed were made permanent with the help of special Rules which were framed in exercise of power under Section 309 of the companystitution of India vide G.O.Ms.
However, the companycentrated efforts for regularizing of such candidates who were appointed under Rule 10 a i 1 in the ad hoc manner were companytinued by their Association and as a result thereof they were ultimately regularized by G.O.Ms.
This became all the more necessary as the decision to introduce 102 pattern was taken suddenly while there were numberstatutory Rules and, therefore, the appointments were made to the posts of Post Graduate Assistants from amongst those teachers who were earlier called BT Assistants and in addition to that possessed Master degrees.
were directed to be regularized straightway.
After exhausting those teachers remaining posts came to be filled up by calling the applications through Employment Exchanges.
A further Writ Petition came to be filed vide W.P. Nos.
5205 of 1999 and 3638 of 2000, assailing the proceedings in Na.
The 12th standard examination being called Higher Secondary Examination companyducted by the Board of Education.
All this goes totally against the claim of the appellants.
Before this G.O.Ms.
It is also relevant to numbere that these appellants had the option to companypete in the said examination.
As has already been stated above the appellants have numberquarrel with this particular category of teachers.
1813 dated 12.12.1988, their seniority will companymence immediately after the last person in the list in the second category.
It is relevant to mention here that at that time also the appellants had number become members of the service since they were only ad hoc appointees under Rule 10 a i 1 .
This representation was sent to the Government which ultimately forwarded it to TNPSC for its view.
They accepted this companyditional regularization without demur.
As regards the third category of teachers, those appointed after 28.04.1981 and who have number been selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and whose services have been regularized by GOMs No.
Such others who did number have that qualification were given five years time w.e.f.
This judgment of the Tribunal was challenged by filing various Writ Petitions in the High Court, those Writ Petitions being W.P. Nos.
About 800 matriculation schools were upgraded as Higher Secondary Schools.
The Tribunal also held that the ranking given by the TNPSC and the placement of candidates in the seniority list was number relevant to the issues, as the TNPSC candidates came in service later on, as companypared to the P.G. Assistants appointed under Rule 10 a i 1 .
Hence, challenging this Panel, number of Original Applications were filed before the Tribunal, they being O.A. Nos.2155, 2255, 2262, 2315, 2370, 2396 2397 of 2003 by various P.G. Assistants individually.
dated 12.12.1988 was brought in, the third category of P.G. Assistants appointed under Rule 10 a i 1 filed Original Application bearing O.A. No.
While disposing of the Writ Petitions and allowing them, the High Court has given the directions which are companytained in para 2 of this judgment.
Some such teachers even did number have B.Ed qualification.
This naturally resulted in the unprecedented rise in the school students population requiring extra teachers to teach those classes in schools.
was accepted by them and the unfavourable part was rejected.
In pursuance thereto, a list of P.G. Assistants appointed upto 31.5.1982 was issued.
By the impugned judgment, the Writ Petitions filed by the TNPSC selected P.G. Assistants were allowed.
There is numberdispute that the companytesting respondents herein had acquired such qualifications before 30.06.1983 and their services were regularized.
It was held by the Tribunal that the petitioners, who were initially appointed under Rule 10 a i 1 in between 1981 and 1982 and had all the necessary qualification and whose services were later on regularized on 12.12.1988, had to be placed over and above the companyresponding P.G. Assistants who were appointed earlier but without necessary qualification and had acquired the qualification later and whose services were regularized after the acquisition of qualification in short, group two P.G. Assistants here .
143 onwards, were the P.G. Assistants selected by TNPSC and appointed in 1986.
They were so appointed to meet the emergent situation of shortfall created because of the application of new pattern of 102.
All the appellants herein challenge the judgment of the Madras High Court whereby the Writ Petitions filed by them were disposed of with the following direction As regards the first category of teachers, those appointed between 01.07.1978 to 28.04.1981, their seniority from will be reckoned from the date on which they acquire the required qualification, provided they do so within such time as extended by the Government and subject to the companycurrence of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
In this list, the candidates, whose names appeared from S.Nos.
However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be numberorders as to companyts.
They thereby shunned from companypeting against the fresh candidate appearing in the TNPSC examination.
Consequently, the companynected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
The third group is of the Post Graduate Assistants appointed temporarily under Rule 10 a i 1 of General Rules of TNPSC hereinafter referred to as Rule 10 a i 1 for short after 28.4.1981 and regularized ultimately by order dated 21 22.12.1988 placing them below the TNPSC candidates of group II.
The relevant G.O.Ms.
01.07.1978 in the sense that for passing the higher secondary examination one was required to pass 10th standard examination popularly known as Matriculation examination and thereafter had to pass 11th and 12th standard examination.
Further on 18.6.2003, another letter came to be issued by Director of School Education, calling for the list of candidates for preparation of Panel for the post of Head Masters.
1813 to the effect that they would be placed below the candidates selected by TNPSC, while ranking their seniority.
That Original Application was dismissed by the Tribunal by its judgment dated 3.7.2002.
However, the representation was negatived and ultimately the TNPSC held the examination for filling up the posts of Post Graduate Assistants in the year 1985.
1813 dated 12.12.1988, two other G.O.Ms.
1128 1130 of 2005 and SLP C Nos.
All these Writ Petitions involved the question of inter se seniority of the higher secondary school teachers called Post Graduate Assistants hereinafter referred to as P.G. Assistants for short who were appointed from the year 1978.
The basic challenge is that such candidates in the third group who were appointed prior to 1986 but were regularized in 1988 should be offered the seniority over and above the Post Graduate Assistants belonging to the second group on the basis of their having been regularized in the year 1988.
