IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14/06/2002
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.SIRPURKAR
Writ Petition No.1127 of 1995
T.Sarojini .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Manager and Correspondent
M.D.Elementary School
Marikuppam, P.R.Puram
Erumbi [via],
Chengai MGR District.
2.The District Educational Officer
Tiruvallur, Chengai MGR District.
3.The Director of Elementary
Education, College Road
Madras-6. .. Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
the issue of a writ of Mandamus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Miss.K.Suguna
For Respondents :
R1 : Mr.Robin Raj
for Mr.Peppin Fernando
RR 2 & 3 : Mr.Mahimai Raj
Government Advocate
:O R D E R
The writ petitioner is an unfortunate teacher, who has been a prey of
the vagaries of the school management. She was appointed for the first time
in the year 1971 as a Higher Grade teacher. She became a Secondary Grade
Assistant in 1973. Thereafter, she was elevated as a Headmistress of the
primary school in the year 1976 and she continued to be so till 1.7.1987, on
which date she was re-posted as a Secondary Grade Assistant. The status of
the headmistress of the primary school and the Secondary Grade Assistant, till
then, was equal. However, since she was re-posted as a Secondary Grade
Assistant, she filed an appeal on 3.7.1987. Perhaps, as a result of the
appeal, she was posted back on 27.10.1989 by the school management. The order
dated 27 .10.1989 specifically uses the word “reinstatement”. It is suggested
in that order, which is signed by the Correspondent, M.D.Elementary and Middle
School, Ranipet Circle, that Mrs.T.Sarojini, who was ” reverted” from
Headmistress in 1987 and now working as Assistant in the M.D.Elementary
School, Marikuppam is “reinstated” as Headmistress in the same school and the
present Headmaster Mr.Manoharan, being the junior most, is reverted as
Assistant for work of vacancy posted in the same school, where he is working
now. This was not objected to either by Mr.Manoharan or by the Education
Department and the petitioner continued to serve in the capacity of the
Headmistress upto 11.12.1992. It is to be noted that from 1.6.1988, the
Headmistress post became a promotional post and earned better salary. Be that
as it may.
2. While the petitioner kept on working, she was slapped with another
order dated 11.12.1992, wherein she was directed to be reverted to the post of
Assistant in the same school. A glance at this order would show that this
order was passed in pursuance of the orders of the District Educational
Officer dated 17.9.1992 bearing No.3790/A2/92. There appears to be a
reference to another order also purported to have been passed by the Assistant
Educational Officer dated 28.9.1992 bearing R.C.No.305/A2/92. Perhaps, in
pursuance of these two orders, the management again switched the positions of
Manoharan vis-a-vis the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal to the
Director because obviously and admittedly Mr.Manoharan was junior to her and
she could not have thrown out from her position as a Headmistress. That
appeal, perhaps, prevailed and the Management again passed an order dated
1.10.1994 again promoting her as Headmistress. This time, the Management took
adequate care to see that the order would take effect only from 1.10.1994.
3. The petitioner has now come before us and has asked for fixation
of her salary in the scale of a Headmistress. More particularly, the
petitioner’s prayer is that her salary for the period between 1.7.19 87 to
5.11.1989 and 15.12.1992 to 13.9.1994 should be paid to her with all
consequential benefits as she has obviously retired in the meantime.
4. Miss.Suguna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points
out that if it was an admitted position that the petitioner was a senior
person and Manoharan was the junior most person and if this was acknowledged
and the petitioner was reinstated on 27.10.1989, it would only mean that she
continued to be in the post of a Headmistress right from 1.7.1987 and as such,
she would be entitled to the salary in that post. She further pointed out
that even after she continued to work up to 11.12.1992, she has been, perhaps,
at the behest of some officers in the Education Department, again reverted for
no fault of her, and she then continued to serve in the reverted capacity upto
1.1 0.1994. She points out that this reversion has no basis whatsoever and,
therefore, she was liable to be paid the salary in her capacity as a
Headmistress between the period 11.12.1992 till 1.10.1994 and further, because
she was admittedly appointed as Headmistress again on 1 .10.1994. There can
be no doubt that the petitioner was much more senior to Manoharan, who was
admittedly the junior most person. There can also be no doubt that the
petitioner was actually working and has been reverted at the vagaries of the
school management, without holding any enquiry or without finding her guilty
of any misconduct. Therefore, it must be deemed that the petitioner continued
to be the Headmistress right from 3.7.1987 upto 1.10.1994 and that she would
be entitled to that salary.
5. The learned Government Advocate could not support the orders
allegedly passed by the District Educational Officer on 17.9.1992 or by the
Assistant Educational Officer on 28.9.1992 and could not justify as to under
what circumstances these orders came to be passed and why. The learned
Government Advocate drew complete blank in this behalf. When the learned
counsel for the Management was specifically asked, he could not get out of the
position that Mr. Manoharan was a junior most person. There is a seniority
list at page 7 of the typed set, which also shows that the petitioner is
senior, she being at Serial number 19. Though Mr.J.Manoharan is shown at
serial number 18, it is really not understood, because obviously he has joined
as a secondary grade teacher on 1.10.1973, whereas the petitioner has joined
on 1.10 .1971. That apart, there is an order passed by the Management itself
dated 27.10.1989, where Mr.Manoharan is shown as the junior most person and he
is also reverted. Therefore, there cannot be any difficulty in holding that
the petitioner was senior to Mr.Manoharan.
6. Be that as it may. We are not concerned with the dispute of
seniority in this writ petition. Once the petitioner was serving properly in
the post of headmistress and once she was liable to be continued there, there
was no point in reverting her without any justification or without holding any
enquiry against her.
7. Under such circumstances, it must be held that she would be deemed
to have continued as a headmistress all through and she would be entitled to
the salary. She shall be accordingly granted the salary in between the period
of 1.7.1987 to 1.10.1994 and her pension shall be fixed and calculated as if
she was never reverted and she continued to be working as a headmistress. The
salary shall be payable by the management. But, if the management fails to
pay the salary within two months from today, the salary shall be payable by
the Government, whose officers have passed the concerned orders, within two
months thereafter. The Government shall, however, be entitled to recover the
salary from the non-salary grants of the school, if necessary. With these
observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
21.06.2002
Index: Yes
Website : Yes
kst.
To:
1.The Manager and Correspondent
M.D.Elementary School
Marikuppam, P.R.Puram
Erumbi [via],
Chengai MGR District.
2.The District Educational Officer
Tiruvallur, Chengai MGR District.
3.The Director of Elementary
Education, College Road
Madras-6.
V.S.SIRPURKAR, J.
W.P.No.1127/1995
14.6.2002