IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 23.02.2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
W.P.No.8011 of 2003
Maragatham .. Petitioner
vs
1.The Tamil Evangelical Lutharan
Church Educational Board,
Rep. by its Chairman,
Tranqbar House,
Trichy.
2.The Correspondent,
TELC Primary School,
Peraiyur,
Madurai District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Madurai.
4.The Assistant Elementary
Educational Officer,
T.Kallupatty,
Madurai District.
5.P.Vimala .. Respondents
PRAYER: The writ petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent herein relating to his order in C.R.No.322/726/2002 dated 20.12.2002, quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 4 herein to forthwith recognize the petitioner as Headmistress of Tamil Evangelical Lutharan Church Primary School, Praiyur, Madurai District in pursuance of the order dated 12.7.2002 and grant all attendant and consequential benefits to the petitioner with effect from 12.7.2002.
For Petitioner ... Ms.AL.Gandhimathi
For 1st, 2nd and
5th Respondents ... No Appearance
For 3rd and 4th
Respondents ... Mr.V.Manohar
Govt. Advocate
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this writ of certiorarified mandamus in calling for the records of the first respondent pertaining to its order in C.R.No.322/726/2002 dated 20.12.2002 and to quash the same and also to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to forthwith recognize the petitioner as Headmistress of the second respondent/school, Peraiyur, Madurai District pursuant to the order of promotion dated 12.07.2002 and to grant all attendant and consequential benefits.
2.The petitioner with her B.A degree qualification was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the second respondent/school on 13.6.1966. One K.Chinnaswamy, who was the Headmaster of the second respondent/school retired from service on superannuation and was relieved on 30.6.2002 by the first and second respondents. The petitioner was a seniormost Secondary Grade Teacher in the second respondent/school and possessed requisite qualification required for being promoted as Headmistress of the school. The first respondent was concerned with postings, promotions, transfers etc., in respect of the second respondent/school and in the meeting held on 29.5.2002, it was unanimously resolved to promote the petitioner as Headmistress of the second respondent/school in the place of Thiru K.Chinnaswamy (retired) and the first respondent issued proceedings in C.R.No.214/276/2002 dated 12.7.2002 in promoting the petitioner as Headmistress with effect from 12.7.2002 and the said proceedings were communicated to the second respondent and also to the third and fourth respondents for information and necessary action.
3.While it is being so, the second respondent with an ulterior motive had not acted upon the promotion order dated 12.07.2002 issued to the petitioner and had not forwarded the report of the petitioner’s assignment as to the charge of Headmistress to the third and fourth respondents, but promoted her to act as Headmistress under the guise of Headmistress incharge. To put it differently, the petitioner was allowed to assume charge of the post of Headmistress in the second respondent/school pursuant to the order of promotion dated 12.07.2002 passed by the first respondent, but the second respondent treated the petitioner as though she was Headmistress incharge.
4.Also, the second respondent had not sent a compliance report in respect of the promotion order of the petitioner dated 12.07.2002 to the third and fourth respondents and maintained the attendance register as though she was Headmistress incharge.
5.The second respondent by means of communication dated 19.10.2002 addressed to the fourth respondent had stated that a regular vacancy had arisen in the post of Headmaster in the second respondent/school on 30.6.2002 in lieu of the retirement of one K.Chinnaswamy and that was brought to the notice of this authority. The fourth respondent on 9.11.2002 made an inspection of the second respondent/school and noted his objections to the effect that though the petitioner was promoted as Headmistress of the school, she was illegally treated as incharge and the second respondent had not given his approval for the same.
6.The petitioner was perforced to issue a lawyer’s notice dated 21.11.2002 to the first and second respondents in and by which she had given a last opportunity to the second respondent/Correspondent to recognise her as Headmistress, but the second respondent/school by sending a communication to that effect to the Educational Department and thereby praying the order of Education Board, TELC within a week from the date of receipt of the notice.
