14 and 16 of the Constitution.
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.
1968 Education dated 2.11.78, the Government directed, in partial modification of the earlier G.Os, that the staff of A and B Wings be integrated with immediate effect 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.
State of Tamil Nadu and the Association.
Aggrieved by the G,0 Ms. Nos.
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 prupose of promotions These two G.Os.
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.,
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 filed 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, 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 I B Wing 1 A Wing 1 B Wing I 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 313.70 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 ail the schools with effect from 1.4.70 had become the Government Schools.
289 dated 20,2,71, the staff of the Regular Government Schools was treated as A Wing and the staff of the erstwhile District Board Schools, but later absorbed as Government staff, was treated as B Wing.
539 dated 1.4.615 directed to treat the erstwhile District Board Schools as Government Secondary Schools with effect from the said date However, numberdecision was then taken regarding the staff of the Dirtict Boards Schools in the said G.O. By G.O. Ms. No.
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 GO.
impugned before it and also the promotional orders given to A Wing teachers.
On the same date, the Government passed another G.O, Ms. No, 1584 by amending Rule 4 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu School Educational Subordinate Service, The effect of the said two G.Os.was that the integration order under G.O.Ms.
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.
Against this judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, the staff Of the A Wing filed S.L.P. C Nos.l4520/87 etc.
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 B Wing staff challenged the validity before the Madras High Court.
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.
dated 21,1.1981 by Which the old Rule 2A was substituted by the present Rule 2A. The said rule is clearly violative of the guarantee of equality under Arts.
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 arid Headmistresses including Headmasters and Headmistresses in the Model High Schools attached to Training Colleges in Class V shall be the Director of School Education.
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, 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 I A Wing 1 B Wing I B Wing 1 On the same date, namely, 7.1,82.
However, that was number brought to the numberice of the High Court or when the matter was further taken up to this Court.
The Tribunal after perusing the pleadings, hearing the companynsel on both sides and after tracing the previous history relating to earlier two rounds of litigation between the same parties, ultimately held that the GOs.
That means, there wont be any addition to the Government School under B Wing category after 1.4.70.
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.
In the meanwhile, the Government issued G.O.Ms, No.37 dated 7,1 82 amending Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Educational Service.
Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the G.Os.
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 Whig teachers preferred O.A. Nos, 46/88, 847/89 and 885/89 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal.
Farther, 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.
By this amendment, inter alia, the posts of Headmasters and Headmistresses were taken away from the said rules, Still later, by G.O.Ms No.753 dated 157,85 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.
No.1968, was given by this Court on 23.10.79.
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 befere 31,3,70.
There will however be numberorder as to companyts in these appeals.
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, amending Educational Subordinate Service, which has numberhing to do with the posts of Headmaster, District Educational Officer and Chief Educational Officer, etc.
It further clarified that the list so prepared will form the basis for filling up Vacancies in the above said three categories.
and this Court dismissed the said S.L .Ps by a reasoned order as numbericed above.
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 313.1970 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.
This Government Order provided for three separate sources including promotion from Class V Headmasters and Headmistresses to the post of DEOs and that while making the said appointments the proportion in service by direct recruitment 20 10 30 and by promotion 70 was to be ensured.
Before that, the Government issused GOMs.
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 therefor are either overruled already in the two rounds of litigation or they are too technical.
1583 dated 12.10.88.
After the judgment of this Court, the Government issused another O.Ms.
Grade I and Physical Directors in A Wing.
No.l079 dated 27.79 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.
Hence, the passing of the impugned Government orders will bring into existence the situation which was directed to be avoided by the Divisioin Bench Judgment.
The decision, upholding the validity of the said G,0.
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 .
the Government also issued G.O.No.38 Education amending the Tamil Nadu .Educational Subordinate Service.
The said rule is therefore liable to be quashed.
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.
Rule 2 A, as introduced by the said G.O., 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 Nov. 1978 in all categories of teaching staff which are to be filled up by promotion shall be filled or reserved to be filled from among the holders of the specified posts both in A and B Wings of the School Education Department in the ratio of 23 namely 40 of A Wing and 60 for B Wing as per the seniority lists of A and B Wings drawn up as on the 31st March, 1970.
Enforcing the impugned Government Orders will result in perpetrating something which was struck down by the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Consequent on the formation of the Panchayat Unions, as a first step, me Government abolished the District Boards in year 1960 61 .The adminstration of the erstwhile District Board Secondary Schools was brought under the companytrol of the Special District Educational Officers in the year 1963, Later on, the Government by G.O.Ms.
By another G.O.Ms.
were followed by promotional orders given to A Wing teachers on 3.12.1988 and 5.12,1988.
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 other 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.
Again, the Government issued G.O.Ms, No.603 dated 15.487 to be effective from 1.385.
1968, challenged the same filing a Writ petition in this Court.
After the dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions by this Court, as numbericed above, the Government passed another G.O.Ms.
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.
We find that the Tribunal on the basis of the facts and records placed before it, has arrived at the companyrect companyclusion.
The Government also decided that any school to be opened on or after 1.4.70 shall be only regular Government school.
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.
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 seniorty list as originally companytemplated by .G.O No.1968 dated 2.11.1978.
The High Court further companymanded the State to redraw the seniority list as originally companyemplated by G.O. 1968.
Nol307 dated 12.7,80 by adding Rule 2 A to the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service Rules, which related to A Wing.
which are .governed by the Educational Service.
14520 14589/97 dated 15.12,1987.
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.
A Wing teachers recruited subsequent to 1.4.70 getting precedence over B Wing teachers who were in service, as on 1.4,1970.
impugned in these cases.
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.
at the admission stage itself by dismissing the L.P. C Nos, 14520, 14685 89/87 on 15,12.87 with a short, reasoned order.
1.4,70.
On such absorption, the staff of the District Board Schools was governed by a separate service named as Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service B We may mention that the regular staff in the Government Secondary Schools was governed by the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service.
By G.O.Ms, No.
Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, three sets of appeals have been filed separately by the aggrieved A Wing teachers.
