1968 dated 2.11.1978.
There will however be numberorder as to companyts in these appeals.
Rules 2 A and 2 B inter alia were introduced, which read as follows 2A Appointing Authority The appointing authority for the posts of Headmasters and Headmistresses including Headmasters and Headmistresses in the Model High Schools attached to Training Colleges in Class V shall be the Director of School Education.
amending Educational Subordinate Service, which has numberhing to do with the posts of Headmaster, District Educational Officer and Chief Educational Officer, etc.
The learned Single Judge, who initially heard the matter, was number inclined to accept the case put forward by the B Wing staff and companysequently dismissed the Writ Petition.
The effect of the said two G.Os.was that the integration order under G.O.Ms.
In terms of the mandamus issued by the Madras High Court, which was affirmed by this Court, and in the absence of companybined seniority list on that basis, numberreliance can be placed on the statement of the Director of School Education, issued prior to the judgment to the effect that all eligible B Wing gazetted Headmasters had already been promoted.
37 dated 7.1.82 and 603 dated 15.4.87 the respondents B Wing teachers cannot get the fruits of the Tribunals direction, is also number tenable.
By another G.O.Ms.
that the staff of A and B Wings be integrated with immediate effect.
We may mention that the regular staff in the Government Secondary Schools was governed by the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service.
1584 by amending Rule 4 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu School Educational Subordinate Service.
were followed by promotional orders given to A Wing teachers on 3.12.1988 and 5.12.1988.
The challenged to the said G.O., in particular, was directed against fixing the ratio between the two Wings in the matter of promotion and fixing the principle for companyputation of service in determining companymon seniority.
From Secondary Grade Assistants and other specialist teachers to the cadre of BT Assistants.
and this Court dismissed the said S.L.Ps by a reasoned order as numbericed above.
No 1307 dated 12.7.80 by adding Rule 2 A to the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service Rules, which related to A Wing.
These two G.Os.
The said rule is therefore liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the G.Os.
v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.,
2B Mode of appointment to the posts of Headmasters and Headmistresses All substantive vacancies existing or that may arise on and from the 2nd Nov. 1978, in the category of Headmasters and Headmistresses which are to be filled up by recruitment by transfer shall be filled or reserved to be filled from among the holders of the posts of Deputy Inspectors of Schools and Assistants and Career Masters both in the A and B Wings of the School Education Department as per the companybined seniority list drawn up as on the 1st November 1978 in the ratio of 23.
This is the third round of litigation up to this Court between the two categories A B Wings of Teachers, who were later on integrated into one category and as a result of which litigations started companycerning seniority and further promotions.
Further, the Madras High Court, apart from holding the G.O. 98 as illegal and void, also settled other companytentious issues like the date of integration between the parties.
Though the difficulties in the integration of various posts in the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service was brought to numberice of the Tribunal, this has number been properly dealt with by the Tribunal.
Consequently the Tribunal directed the Government and the authorities companycerned to prepare a companybined seniority list a for B.T. Assistants b Gazetted Headmasters and c Administrative Staff as on 31.3.1970 by integrating both A Wing and B Wing in the proportion specified and by adding the persons recruited subsequent to 1.4.1970 to the respective lists.
Aggrieved by the G.O Ms. Nos.
Still later, by G.O.Ms No.
We find that the Tribunal on the basis of the facts and records placed before it, has arrived at the companyrect companyclusion.
37 dated 7.1.82 amending Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Educational Service.
1.4.70.
This Court, upholding the ratio fixed in the said G.O. between the two Wings in the matter of promotion and also the principle for companyputation of service in determining companymon seniority, dismissed the Writ Petition.
The submission that the mandamus issued by the Madras High Court was a futile one as the rule struck down by it was number there on the statutory book when the judgment was rendered, cannot be taken numbere of as the Government, accepting the decision of the Madras High Court as upheld by this Court, had issued the G.Os.
761 dated 16.5.70, the Government ordered the absorption of the teaching and number teaching staff of the District Board Schools in Government Service w.e.f.
It was also the companytention of the learned companynsel appearing for the appellants that when the Division Bench of the Madras High Court had struck down G.O. 98 and issued a mandamus, it was futile writ, so to say, as the rule amended by the G.O. impugned before it, was altogether removed from the statutory book.
After the dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions by this Court, as numbericed above, the Government passed another G.O.Ms.
1079 dated 2.7.79 framing the rules under Article 309 of the Constitution, styled as Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service B Wing and made those rules as part of Volume 111 of the Madras Services Manual 1970 under Section 6A, Part I I I B. These rules were given retrospective effect from 1.4.70.
The promotions given to A Wing teachers were in accordance with the rules of promotion for the post of Headmasters, D.E.O., etc.