7.To the demise of the petitioner, the first respondent by his letter C.R.No.322/276/2002 dated 20.12.2002 issued an order of promotion to the fifth respondent by promoting her as Headmistress in the place of the vacancy caused on account of retirement of Chinnaswamy and a note was included in the said promotion order to the effect that the earlier promotion order dated 12.07.2002 issued to the petitioner was cancelled.
8.The learned counsel for the petitioner urges before this Court that the impugned order dated 20.12.2002 issued by the first respondent in promoting the fifth respondent as Headmistress of the second respondent/school is an illegal and invalid one in the eye of law and moreover the impugned order dated 20.12.2002 was against the principles of natural justice because of the fact that the promotion order dated 12.07.2002 issued in favour of the petitioner was acted upon and the same was cancelled without issuing any notice to the petitioner and the impugned order was vitiated by mala fide exercise of power on the part of the first respondent who earlier passed the order dated 12.07.2002 in promoting the petitioner as Headmistress and later, had passed the impugned order dated 20.12.2002 and in short, the said impugned order dated 20.12.2002 suffers from total non application of mind and therefore, prays for allowing the writ petition to secure the ends of justice.
9.The stand of the third and fourth respondents is to the effect that the first respondent issued orders on 12.07.2002 promoting the petitioner as Headmistress and later, the second respondent refused to accept the promotion of the petitioner and again the first respondent instructed the second respondent to implement the orders of the Chairman in letter No Cr.No.29/2002 dated 22.08.2002 and the order of the Chairman was not obeyed by the second respondent. But surprisingly, Mrs.Vimala, the fifth respondent herein, Secondary Grade Teacher who was junior to the petitioner was promoted as Headmistress of the second respondent/school by the first respondent as per the impugned order dated 20.12.2002 there by depriving the petitioner’s legitimate right of promotion and the promotion was awarded by the management of the school, since it is an aided minority school and the third and fourth respondents are not vested with powers to interfere with the action of the first respondent and the petitioner was not permitted by the second respondent to join as Headmistress in the second respondent/school and she was about to retire in the month of January 2004, but she was relieved by the second respondent from the school on 5.1.2004 and if a Government Servant’s Date of Birth falls in the middle of the month, then he or she will be allowed to serve till the end of the month and especially the teachers were allowed to work on re-employment till the academic year, but these privileges were denied by the first and second respondents and the Correspondent of the school has not informed to the third and fourth respondents and more than six years after the retirement of the petitioner, she was denied her pensionary benefits after putting more than thirty years of unblemished service under the control of the first and second respondents and the role of the third and fourth respondents was only to provide necessary relief in accordance with law.
10.It is not in dispute that the petitioner as per the proceedings in C.R.No.214/276/2002 dated 12.07.2002 of the TELC, Education Board was promoted as Headmistress in the place of K.Chinnaswamy (retired) with effect from 12.07.2002 and appointed in the same school. The petitioner while she was promoted as Headmistress by means of proceedings dated 12.07.2002, was a Secondary Grade Teacher in the second respondent/school.
11.It transpires from the communication in C.R.No.29/2002 dated 22.8.2002 of TELC, Education Board addressed to Rev. Muniandi Jayaseelan, Pastor TELC & Correspondent, Periayur that based on the recommendation of the Correspondent only the Chairman of the Board was directed by the Secretary Church Council, TELC to issue the promotion order to the petitioner, the next seniormost Secondary Grade Assistant at the second respondent/school and that he received a petition from the petitioner stating that the Correspondent of the second respondent/school was denying the implementation of the promotion and therefore, requested to implement the order of the Chairman, Education Board and further it was mentioned that the main duty of the Correspondent was to implement the orders of the Chairman, Education Board.
12.That apart, in the inspection report dated 9.11.2002 of the fourth respondent, it was mentioned that the petitioner was appointed as Headmistress by the Education Board but since the Correspondent of the school had not given his approval she could not take charge.
