@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.@mdashThe petitioner is aggrieved against the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka. No. 19132/E6/94 dated
21.7.94 in and by which the second respondent was promoted as Headmistress of Municipal Middle School, Srinivasanpet, Ranipet Municipality.
2. According to the petitioner as per G.O.Ms. No. 1297, Education Department dated 21.7.1979 whenever a vacancy arises in the post of
Headmaster of Middle School due to death, retirement, resignation etc such vacancy should be filled up by the senior most from among the
persons working as Secondary Grade Teachers, that the petitioner joined as a Secondary Grade Assistant in the year 1970 while the second
respondent joined as Secondary Grade Assistant only in the year 1972 and therefore, the promotion given to the second respondent superseding
the claims of the petitioner by the order impugned in the writ petition is liable to be set aside.
3.The petitioner also placed G.O.Ms. No. 1297 dated 21.7.79. In the said G.O., in paragraph 3(b)(i) it is stated asunder:
(b)(i) when permanent Vacancies arise in future in post of Headmasters of middle Schools (Due to death, retirement, resignation etc) such
vacancies shall be filled up by the senior most among. Persons working as secondary Grade teachers or in other cadres of trained teachers but
qualified for B.Ed./Tamil Pandit.
Therefore, what is to be seen is from amongst three categories, that is, Secondary Grade Teachers, other trained teachers with B.Ed., qualification
or Tamil Pandit who was the senior most to be considered for filling up of any permanent vacancy to the post of Headmaster. It is stated that the
post of Headmaster of a Middle School at Srinivasanpet, arose on 31.5.1994 due to retirement of one Thiru Arumugham who was holding the
post. The petitioner is stated to have made a representation dated 9.5.1994 to consider him for the said post on the ground that he was the senior
most Secondary Grade Assistant. However, by the impugned order dated 21.7.1994 the second respondent was appointed as the Headmistress.
Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is from among the petitioner and the second respondent who was eligible to be considered for
the post of Headmaster. In paragraph 3 of the petitioner''s affidavit the petitioner has furnished the details about the date of joining of the petitioner
and the second respondent as well as the qualifications acquired by them at different point of time. To appreciate the position better, the said part
of the affidavit can be extracted which reads as under.
3. I state that I joined as Secondary Grade Assistant in 1970. The 2nd Respondent joined as Secondary Grade Assistant in 1972. I qualified as
M.A.B.Ed. in 1980. The 2nd Respondent qualified as M.A.B.Ed. only in 1982. The 2nd Respondent was qualified for appointment as Tamil
Pandit in 1978.
It is true that the petitioner is said to have joined as Secondary Grade Assistant in 1970 while the second respondent joined in the year 1972. But
the second respondent qualified herself as Tamil Pandit in the year 1978. When the above qualifications and the stipulations contained in G.O.Ms.
No. 1297 if applied, since the petitioner had joined as early as in the year 1970 he becomes the senior most Secondary Grade Assistant and
thereby he was entitled to be considered over the claims of the second respondent who was admittedly junior to the petitioner in the category of
Senior Grade Assistant. As far as acquiring B.Ed., qualification is concerned, while the petitioner acquired the said qualification in the year 1980,
the second respondent acquired the same only in the year 1982. Since the petitioner was the senior most Secondary Grade Assistant he was
entitled to be considered for any permanent vacancy arising which had to be filled up by applying G.O.Ms. No. 1297 dated 21.7.1979. Viewed in
that respect, certainly the status of the second respondent as Tamil Pandit which status she acquired in the year 1978 cannot be construed as
conferring any better benefit on the second respondent for being preferred over the claims of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the impugned
order of the 1st respondent in not considering the claims of the petitioner as senior most Secondary Grade Assistant, therefore calls for
interference.
4. Be that as it may, in this very writ petition certain other orders came to be passed in W.M.P. Nos. 20584/1998 and 9634/1995 on 14.12.1998
directing the 1st respondent to promote the petitioner as the Headmaster of Municipal Middle School, Srinivasanpet, Ranipet, with effect from
21.12.1998. However, subsequently, a Review Application came to be filed in R.A. No. 51/99 by one Thiru S. Murugesan. In that Review
Application, the following order came to be passed on 30.4.99.
I had on 14.12.1998 passed an order in the W.M.P. Nos. 20584 of 1998 and 9634 of 1995 following the order passed by Raju. J as the learned
Judge then was in W.P. Nos. 13529 and 13530 of 1990 dated 3.7.1992 directing the first respondent to promote the petitioner in the writ petition
as Headmaster, Municipal Middle School, Srinivasanpet, Ranipet Municipality with effect from 21.12.1998. At that time it was not brought to my
notice that the applicant in Review Application 51 of 1999 was already holding the post of Headmaster of the said school. Now that it has been
brought to my notice. I am obliged to review my order and direct that the order dated 14.12.1998 be cancelled and the review applicant Thiru S.
Murugesan is to act as Headmaster until further orders. The Review Application will stand allowed. The main writ petition itself is to be posted in
the first week of August 1999.
In the light of the above said orders while allowing this writ petition and setting aside the order impugned in the writ petition it is made clear that
whatever rights that accrue to the petitioner by allowing this writ petition shall always be subject to the claims of the said Review Applicant in
Review Application No. 51/99. Connected pending WMPs are closed. No costs.
