BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21/06/2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.(MD)No.7971 of 2007
Alameluammal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road,
Chennai.
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Office of D.E.E.O.,
Madurai.
3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Officer of A.E.E.O.,
Chellampatti - 625 566.
4.Saraswathi
5.Thilagavathy
6.Puspha ... Respondents
Prayer
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records relating to the impugned seniority list dated 01.01.1998, 01.01.2007 and
the promotion granted in favour of the fourth respondent to the post of Middle
School Headmistress dated 21.07.2007 by the second respondent in
Na.Ka.No.2901/A5/07 and quash the same in so far as revising and placing the
fourth respondent as senior to the petitioner in the seniority list for
Secondary Grade Teacher in Chellampatty Union and consequently direct the
respondents 1 to 3 to treat the petitioner as having been promoted on 09.09.1998
as Primary School Headmistress and accordingly place the petitioner as senior in
the interse seniority list drawn for promotion to the post of Middle School
Headmistress over and above the respondents 4 and 5 and grant all the
consequential benefits including retrospective promotion to the post of Middle
School Headmistress, revision of pay scale, arrears of salary and all monetary
benefits and backwages.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
^For RR 1 to 3 ... Mr.D.Muruganandam
Additional Government Pleader
For R - 4 ... Mr.A.Thirumurthy
For RR 5 & 6 ... No appearance
********
:ORDER
On 13.07.1988, the petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher
in Sedapatti Panchayat Union in Madurai District. The petitioner sought transfer
to Chellampatti Union on request. Accordingly, she was transferred to
Chellampatti Union on 25.06.1992. Before she joined in Chellampatti Union, the
fourth respondent came to Chellampatti Union from some other union on
11.09.1991. Likewise, the fifth respondent came to Chellampatti Union on
01.10.1992. The petitioner has not claimed any relief against the sixth
respondent, during the course of argument on the ground that the sixth
respondent is senior to her.
2. It is not in dispute that when the petitioner came to Chellampatti
Union on 25.06.1992, she was a regular employee as her probation was
successfully declared on 12.07.1990 with effect from 13.07.1988. But the fourth
respondent was on probation, when she came to Chellampatti Union on 11.09.1991
i.e. though the fourth respondent came to Chellampatti Union earlier to the
petitioner, she has to be considered as junior, as she was only on probation. On
15.10.1994, she was regularised with effect from 01.09.1992 on successful
completion of probation.
3. Since the fifth respondent joined Chellampatti Union only on
01.10.1992, after the petitioner joined on 25.06.1992, she should be treated as
junior to the petitioner in Chellampatti Panchayat Union.
4. The promotion to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher is Elementary
School Headmistress. Though the petitioner is senior, as stated above, the
fourth respondent was promoted as Elementary School Headmistress on 09.09.1998.
The petitioner as well as the fifth respondent got promotion to the post of
Elementary School Headmistress on 22.06.1999. The fourth respondent got further
promotion as Middle School Headmistress by an order dated 21.07.2007. Since the
fourth respondent was promoted on 09.09.1998, prior to the promotion of the
petitioner as Elementary School Headmistress, the fourth respondent was promoted
as Middle School Headmistress in July 2007. Till date, the petitioner has not
been promoted to the post of Middle School Headmistress.
5. When the fourth respondent was promoted as Middle School Headmistress
in 2007, the petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the combined
seniority list dated 01.01.2007 of B.T.Assistant, Tamil Pandits and Elementary
School Headmistress, as the fourth respondent is shown at Serial No.4, while the
petitioner is shown at Serial No.6 and the fifth respondent at Serial No.5. The
petitioner has also questioned the promotion given to the fourth respondent by
an order dated 21.07.2007 as Middle School Headmistress and the fourth
respondent joined duty on 24.07.2007 as Middle School Headmistress.
6. The petitioner pleaded that she was not aware of the seniority details
till the impugned seniority list dated 01.01.2007 was published.
