1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal(MD)No.1305 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 1.The Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai District. 2.The District Educational Officer, Sivagangai District. 3.Correspondent, Ilayangudi Higher Secondary School, Ilayangudi. 4.Headmaster, Ilayangudi Higher Secondar School, Ilayangudi. ... Appellants/ Respondents Vs. S.Akbar Ali ... Respondent/ Petitioner Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 19.07.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.536 of 2004. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issuance a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the Order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.2040/A3/2003 dated 1.1.2004 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to allow the Petitioner to have all the benefits. For Appellants : Mr.R.Anandharaj, Government Advocate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J) This appeal is preferred by the appellants challenging the order of the writ Court, dated 19.07.2011, made in W.P.(MD). No.530 of 2004, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, quashing the impugned order, dated 01.01.2004, cancelling the respondent's selection grade and special grade. 2.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants would contend that the order passed by the writ Court is unsustainable as the writ Court set aside the impugned order on two grounds viz., on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, holding that the respondent herein was not given enough opportunity by supplying the documents and on the second ground that G.O.No.898, dated 23.09.1983 was violated. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the said G.O. is applicable only in respect of permanent service, who has rendered his service in the earlier department and such service also to be added for computing the period of ten years and not in respect of temporary service, to become eligible for selection grade. It is contended that the respondent was earlier served under different capacity only on temporary basis and as such, that service cannot be taken note of and he was also from different category as he was only working as Tamil Pandit and not in the category of B.T. Assistant (History). 3.We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Government Advocate and perused the impugned order and the order passed by the writ Court and other materials available on record. 4.At the outset, it is to be stated that the writ Court set aside the impugned order, dated 01.11.2009, on two grounds viz., on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice holding that the respondent was not given enough opportunity by supplying the documents relied by the department and secondly, on the ground of violation of G.O.No.898, dated 23.09.1983. The main contention of the learned Government Advocate is to the effect that the said G.O. is not applicable to the case of the respondent, as he has rendered his earlier service only on temporary basis and not on permanent basis and further he has not rendered his service in respect of the same category. We are unable to countenance such contention of the learned Government Advocate for the simple reason that the perusal of G.O.No.898, dated 23.09.1983, does not disclose any differentiation between the temporary and permanent service rendered by the teachers. We are also equally not able to countenance the contention that the respondent has not rendered his service in respect of the same category, as it is not disputed that even for the earlier period, the respondent has worked only as a Tamil Pandit. Therefore, the writ Court has rightly set aside the impugned order on two grounds viz., the violation of principles and natural justice as well as the violation of G.O.Ms.No.898, dated 23.09.1983 and we are not able https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 to find any ground, warranting interference of this Court in the impugned order as well as in the order of the writ Court. 5.Accordingly, the writ appeal is hereby dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai District. 2.The District Educational Officer, Sivagangai District. 3.Correspondent, Ilayangudi Higher Secondary School, Ilayangudi. 4.Headmaster, Ilayangudi Higher Secondar School, Ilayangudi. +One cc to the Spl Govt. Pleader, SR.No.42578 gcg rl/6c – 29.12.2011 Judgment In W.A.(MD)No.1305 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 Dated:01.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/