IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.04.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.No.38551 of 2006 (O.A.No.6059 of 1999) G.Mareeswari .. Petitioner Vs 1.District Elementary Educational Oficer, Ramanathapuram. 2.K.Devagirani 3.Evujinmary ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.6059 of 1999 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the Respondent-1 in his Proceedings Na.Ka.No.13992/A3/98 dated 29.09.1999 and set-aside the same. For Petitioner : M/s.P.Ganesan For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay, GA for R1 Mr.R.Muthukannu for R2 and R3 ORDER This writ petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the Respondent-1 in his Proceedings Na.Ka.No.13992/A3/98 dated 29.09.1999 and set-aside the same. 2.The petitioner was originally appointed as a Tamil Pandit and was later on appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher giving necessary exemption. While the petitioner was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher, seniority list was drawn and published in which the petitioner was placed above the respondents 2 and 3. Later on she was promoted as Tamil Pandit on 30.06.1997. But when the panel for the year 1997 was drawn no promotion was given to the petitioner, even though she was included in the list. When the next promotion is due namely to the post of Head Master, a panel was drawn in the year https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1998 and when the vacancy arose they did not implement the panel and give promotion to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition no.3087 of 1999 and this Court directed the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner for promotion made on 12.01.1999 within three months by an order dated 25.02.1999. But subsequently, the impugned order was passed on 29.09.1999, pursuant to which she was reverted back to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher on the ground that two other persons who were senior to the petitioner was left out by mistake and the mistake was rectified and the revised seniority list was fixed and consequently, the reversion order was passed. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed this petition. 3.The first respondent has filed a detailed counter in which it was very clearly brought out that the petitioner's seniority was wrongly fixed and on her revision and as per the direction of the Hon'ble Court, the seniority list was taken up where in it was found out by mistake two other persons seniority was wrongly given who were much senior to the petitioner. Therefore, by the impugned order, even before the impugned order by an order dated 03.09.1999 in Proceedings No.20510/Ed.1/99, the seniority list was fixed and consequently, the impugned order dated 29.09.1999 was passed reverting the petitioner to the post. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not challenged the original order dated 03.09.1999 and has come forward only to challenge the order of consequential under law. Such a procedure is not maintainable. Further it is an admitted case that the respondent/petitioner is junior to the other two persons and it was a mistake committed by the Department in fixing the seniority which could always be rectified and in this case, the matter was taken up only as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in his petition seeking for promotion. Under those circumstances, the impugned order is valid and correct. 4.Heard both the parties. The contesting respondent also is represented and they also perfectly pleaded that their seniority is much more higher than the petitioner and therefore, the order is perfectly correct. The only point for consideration is that the petitioner who is much junior though by mistakenly she was given the promotion, she challenged the order of non promotion given to next level post wherein the Court clearly directed the authorities to go into the question. The authority having verified the records found out clearly that the petitioner was much junior and therefore, the seniority list was altered by a proceedings dated 03.09.1999 in Rc.No.20510/Ed.1/99. But the petitioner has not challenged this order. Without challenging this order, the petitioner cannot challenge the consequential order of reversion. The contesting respondent brought to the notice of this Court a decision reported in (2010) 1 MLJ 833 (SC) in Amarjeet Singh and Others Vs. Devi Ratan and Others, in which the Supreme Court has categorically held that challenging the consequential order but not challenging the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ basic order is not permissible. The relevant paragraphs reads as follows: "24.In the instant case, promotions has been made by two different DPC's held on 19.12.1998 and 22.1.1999. Both the DPC's had made promotions under different rules on different criterion and their promotions had been made with retrospective effect with different dates notionally. In the writ petition before the High Court, the promotion of the appellants had not been under challenge. The seniority which is consequential to the promotions could not be challenged without challenging the promotions. 25.Challenging the consequential order without challenging the basic order is not permissible, (vide Chithranja Menon and Others V. A.Balakrishnan AIR 1977 SC 1720)." 5.Furthermore, it is an admitted case that the respondents are senior to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the prayer sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted and the impugned order is correct. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar pri To 1.District Elementary Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.28920 1 cc To Mr.R.Muthukannu , Advocate, SR.28359 W.P.No.38551 of 2006 (O.A.No.6059 of 1999) rv(co) pmk.14.5.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/