7. The fourth respondent filed counter-affidavit refuting the allegations
made by the petitioner. The fourth respondent pleaded that the seniority list
dated 01.01.2007 is based on her promotion to the post of Elementary School
Headmistress on 09.09.1998 and therefore, she was correctly shown as senior to
the petitioner, as the petitioner was promoted as Elementary School Headmistress
only on 22.06.1999. Without questioning the promotion of the fourth respondent
as Elementary School Headmistress in 1998, the petitioner could not maintain her
writ petition. It is also stated that the writ petition suffers from serious
laches, as the petitioner has approached this Court after 10 years.
8. While so, this Court directed the Additional Government Pleader to
produce the entire records on 06.01.2011. Pursuant to the direction issued by
this Court, the Additional Government Pleader produced entire files. Thereafter,
the petitioner filed petitions praying for (i) permission to file additional
affidavit, (ii) to raise additional grounds in the main writ petition, (iii) to
permit the petitioner to amend the prayer questioning the seniority list dated
01.01.1998 for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in Chellampatty Union and the
promotion given to the fourth respondent on 09.09.1998 as Elementary School
Headmistress, questioning the combined seniority list dated 01.01.2007 and the
order dated 21.07.2007, promoting the fourth respondent as Middle School
Headmistress and (iv) to dispense with the production of the impugned seniority
list dated 01.01.1998.
9. All those applications were allowed by this Court.
10. In the additional affidavit it is stated that the service details were
culled out from the records produced by the Department and a synopsis is filed.
It is also stated that the seniority list of Secondary Grade teachers of
Chellampatty Union was not circulated to the teachers including the petitioner
and therefore, the petitioner was not aware of the actual position. In these
circumstances, she was not able to question the impugned seniority list dated
01.01.1998 of Secondary Grade teachers of Chellampatty Union, based on which the
fourth respondent was promoted to the post of Elementary School Headmistress on
09.09.1998.
11. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit and the other
official respondents did not file counter affidavit. As stated above, the fourth
respondent filed a counter affidavit and the fifth and sixth respondents did not
enter appearance and also did not file any counter affidavit.
12. In the counter affidavit of the second respondent, it is stated that
pursuant to the directions issued by the first respondent in the proceedings
dated 03.05.2004, the seniority list is furnished to teachers and their
objections are sought.
13. Heard Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
Mr.D.Muruganandam, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.A.Thirumuthry, learned counsel appearing for the
fourth respondent.
14. The learned Additional Government Pleader has produced the entire
files relating to the impugned order.
15. The second respondent is the competent authority to issue seniority
list of Secondary Grade teachers of Chellampatti Union. But the second
respondent did not issue the seniority list. On the other hand, the third
respondent prepared the seniority list from 1993 to 1998, barring for the year
1996. For all those years from 1993 to 1998, the seniority lists were not
circulated to the teachers. Though the first respondent issued a proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.47962/ED1/99, dated 19.11.1999, directing the third respondent to
prepare and send the seniority list to the second respondent before 24th January
of the year and the second respondent should look into the same and approve
before 31st January of the year and thereafter, the third respondent should
furnish the seniority list to the teachers seeking their objections, if any and
thereafter, the third respondent should send the objections, if any to the
second respondent on or before 15th February of the year and finally, the second
respondent should pass orders before last date of February of the year,
finalising the seniority list, this was not followed by the respondents 2 and 3.
16. I have perused the records produced by the learned Additional
Government Pleader and this procedure was not followed by the respondents 2 and
3. As the petitioner and party respondents joined in Chellampatti Panchayat
Union during 1991-92, the relevant years relating to the finalisation of
seniority list is 1993 to 1998, as the fourth respondent was promoted as
Elementary School Headmistress in 1998. Barring 1996, the seniority lists were
prepared and signed by the third respondent and the same were not approved by
the second respondent. Moreover, the seniority list was not circulated to
teachers and their objections were not sought by the third respondent. Though
seniority list of the year 1996 was signed by the second respondent, the same
was also not communicated to the teachers, as seen from the records.
