IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.2.2010 CORAM:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR Writ Petition Nos. 34978 to 34982 of 2006 .....
K. Rajasekar ... PETITIONER
(in WP No.34978/2006)
S. Balakrishnan ... PETITIONER
(in WP No.34979/2006)
S.Ramaraj ... PETITIONER
(in WP No.34980/2006)
J. Stephen ... PETITIONER
(in WP No.34981/2006)
P.Murugesan ... PETITIONER
(in WP No.34982/2006)
Vs
1 STATE REP. BY THE SECRETARY.
TO GOVT. HIGHER EDUCATION (B-1) DEPT.
SECRETARIAT CHENNAI -1.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL
EDUCATION GUINDY CHENNAI -25. RESPONDENTS
Original Application No.9080, 9079, 9078, 9077 and 9040 of 1998 on the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.34978 to 34982 of 2006, praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents to consider the petitioners for appointment to the post of Lecturer and consequently appoint him to the said post with effect from the date of vacancy with all monetary and service benefits or any other appropriate relief. For Petitioner : Mr. R. Singaravelan For Respondents : Mr. S. Sivashanmugam Govt. Advocate COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed to to consider the petitioners for appointment to the post of Lecturer and consequently appoint him to the said post with effect from the date of vacancy with all monetary and service benefits or any other appropriate relief.
2. All the five petitioners are diploma holders in Engineering. They joined the services of the second respondent and posted in various Government and Government aided technical institutions on a regular basis having been sponsored by the employment exchange. They acquired the bachelor decree in Engineering subsequent to the appointment. According to the petitioners, their next avenue of promotion is lecturer in the respective institutions. The case of the petitioners was not considered for promotion whereas, the institutions appointing persons on contract basis depriving the petitioners’ right to post them as lecturers.
3. In similar circumstances, a batch of original applications in O.A.Nos. 2044 to 2050 of 1993 and O.A.No. 2244 of 1993 were filed before the Administrative Tribunal by other persons, of the similar category, and the Tribunal by order dated 23.4.1993 directed the Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretary to Government(Education Department) to consider the representation of the applicants therein and to obtain orders from the Government before proceeding with the regularisation of the contract lecturers or direct recruits. The petitioners in the present cases also seek similar relief stating that their claim to the post of lecturer should be considered based on the representation to be made in the same lines as above.
4. The petitioners in this case have approached the Tribunal directly without approaching the Government for the said relief. In view of the order of the Tribunal, which has been referred to above, the petitioner in each case is granted liberty to make a representation to the first respondent/ Government to consider their claim for promotion to the post of lecturer and for further relief as may be applicable, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and such representations shall be considered by the Government keeping in view the order of the Tribunal referred to above. The said representations shall be disposed of within a reasonable time preferably within a period of three months thereafter. All the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
03.2.2010
ra
Index: No
Internet: Yes
To
1. THE SECRETARY.
TO GOVT. HIGHER EDUCATION (B-1) DEPT.
SECRETARIAT CHENNAI -1.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL
EDUCATION GUINDY CHENNAI -25.
R. SUDHAKAR,J.,
WP No. 34978 to 34982/2006
Date: 03.2.2010