W.A.Nos.1295 to 1300 of 2012

1. SURESH KUMAR, J. AND

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

We have heard these matters at length.  In fact during the last hearing, after hearing both sides and having gone through the additional status report filed by the Director of School Education dated August 2023, we have passed

an order on 29.08.2023, which reads thus,

” Status report has been filed by the respondents, relying upon the same, Mr.S.Silambanan, learned Additional Advocate General argued the case.

2. We have heard Mrs.Auxilia Peter, learned counsel appearing for the appellant also.
3. At one stage of arguments, we felt that, for fixing the seniority as per the Division Bench Judgment as confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court there must be a combined seniority list among the three categories viz., category of P.G. Assistant Teachers appointed till 28.04.1981, P.G. Assistant Teachers, who have been directly appointed through TNPSC and the candidates, who have been appointed on 10(a)(i) basis and subsequently have been regularized by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1813 dated 12.12.1988. Consisting of all these three categories of candidates, a combined seniority list as directed by the Division Bench as referred to above ought to have been prepared and released without which, no promotion panel could have been made.
4. Therefore, the respondents are hereby directed to produce the seniority list prepared and released or prepared and issued before this Court.
5. For the aforesaid compliance, since the learned Additional Advocate General seeks accommodation till

05.09.2023, post the matter on 05.09.2023 under the caption “Part Heard” as a first item.

2. Pursuant to the said order, today when the cases are taken up for hearing, Mr.S.Silambanan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for

the State and the Department has produced certain original files.

3. In those files, the panel of teachers fit for promotion to the post of Higher Secondary School Headmasters at various years like 01.01.2004,

01.01.2005 and 01.01.2006 had been given, even though it was the definite stand on the part of the respondent Department that a combined seniority list had been prepared consisting of the P.G. Teachers, who entered into service by three methods ie., (i) appointed between 01.07.1978 and 28.04.1981, (ii) appointed after 28.04.1981 and selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and (iii) those who have been appointed after 28.04.1981 on 10(a)(i) basis and have been regularized by G.O.Ms.No.1813 dated 12.10.1988.

4. Taking note of all these three types of P.G.Teachers as per the orders passed by this Court confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, seniority list should have been prepared where the first category teachers should be placed first, followed by the second category ie., TNPSC selected teachers followed by the third category of teachers ie., 10(a)(i) appointees regularized by G.O.Ms.No.1813 dated 12.10.1988.
5. Based on this method, whether such combined seniority list, throughout the State, of P.G.Teachers have been prepared is still in a cloud

because, no such combined seniority list has been produced by the

respondents before this Court, even though it has been stated by the learned

Additional Advocate General that such a seniority list had been prepared.

6. Without a combined seniority list consisting of these three types of

P.G.Teachers as stated supra, every year panel fit for promotion to the post of Higher Secondary School Headmasters could not have been prepared.

7. Therefore, in order to verify these aspects, this Court feels that a panel consisting of four persons can be constituted. Among the four members of the panel, two shall be the officials from the Directorate of School Education, one shall be an Advocate Commissioner of this Court and one shall

be the representative / advocate of the appellants / teachers.

8. In view of the above, we give the following directions,

• There shall be a scrutinizing panel consisting of the following four members.

1. V.Vijay Shankar, Advocate having office at No.36 (14),

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Shastri Nagar, Chennai 600 041 (Mobile No.9444001404)

2. U.Sreemathi, Superintendent, Directorate of School Education (Mobile No.9445105593)
3. Manimekalai, Superintendent, SCERT (Mobile

No.9941963530)

4. Auxilia Peter, learned counsel for the appellants / petitioners.

• This Scrutinizing Panel will have sittings at the office of the Directorate of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai, where all relevant original records pertaining to the issue raised herein shall be made available for scrutiny.  After thorough scrutiny of the records, if unanimity is reached among the panel members, a combined report can be filed before this Court.  Otherwise, the first two members from the Directorate shall file a report and Advocate Commissioner and the learned counsel for the

appellants / petitioners shall file separate reports.

• Forty five (45) days time is granted for the aforesaid compliance. The Advocate Commissioner shall be the Coordinator of this panel throughout.  The date of scrutiny for

any number of days can be fixed among themselves at the convenience of every member and accordingly such a scrutiny

exercise can be undertaken.

• Necessary facilities at the venue shall be arranged by the Directorate of School Education.  The Advocate Commissioner fees shall be met by both the parties equally ie., 50:50. The initial remuneration of the Advocate Commissioner shall be Rs.50,000/- which shall be paid by both the parties as indicated

above.  The report / reports shall be filed on or before

20.10.2023.

9. Post on 30.10.2023.

(R.S.K.,J.)              (K.B.,J.)

      05.09.2023

KST

Note : Issue order copy on 07.09.2023

1. SURESH KUMAR, J.

AND K.KUMARESH BABU, J. kst

W.A.Nos.1295 to 1300 of 2012             

05.09.2023