17. It seems not only in the Chellampatti Village Panchayat but also in
the other Unions in the entire state, the teachers were not furnished with the
draft seniority list and their objections were not called for. Furthermore, the
seniority list was prepared by the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer and
not sent for approval to the District Elementary Educational Officer. Therefore,
the first respondent issued a proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5939/ED1/2001, dated
15.11.2001 issuing guidelines directing the Assistant Elementary Educational
Officer and District Elementary Officer to follow strictly the same in the
preparation of the seniority list. Paragraph No.23 of the said proceeding
relevant for the case is extracted hereunder:-
“”23. xt;bthU Mz;Lk; 1/1 Bjjpapy; cs;sthW midj;J tif Mrphpah;fSf;fhd
Kd;Dhpikg; gl;oay; jahhpj;J, mjid midj;J Mrphpah;fSf;Fk; Rw;Wf;F mDg;gp
mth;fspd; xg;g[jy; bgw;W mk;Kd;Dhpikg;gl;oaypy; Kuz;ghL cs;sjhf Bky;KiwaPL
mwpag;gl;lhy; mjid tpjpfspd;go ghprPyid bra;J jf;f Miz tHA;fpagpd; mt;thizapd;go
Kd;Dhpik gl;oaypy; khw;wk; bra;ag;glBtz;oapUe;jhy;, khw;wk; bra;ag;gl;L rhp
bra;jgpd; mt;thz;L Bjhuhakhf Vw;gLk; fhypg; gzpaplA;fis xt;bthU gjtpapYk; fzpj;J
gpd; mf;fhypg; gzpapl vz;zpf;iff;F 2 klA;F jFjptha;e;jth;fis me;j me;j gjtpf;F
me;je;j Kd;Dhpikg; gl;oaypy; nUe;J Bgdy; (panel) jahhpf;fg;glBtz;Lk;. mt;thW
jahhpf;fg;gl;l Bgdypy; cs;sth;fSf;F kl;Lk; Bgdiy Rw;Wf;F mDg;gp xg;g[jy; bgw;W
Bfhg;gpy; itf;fg;glBtz;Lk;. Bgdypy; FiwghLfs; cs;sjhf Bky;KiwaPL bgwg;gl;lhy;
mjid tpjpfspd;go Ma;t[ bra;J jf;f Miz gpwg;gpf;fg;glBtz;Lk;, mt;thizapd;go
Bgdypy; jpUj;jA;fs; Bkw;bfhs;s Btz;oapUe;jhy; mj;jpUj;jA;fis bra;aBtz;Lk;.
nt;thW Bgdy; nWjpahf;fg;gl;L mjid Vw;W epakd mYtyh; xg;g[jy; mspj;Jtpl;lhy;
mg;Bgdy; epakd mYtyh; xg;g[jy; mspj;j BjjpapypUe;J xU tUlk; eilKiwapy; nUf;Fk;
mg;Bgdy;gojhd gjtp cah;t[fs; tHA;fg;glBtz;Lk;. mg;Bgdy;, xg;gspj;j ehspypUe;J xU
tUlk; Koe;j gpd; fhyhtjpahfptpLk;.
2.Bkw;TwpathW gyKiw mwpt[iu, tHA;fg;gl;Lk; Kd;Dhpikg;gl;oay; kw;Wk; Bgdy;
jahh; bra;tjpy; xBu rPuhd eilKiw khtl;lA;fspy; ny;iy vd;gJk; gy khtl;lA;fspy;
Kd;Dhpikg; gl;oay;fis khtl;lj; bjhlf;f fy;tp mYtyh; Vw;gspj;J mjid midj;J
Mrphpah;fSf;Fk; Rw;Wf;F mDg;gg;gLtjpy;iy vd;gJ naf;Fehpd; ftdj;jpw;F
bfhz;Ltug;gl;Ls;sJ. vdBt khepyk; KGtJk; xBu rPuhd eilKiw gpd;gw;w fPH;fz;l
eilKiwfs; “tFj;J jug;gLfpd;wd.
