1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD)No.7020 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 T.Ravikumar : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Chepauk,Chennai-600 005. 2.The District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. : Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to prepare separate seniority list under the category of Graduate Teacher in every subject and Tamil Pandits as on 01.03.2011 in view of the Circular issued by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.1/1368/2010, dated 22.02.2010 and thereafter conduct the counselling for the period 2011-2012 within the time limit stipulated by this court. For petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen Additional Govt. Pleader ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to prepare separate seniority list under the category of Graduate Teacher in every subject and Tamil Pandits as on 01.03.2011, in view of the circular, issued by the Commissioner, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Chennai, the 1st respondent herein, in Na.Ka.No.1/1368/2010, dated 22.02.2010 and conduct the counselling for the period 2011-2012 within a time limit to be stipulated by this Court. 2.According to him, subject-wise seniority list has to be prepared for the purpose of conducting counselling. It is his further contention that pointing out breach of certain clauses contained in the circular referred to above, the petitioner has already submitted an objection petition on 17.05.2011 regarding the tentative seniority list of B.T. Assistants as on 01.03.2011 to the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Tirunelveli District, the 2nd respondent herein, who is the competent authority to approve the final seniority list and that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 same has not been considered and in the meanwhile, steps are being taken to conduct counselling for transfers/appointments. 3.To-day, when the matter came up for hearing, Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, fairly submitted that the objections are still pending for consideration. 4.In clause 4 of the Circular issued by the Commissioner, Adi Dravidar Welare Department, Chennai, the 1st respondent herein, in Na.Ka.No.1/1368/2010, dated 22.02.2010, addressed to the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Tirunelveli District and other officers, enables the aggrieved person to make objections as to the preparation of the seniority list. As per clause 5 of the said Circular, the objections/appeals received should be considered then and there, and that the grievance should be promptly addressed and only thereafter, the final seniority list has to be approved. 5.Admittedly, in the case on hand, the petitioner has submitted his objection petition on 17.05.2011 to the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Tirunelveli District, objecting to the tentative seniority list, wherein he has pointed out certain violations, which this Court is not inclined to advert at this juncture, for the reason that any objection to be made, will have an impact on the disposal of the objection petition. 6.Even, the learned Additional Government Pleader, has fairly submitted that after passing orders on the objections, dated 17.05.2011 made by the petitioner, the Department would fix the date for conselling. The submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader made before this Court is placed on record. In addition to above, the learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that subject-wise seniority list cannot be prepared, as contended by the petitioner and therefore, he submitted that the writ petition is misconceived. Whatsoever be the rival contentions, the fact remains that the objections of the petitioner are still pending and the same has to be considered. 7.As per the Circular of the 1st respondent, dated 22.02.2011, addressed to the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Tirunelveli District, the 2nd respondent herein, the 1st respondent has only mentioned that after considering objections/appeals, the final list has to be approved. Conducting counselling for teachers for the purpose of effecting transfers/appointments, would certainly affect the interests of objector, if there is any breach of instructions in the matter of seniority of the petitioner. 8.In the above said circumstances, this Court is not inclined to issue a writ of mandamus as prayed. However, the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Tiruneveli District, the 2nd respondent herein, is directed to consider the objection of the petitioner, dated 17.05.2011 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 possible, finalise the seniority list and thereafter proceed with the counselling. 9.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Chepauk,Chennai-600 005. 2.The District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Tirunelveli District,Tirunelveli. +1cc to M/s.G.Thalaimutharasu, Advocate SR.No.21911 +1cc to Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.21980 order in W.P.(MD).No.7020 of 2011 06.07.2011 er PA/07.07.2011/3P/5C(IT) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/