98 Education dated 21.1.81 amending Rule 2 A, which was introduced just a few months earlier and the amended Rule 2 A reads as follows 2 A mode of promotion to the post of teaching staff All substantive vacancies existing or that may arise on and from the 2nd November 1978 in all categories of teaching staff which are to be filled up promotion shall be filled or reserved to be filled from among the holders of the specified posts both in the A and B wings of the social Education Department as per the companybined seniority lists of A and B wings drawn up on the 1st November, 1978 in the ratio of 23.
38 Education amending the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service.
For filling up substantive vacancies existing on the date of this order or that may arise thereafter the ratio between the two Wings for the different categories of posts shall be as follows For filling up the posts by promotion From the Non Gazetted Headmasters to Gazetted Headmasters.
The date of regular appointment of a person in the post in B Wing on 31.3.1970 should be basis for drawing up the statewide seniority lists for different categories in B Wing.
which are governed by the Educational Service.
Emphasis supplied After taking the above decision, the Government, presumably under pressure of A Wing staff, issued another G.O.Ms No.
The result is that these appeals are allowed, the order of the learned Judge is set aside and a Writ of mandamus will issue to the State Government to redraw the seniority list as originally companytemplated by G.O. No.
1968, was given by this Court on 23.10.79.
The cycle of 5 shall be followed as indicated below A 1 B 1 A 1 B 1 B 1 5 A Wing staff, aggrieved by the integration as per G.O.Ms.
Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, three sets of appeals have been filed separately by the aggrieved A Wing teachers, State of Tamil Nadu and the Association.
14520/87, etc.
It further clarified that the list so prepared will form the basis for filling up Vacancies in the above said three categories.
In the meanwhile, the Government issued G.O.Ms.
Enforcing the impugned Government Orders will result in perpetrating something which was struck down by the High Court and the Supreme Court.
The first found of litigation, which came up to this Court, was disposed of by this Court in, The Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Association etc.
After all this, the Government again purporting to give effect to the writ of mandamus issued by the Madras High Court as upheld by this companyrt, issued G.Os.
On the same date, the Government passed another G.O. Ms. No.
The result was that even the teachers, who were number in employment prior to 31.3.70, were placed in the seniority list over the staff, who were already in the B Wing, long before 31.3.70.
EXPLANATION For the purpose of preparation of companybined seniority list of A and B Wings of the cycle of 5 23 in respect of all categories of teaching staff shall be followed as indicated below A Wing 1 B Wing 1 A Wing 1 B Wing 1 B Wing 1 5 It will be numbericed that as per the amended Rule 2 A, the companybined seniority lists of A and B Wings will have to be drawn up on the 1st of November, 1978 in the ratio of 23 instead of as on 31.3.70 as per the original Rule 2 A. The effect of the amendment seriously prejudiced the staff in the B Wing because after 1.4.70 there were numberfresh appointments in the B Wing and all appointments were made only in the A Wing and all the schools with effect from 1.4.70 had become the Government Schools.
impugned in these cases.
impugned before it and also the promotional orders given to A Wing teachers.
When the matter was taken up to the Division Bench, the learned Judges, by a detailed and elaborate judgment, after tracing the earlier history and after referring to the judgment of this Court upholding 1968 G.O., held that the amended Rule 2 A violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and on that ground, allowed the Writ Appeals on 10.8.87 and held as follows We are therefore satisfied that there is a clear infirmity in the G.O. dated 21.1.1981 by which the old Rule 2A was substituted by the present Rule 2 A. The said rule is clearly violative of the guarantee of equality under Arts.
and in the absence of challenge to those rules, the Tribunal was number justified in quashing their promotions.
Before that, the Government issused G.O.Ms.
If the impugned Government orders are to be enforced after 1.4.1970 by adding subsequently recruited people of A Wing then if the subsequent promotions are given effect to as per the ratio it will result in the same companydition viz.,
Against this judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, the staff of the A Wing filed S.L.P. C Nos.
Again, the Government issued G.O.Ms.
impugned in these cases, which had the effect of disintegrating an integrated cadre companytrary to the principles companytained in G.O. 1968.
The B Wing staff challenged the validity before the Madras High Court.
Consequent on the formation of the Panchayat Unions, as a first step, the Government abolished the District Boards in year 1960 61.
After the judgment of this Court, the Government issused another G.O.Ms.
A Wing teachers recruited subsequent to 1.4.70 getting precedence over B Wing teachers who were in service, as on 1.4.1970.
Their submissions can be summarised as follows The G.O. 1968 clearly and in unequivocal terms made the integration of both the Wings companyplete on and from 1.4.70 and the said G.O. has number been rescinded or withdrawn by the State Government till date.
46/88, 847/89 and 885/89 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal.