3. Kd;Dhpikg;gl;oay; kw;Wk; Bgdy; vd;gJ epakd mYtyh; vd;w Kiwapy; khtl;lj;
bjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyuhy; jahhpf;fg;glBtz;Lk;. xt;bthU Mz;Lk; 01.01 Bjjpapy;
xt;bthU gjtpf;Fk; jFjptha;e;j Mrphpah;fspd; Kd;Dhpikg;gl;oay; jahh;
bra;ag;glBtz;Lk;. nUg;gpDk;, Kd;Dhpik vd;gJ me;j me;j xd;wpa mstpBy
guhkhpf;fg;gLtjhy;, midj;J xd;wpaA;fSf;F khtl;lj; bjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyuhy;
Kd;Dhpikg;gl;oay; jahh; bra;tJ vspjhf ny;yhj epiyapy; cjtpj; bjhlf;ff; fy;tp
mYtyh; Kd;Dhpikg; gl;oaiy fPH;f;fz;lthW tpjpfspd;go rhpahf jahh;bra;J khtl;lj;
bjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyh;fSf;F xt;bthU Mz;Lk; 31.1 f;Fs; mDg;gpitf;fBtz;Lk;,
xt;bthU Mz;Lk; 1.1 Bjjpapy; fPH;f;fz;lthW Kd;Dhpikg;gl;oay;fs;
jahhpf;fg;glBtz;Lk;.
……………………………………………..
4.Bkw;Twg;gl;lthW xt;bthU Mz;Lk; 01/01 Bjjpapy; 22 Kd;Dhpikg;gl;oay;fis
xd;wpa mstpy; cjtpj; bjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyh;/TLjy; cjtpj; bjhlf;ff;fy;tp mYtyh;
Tl;lhf tpjpfspd;go rhpahf jahh;bra;J ifbahg;gkpl;L nUefy;fspy; 31.1 f;Fs;
rk;ge;jg;gl;;l khtl;lj; bjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyUf;F mDg;gpitf;fBtz;Lk;.
5. rk;ge;jg;gl;l khtl;lj; bjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyh; mjid tphpthf Th;e;jha;t[
bra;J 15.02.2001 f;Fs; Vw;gspj;J cjtpj; bjhlf;f fy;tp mYtyh; Kyk; midj;J
Mrphpah;fSf;Fk; Rw;Wf;F mDg;gBtz;Lk;. efy; xd;W cjtpj; bjhlf;ff; fy;tp
mYtyh;/TLjy; cjtpj; bjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyh; jfty; gyifapy; xl;lBtz;Lk;.
mg;gl;oay;fspy; VBjDk; Kuz;ghL cs;sjhf Bky;KiwaPL bgwg;gl;lhy; mjid cld;
tpjpfspd;go Ma;t[ bra;J rhpahf nUg;gpd; Vw;Bwh my;yJ epuhfhpj;Bjh Miz tHA;f
Btz;Lk; mt;thW Miz tHA;fpagpd; mjw;Bfw;g Kd;Dhpikg;gl;oay;fspy; jpUj;jk;
Bkw;bfhs;sg;gl Btz;oapUe;jhy; jpUj;jk; bra;ag;glBtz;Lk;. ng;gzp 28/2 f;Fs;
Kof;fg;glBtz;Lk;.
6. gpd;dh; me;j Mz;oy; fhypahf cs;s kw;Wk; fhyp Vw;gLk; gzpaplA;fis
fz;lwpe;J mtw;wpd; vz;zpf;iff;Bfw;g, 2 klA;F egh;fs; mlA;fpa me;je;j gjtpf;Fhpa
Bgdy;fis (panel) me;j me;j gjtpf;Fhpa Kd;Dhpikg;gl;oay;fspy; nUe;J jahh;
bra;J, mg;Bgdypy; cs;s egh;fSf;F kl;Lk; Rw;Wf;F mDg;gp xg;g[jy; bgwBtz;Lk;.
ng;gzp 15/3 f;Fs; Kof;fg;glBtz;Lk;. (Kd;Dhpikg;gl;oay; thpir vz;. 8, 15, 16, 17,
18, 22 y; Twg;gl;Ls;s gl;oay;fspypUe;J Bgdy; jahh; bra;ag;glBtz;Lk;.)