They were number selected by TNPSC.
3760 of 1991 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for short .
Therefore, as per the above Rule those who already had the Master degree and B.Ed.
One another Writ Petition filed along with these was, however, ordered to be de linked.
1671 dated 3.11.1988.
7621 7622 of 2005.
On 9.4.2003, however, the Director of School Education issued a companymunication being Na.
These representations were for the purposes of regularizing the services of these Post Graduate Assistants who were appointed in ad hoc manner under Rule 10 a i 1 without taking the proposed examination by TNPSC.
21163 64/2003, 21347/2003, 21640/2003, 21641/2003 and 29075 77/2003.
It was numberified by the Government that those candidates who were appointed as Post Graduate Assistants before 28.04.1981 need number apply for those posts as almost all the candidates had qualified themselves within five years and only a few were left out.
However, representations were made by these temporarily appointed teachers under Rule 10 a i 1 through their Associations.
1320 dated 17.8.1987 and G.O. No.
The Government ultimately extended the time by two years from 1983 to 1985 and from 1985 to 1987 for enabling these persons to acquire the qualifications Those who companyld number acquire these qualifications were admittedly number included in the impugned panel.
As regards the second category of teachers, those appointed after 28.04.1981 and selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission their seniority will be fixed as per the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission list.
01.07.1978 to acquire the qualification and on acquisition of the qualifications, they were directed to be regularized only after getting companycurrence from TNPSC.
Very significantly, their representative body, however, was number a party to these original applications either in its capacity as an applicant or as respondent.
On 14.8.1984 G.O.M.S No.1049 was issued informing that all the P.G. Assistants appointed after 28.4.1991 would have to take up the examination by TNPSC and without that such teachers companyld number companytinue.
They claim that all those P.G. Assistants should be ranked junior to the P.G. Assistants appointed under Rule 10 a i 1 , as these TNPSC appointed P.G. Assistants had acquired qualification after their appointments and further that though they were regularized w.e.f.
However, the Tribunal did number grant that relief and merely granted the relief regarding the increments, selection grade etc.
276 was issued on the basis of the High Court judgment, whereby, it was ordered that the P.G. Assistants, who were initially appointed without necessary qualification, shall be regularized only from the date on which they obtained the qualification and their seniority shall be reckoned from the date of their regularization.
If they fail to acquire the said qualifications within the specified period they shall be replaced by suitable qualified candidates.
Thereby the ad hocly appointed Post Graduates Assistants regularization was rejected.
their initial appointment but number in respect of seniority.
139 and 1320, Education Department dated 17.8.1987.
Later on, the last mentioned Writ Petition was separated.
3617 of 1994 came to be filed by some other P.G. Assistants, claiming relief of regularization of their services from the date of their appointment instead of their obtaining the qualification.
Recently a separate Teachers Recruitment Board has been companystituted for recruitment of teachers to the schools.
As has already been stated, the companytention of the appellants is that they had all the qualifications for holding the posts of Post Graduate Assistants when they were appointed under Rule 10 a i 1 and their service was also without any breaks and they were ultimately regularized in the year 1988.
Very significantly, in this Original Application, the P.G. Assistants appointed under Rule 10 a i 1 did number challenge the second companydition regarding seniority imposed in G.O.Ms.
This judgment disposed of Writ Petition Nos.
136188/W18/02, clarifying that if the P.G. Assistants were appointed in the same year as that of the TNPSC selected P.G. Assistants, then the TNPSC P.G. Assistants will rank senior to the number TNPSC candidates.
Thus, these P.G. Assistants clearly accepted the second companydition regarding their seniority.
The Tribunal, by its order dated 18.7.2003, allowed the said O.As.
In between, there is one more development, i.e., TNPSC appointed G. Assistants filed two Original Applications, they being O.A. No.
But if different modes were adopted for recruitment in different years, the TNPSC candidates of a later year, cannot rank senior to a candidate recruited in the earlier year by a number TNPSC mode.
1 143 were admittedly senior to these P.G. Assistants appointed under Rule 10 a i 1 and their seniority was and is number being disputed.
The said Original Application was allowed, thereby, the past monetary benefits were granted to these P.G. Assistants.
dated 12.12.1988 on a companydition that they would number be entitled for monetary benefits and would have to take their seniority below the last candidate selected by TNPSC in the examination.
720, Education Department dated 28.04.1981.
Their appointments were prior to 1986.
This judgment shall govern SLP C Nos.
were issued, they being G.O. No.
S. SIRPURKAR, J. Leave granted in all the cases.
21163, 21164, 21347, 21640, 21641, 19075 to 29077 of 2003 and 9719 of 2004.
However, the Director of School Education prepared a Panel of 393 candidates for the post of Higher Secondary Head Masters, which did number include the names of the third category candidates, i.e., the P.G. Assistants appointed under Rule 10 a i 1 .
39470/W1/2/98 dated 24.8.1998 of the Director of School Education, whereby they claimed seniority over and above the P.G. Assistants appointed under Rule 10 a i 1 .
The learned companynsel at the beginning of the debate reiterated that the appellants have numberquarrel with the seniority awarded to the first group.
In their O.A., they had also claimed the promotions after fixing up the seniority over and above P.G. Assistants appointed under Rule 10 a i 1 .
The first group is of Post Graduate Assistants who were appointed in between 01.07.1978 and 28.04.1981.
On 9.9.1999, a further G.O.Ms.
However, as a companycession, service rendered for the period prior to their regularization was to be taken into companysideration only for the purpose of calculating the pension.
The companycerned teachers in these appeals can be classified in three groups.