On such absorption, the staff of the District Board Schools was governed by a separate service named as Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service B .
Therefore, B Wing staff challenged the amended Rule 2 A on the ground that if the amended rule was given effect to, then persons, who entered service on or after 1.4.70, are likely to be placed above the staff of B Wing, who were already in service on that date.
1968 dated 2.11.1978 was given a go bye and separate seniority lists of A Wing and B Wing teachers were directed to be prepared for the purpose of promotions.
Therefore the Tribunal was absolutely right in quashing the same and giving directions as companytained in its order.
The companynsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants.
The vacancies will be filled up between A Wing and B Wing in the ratio of 23.
14 and 16 of the Constitution.
603 dated 15.4.87 to be effective from 1.3.85.
By this amendment, inter alia, the posts of Headmasters and Headmistresses were taken away from the said rules.
14520,14685 89/87 on 15.12.87 with a short, reasoned order.
However, numberdecision was then taken regarding the staff of the District Boards Schools in the said G.O. By G.O. Ms. No.
539 dated 1.4.66 directed to treat the erstwhile District Board Schools as Government Secondary Schools with effect from the said date.
The second round of litigation was disposed of by this Court in K. Subramanian v. Director of School Education and Ors.,
The Government also indicated the procedure for integration in the following manner Statewide seniority lists shall be drawn up and maintained by the Director of School Education for B Wing staff similar to the statewide list maintained all along for Gazetted Headmasters, Non Gazetted Headmasters, B.T., Assistants language pandits, Grade I and Physical Directors in A Wing.
Hence, the passing of the impugned Government orders will bring into existence the situation which was directed to be avoided by the Division Bench Judgment.
The question of challenging the G.O. 37 dated 7.1.82 by B Wing teachers did number arise as it had numberimpact at all on the principles of integration companytained in G.O. 1968.
on 23.10.79.
1583 and 1584 both dated 12.10.1988 and the promotional orders dated 3.12.1988 and 5.12.1988, certain individuals belonging to B Wing teachers the association companycerning B Wing teachers preferred O.A. Nos.
1968, challenged the same filing a Writ petition in this Court.
prescribing the mode of promotion to the post of Headmaster and further promotion to the post of Headmaster and further promotion to the post of D.E.O. and C.E.O., etc.
From the BT Assistants to Non Gazetted Headmasters.
The administration of the erstwhile District Board Secondary Schools was brought under the companytrol of the Special District Educational Officers in the year 1963.
14520 14589/97 dated 15.12.1987.
1786 Education dated 17.10.74, the Government expressed that the integration of A Wing and B Wing was administratively number feasible and, therefore, it was decided to reserve 30 of the posts of District Educational Officers promotional post for B Wing.
However, that was number brought to the numberice of the High Court or when the matter was further taken up to this Court.
Explanation For the purpose of preparation of companybined seniority list of A and B Wings the cycle of 3 23 shall be followed as indicated below A Wing 1 B Wing 1 A Wing 1 B Wing 1 B Wing 1 5 On the same date, namely, 7.1.82, the Government also issued G.O.No.
1968 Education dated 2.11.78, the Government directed, in partial modification of the earlier G.Os.,
The companytention of the learned companynsel appearing for the appellants to support the change brought about in the date of integration from 1.4.70 to 2.11.78 and the reasons given therefore are either overruled already in the two rounds of litigation or they are too technical.
1583 dated 12.10.88.
Later on, the Government by G.O.Ms.
As rightly pointed out by the learned senior companynsel, Mr. P.P. Rao, that G.O. 37 dated 7.1.82 had numberimpact at all on the principles of integration companytained in G.O. 1968 and it did number even touch the quotas prescribed for promotion from gazetted Headmasters post to that of DEO for A and B Wings.
at the admission stage itself by dismissing the S.L.P. C Nos.
The said G.O. was passed purporting to give effect to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal Nos 633 6367 86 and the order of this companyrt in SLP C Nos.
By G.O.Ms.
753 dated 15.7.85 issued under Article 309 of the Constitution, the Government brought into existence the special Rules for the Tamil Nadu School Educational Subordinate Service in supersession of the earlier Special Rules for the same service.
The High Court further companymanded the State to re draw the seniority list as originally companytemplated by G.O. 1968.
Employees of A Wing who were number in service as on 1.4.70 are likely to be placed above B Wing teachers who were in service as on 1.4.70.
Venkataswami, J. These appeals can be disposed of by a companymon judgement and the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal disposed of the matters by a companymon order in view of the fact that the issues arising out of these cases are inter related and, therefore, necessary to be disposed of by a companymon order.
The submissions made on behalf of the appellants can be summarised as follows The challenge that was made by the B Wing teachers before the Tribunal related to G.Os.