7. gpd;dh; mg;Bgdypy; Bky;KiwaPLfs; bgwg;gl;lhy; mitfSk; cldoahf
rhpbra;ag;gl;L Kgikahd xg;g[jy; bgw;w Bgdiy 31/3 f;Fs; jahh; bra;aBtz;Lk;. mjhtJ
Bgdy; xt;bthU Mz;Lk; 31/3 f;Fs; Vw;gspg;g[ bra;aBtz;Lk; vd;W jpl;ltl;lkhf
bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.”
18. The aforesaid proceedings dated 15.11.2001 of the first respondent
makes it clear that the procedure was not followed in finalising the seniority
list and teachers were not furnished with the seniority list in Panchayat
Unions.
19. It seems that even after the said proceeding in the year 2001 was not
followed as per the counter affidavit of the second respondent. The second
respondent has averred in the counter affidavit that they followed the procedure
after the proceeding dated 03.05.2004 of the first respondent.
20. When the learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically stated
that the petitioner was not aware of the seniority list, the second respondent
has not disputed the same in the counter affidavit. In paragraph No.6 of the
affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated as follows:
“6. I submit that I was not aware of all the above seniority details till
the impugned seniority list was published. Even during my promotion to the post
of Elementary School Headmistress I was not aware of these details and hence I
did not dispute the earlier promotion of the respondents to the said post. I did
not know that the respondents 4 to 5 were junior to me in Chellampatti Union as
they were under probation.”
21. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit and there is no para
wise denial. As per paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit, it is stated as
follows:-
“6. I respectfully submit that the seniority list was drawn by our
Department prior to the issue of the orders by the first respondent. As soon as
the orders of the first respondent in his Na.Ka.No.9683/D1/2004 dated 03.05.2004
was received, based on the guidelines issued by the first respondent the revised
seniority list was prepared and communicated to all the teachers, including the
present petitioner.”
That is, it is admitted that the teachers were communicated with the seniority
list only after 2004.
22. As per paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit, the procedure is
followed only after the proceedings dated 03.05.2004 of the first respondent.
23. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner could not
be blamed for not questioning the seniority list dated 01.01.1998 of Secondary
Grade Teacher of Chellampatti Union immediately. The seniority list dated
01.01.1998 is produced by the Additional Government Pleader and the same was not
issued by the second respondent. Thus, the seniority list itself is without any
authority. The seniority list dated 01.01.1998 was prepared and signed by the
third respondent alone. As stated above, the list was also not circulated to the
teachers and their objections were not called for.
24. A Teacher who was similarly situated like the petitioner questioned
the impugned seniority list as well as the promotion given to her junior. The
said writ petition was dismissed for laches by this Court by a learned Single
Judge and the matter was taken on appeal. The Division Bench of this Court in
A.Mani Vs. The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Nungambakkam and
others reported in 2008 Writ L.R.213, considered the aforesaid proceedings of
the first respondent and also found that the seniority list was not circulated
in most of the panchayat unions including the panchayat union concerned that
came for scrutiny. The Division Bench held that the petitioner could not be
blamed for questioning the seniority list on the ground of delay.
25. In my view, the said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of
this case. Therefore, the petitioner could not be blamed for questioning the
seniority list dated 01.01.1998 of the Secondary Grade Teachers of the
Chellampatti Panchayat Union immediately, since the same was not furnished to
her and the same was not prepared by the competent authority.
26. The only plea of the fourth respondent is that the petitioner
approached this Court belatedly and therefore this Court should not interfere
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As far as the facts are
concerned, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent is not able to dispute
the same. The learned counsel submits that prior to 1998, the fourth respondent
was shown as junior and on her request, she was shown as senior. It is not known
as to how she came to know about her position in the seniority list, when the
same was not circulated. He relies Rule No.35(f) of the Tamil Nadu State and
Subordinate Services Rules and submitted that the petitioner should have
questioned the seniority list within three years. I am in full agreement with
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, if the
seniority list was furnished to the petitioner and thereafter, she kept quiet.
