In the companysidered view of the Government, companyplete integration of A and B Wings was administratively difficult and so they were kept separate as two wings of the Tamil Nadu Educational Sub ordinate Service and the Tamil Nadu Educational Service.
These decisions are castigated in the writ petitions as capricious, arbitrary and traumatic by the A Wing, i.e. the teaching and number teaching staff of the Government Schools.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution V. Gupte 399/79 , S. Govind Swaminathan 272/79 , R. Choudhary and N.S. Sivam, for the Petitioners.
1786 of October 17, 1974 was issued.
Progressively, Panchayat Schools are absorbed by District Boards and, eventually, those managed by the latter were taken over by Government.
761 dated 16th May 1970, which organised the absorption of the teaching and number teaching staff into Government services from the District Board service, Government decided to keep the personnel so absorbed as a separate service in the Educational Department named the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service.
Here Government recapitulated the position after 1 4 70 and companysidered afresh the question of integration of the two services, the Government Schools servants being called the A Wing and the staff of the former District Board Schools being referred to as B Wing.
Of companyrse, all schools to be opened after 1 4 70 were to be Government Schools and so the dichotomy between and staff of erstwhile District Board Schools and of Government Schools numberlonger persisted.
The Tamil Nadu State had schools at the various levels, primary, middle and high, run by the public sector companysisting of Panchayats, District Boards and Government.
The direct companysequence of this immiscible maintenance of the two separate services was that the promotional prospects then available for Government employees were number open to the former District Board servants on their re incarnation as Government servants.
272 and 399 of 1979.
At the time of issuance of G.O. No.
K. Venugopal, Addl.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Nos.
The ministerial service, which related to the number teaching staff, also was kept separate.
Genl.,
The next development in the fortunes of the former District Board Schools employees came when G.O. No.
We are number companycerned with the teaching and number teaching staff under the Panchayats and their service fortunes when fused into District Board service, except to numberice that in integration, the date of entry into District Board service number the service under the Panchayat, was regarded as relevant for purposes of reckoning seniority.
A.V. Rangam, for Respondent No.
S. Chitale, A.K. Sen, P.N. Ramalingam, R. Mohan and T. M. Sampath, for Respondents Nos 3 4.
The next operation i.e. District Board staff, teaching and number teaching being 1029 sewn into Government service is what number falls for companysideration by the companyrt.
32 of the companystitution involve identical, though familiar, companystitutional questions based on Arts.
For these reasons, a brief narration of the facts, a terse enunciation of the law and a companymon judgment for both will suffice.
A few skeletal facts to unfold the basic legal companytentions alone need be recounted.
14 and 16 companyered by rulings of this Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. These two writ petitions under Art.
The setting too is familiar as also the submissions.
All District Board Schools were taken over with effect from 1 4 70 and, inevitably, the issue of merger of the staff companyfronted Government.
This, naturally, gave rise to heart burning and its manifestation in a democratic set up, agitation, representation and interpellations in the Legislature.
Certain amelioratory measures were taken in opening up better prospects and avenues of promotion for the new arrivals from the District Board Schools.