13.It is not out of place for this Court to pertinently to point out that the petitioner through her lawyer had issued a notice dated 21.11.2002 addressed to the Correspondent of the second respondent/school inter alia mentioning that she was recognised by the TELC Education Board as Headmistress on 12.07.2002 and that as the Correspondent, he had known the said order. But, it sent a letter to the District Primary Educational Officer, Madurai on 19.10.2002 mentioning that the post of Headmistress was vacant and therefore last opportunity was provided to the correspondent to recognise the petitioner as Headmistress of the second respondent/school within a week from the date of receipt of the communication.
14.When the petitioner was appointed as Headmistress as per the order dated 12.7.2002 issued by the first respondent, the Correspondent of the second respondent/school in law was duty bound to obey the order of the Chairman of the Education Board of TELC implicitly and he should not by any means adopt a dilatory or procrastinating tactics so as to deprive the petitioner to enjoy the fruits of the order of promotion dated 12.07.2002 issued by the competent authority viz., the first respondent in the considered opinion of this Court.
15.Further, when the petitioner was promoted by means of the order dated 12.7.2002 by the first respondent, the first respondent had no authority or power to issue proceedings dated 20.12.2002 by cancelling the earlier order of promotion given to the petitioner and in this regard, this Court opines that the Principles of Natural Justice were violated in true letter and spirit.
16.It is to be borne in mind that the Principles of Natural Justice are not the edicts of a statute, but they are only an uncodified set of rules and in this regard, they cannot be put in any straight jacket cast iron formula. Even when the authorities concerned pass administrative orders, they have to follow the Principles of Natural Justice and the said principles have now become an integral part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which speaks of fairness and reasonableness. In short, the term Natural Justice refers to acting according to one’s conscience. But in the instant case on hand, when the petitioner was appointed by the first respondent as per the proceedings dated 12.07.2002 as Headmistress of the second respondent/school, the Correspondent of the school without obeying the orders of the Chairman of the Education Board was not at all right in issuing the impugned order dated 20.12.2002 in promoting the fifth respondent and cancelling earlier order of appointment of petitioner dated 12.07.2002 and certainly the impugned order bristles with latent and patent infirmities and in the eye of law, the same is illegal and invalid in the considered opinion of this Court. A person joins in a job or service only for the whole of a career and to secure advancement in his/her career as an employee. It is true that no one is entitled to claim promotion as a matter of right. An individual has got every fundamental right to be considered for promotion when he or she comes within the zone of consideration and that cannot be denied by any one as opined by this Court.
17.Earlier, in W.P.M.P.No.10266 of 2003 in W.P.No.8011 of 2003 praying for issuance of stay of the operation of the impugned order dated 20.12.2003 passed by the first respondent, this Court on 14.10.2003 was pleased to order interim stay of cancellation of the earlier promotion given to the petitioner.
18.The learned counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court that the first respondent Board in its Memo dated promoted the petitioner with effect from 1.7.2002 in the place of K.Chinnaswamy (retired) and appointed her in the same school pursuant to the stay order issued by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.10266 of 2007 in W.P.No.8011 of 2003 dated 14.10.2003.
19.As far as the present case is concerned, on and over all conspectus of the assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case in a cumulative fashion and also in the light of detailed qualitative and quantitative discussions mentioned supra, this Court comes to an inescapable conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to claim the relief as Headmistress of the second respondent/school as per the promotion order dated 12.07.2002 passed by the first respondent and she is entitled to get all the monetary and other consequential benefits till her retirement on 31.1.2004 and the first and second respondents are directed to transmit the pension papers of the petitioner to the appropriate authorities within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the impugned order in C.R.No.322/726/2002 dated 20.12.2002 is quashed to subserve the ends of justice
20.In the result the writ petition is allowed on the above terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
cla
To
1.The Tamil Evangelical Lutharan
Church Educational Board,
Rep. by its Chairman,
Tranqbar House,
Trichy.
2.The Correspondent,
TELC Primary School,
Peraiyur,
Madurai District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Madurai.
4.The Assistant Elementary
Educational Officer,
T.Kallupatty,
Madurai District