In this case, the second and third respondents did not furnish the seniority
list to the teachers including the petitioner. Therefore, Rule 35(f) of the
Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules could not be applied in this
case.
27. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent has relied on the
decision of the Honourable Apex in K.R.Mudgal and others Vs. R.P.Singh and
others reported in AIR 1986 SC 2086. In that case, the dispute that arose
relating to the inter se seniority between the petitioners therein who were
directly appointed as Assistants in the Intelligence Bureau of the Government of
India in the year 1957 and certain other Assistants in the Intelligence Bureau,
who were appointed prior to 01.02.1954 and the remaining were appointed or
absorbed as Assistants prior to the induction of the petitioners into service as
Assistants. In the seniority list of the Assistants issued in the year 1958, the
petitioners were shown as junior to other Assistants and no objections were
raised by the petitioners against the seniority list, nor any objection was
raised by the petitioners against the seniority lists issued in 1961 and 1965
and it was only against the seniority list of 1975 that was prepared to rectify
the mistake that had crept in the seniority list issued in 1968, the writ
petition came to be filed by the petitioners after 18 years. The Honourable Apex
Court held that the petitioners were guilty of laches. In that case, the
petitioners were issued with the seniority lists in the year 1958, 1961 and 1965
and thereafter, but they did not question the same and they kept quiet.
28. In this case, as already stated above, the seniority lists were not
furnished to the teachers including the petitioner and more over the seniority
list was not prepared by the competent authority. Therefore, I am of the view
that the said judgment could not be applied to the facts of this case.
29. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition could
not be dismissed on the ground of laches, when the seniority list itself was not
circulated and the same was not prepared by the competent authority.
30. Therefore, I have no hesitation to quash the impugned seniority list
dated 01.01.1998 of Secondary Grade teachers of Chellampatti Panchayat Union.
The said seniority list has shown the fourth respondent as senior to the
petitioner, while the fourth respondent was probationer, as on 25.06.1992, when
the petitioner joined Chellampatti Panchayat Union. In perusal of the files, in
the earlier years, the petitioner was shown as senior. But the same was altered
at the instance of the fourth respondent, without hearing the petitioner. Hence,
the impugned seniority list dated 01.01.1998 is quashed. Based on the same, the
promotion as Elementary School Headmistress with effect from 09.09.1998 is also
set aside. The common seniority list dated 01.01.2007 is based on the said
seniority list dated 01.01.1998. Hence the same is also set aside. Since both
the seniority lists are set aside, the promotion of Elementary School
Headmistress given to fourth respondent in 1998 and the promotion given to the
fourth respondent as Middle School Headmistress by an order dated 21.07.2007
also quashed. As far as the fifth respondent is concerned, she joined in
Chellampatti Union only on 01.10.1992, after the petitioner joined on
25.06.1992. In fact in 1998, the fifth respondent is shown as junior in the
seniority list prepared by the third respondent as on 01.01.1998. In the said
seniority list dated 01.01.1998, the petitioner is shown at serial No.17, the
fourth respondent is shown at serial No.15 and the fifth respondent is shown at
serial No.19. But in the seniority list dated 01.01.2007, the fifth respondent
is shown at serial No.5, while the petitioner is shown at serial No.6. This is
not warranted particularly when both of them were promoted as Elementary School
Headmistress on the same date ie. on 22.06.1999. For all these reasons, the
impugned seniority list dated 01.01.2007 is set aside as far as fifth respondent
is also concerned.
31. In view of the above findings, the petitioner should be promoted from
09.09.1998, the date on which the fourth respondent was promoted as Elementary
School Headmistress. Further, promotion as Middle School Headmistress also
should be given to the petitioner with effect from 21.07.2007, the date on which
the fourth respondent was promoted. Hence, a direction is issued to the
respondents to promote the petitioner as Elementary School Headmistress with
effect from 09.09.1998 and thereafter as Middle School Headmistress with effect
from 21.07.2007 with all benefits.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above terms. No costs.
ps
To
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road,
Chennai.
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Office of D.E.E.O.,
Madurai.
3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Officer of A.E.E.O.,
Chellampatti – 625 566.