1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.03.2011 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.A.(MD) Nos.116 and 117 of 2011 and MP(MD) NO.1 & 2 of 2011 1.The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai-06. 2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai District, Madurai. 3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Vadipatti, Madurai District. 4.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Vadipatti, Madurai District ... Appellants in both W.As. Vs. 1.A.Chitra .. 1st Respondent in W.A.No.116/2011 1.R.Thamaraiselvi ... 1st Respondent in W.A.No.117/2011 2.B.Balamani 3.D.Kristiyana Dhawaseeli 4.P.Albert James 5.M.Suriyakala 6.G.Bharathi 7.M.Latha 8.M.Ulagamatha 9.K.Murugeswari .. Respondent 2 to 9 in both WA's 10. R.Thamaraiselvi 11.V.Arumugam ... Respondents 10 & 11 in W.A.116 of 2011 Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated 11.11.2009 made in W.P.(MD)Nos.4582 and 4583 of 2008. WP.4582 and 4583 of 2008 : Petitions under article 226 of the constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 2 to 4 to restore the petitioner's seniority based on the rank given at the time of appointment by following roaster system. For Appellants : Mr.R.Janakiramulu, in both WAs Special Government Pleader. For First Respondents : Mr.M.Saravanan (in both W.As) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 COMMON JUDGMENT R.SUBBIAH,J. The writ appeals are directed against the order, dated 11.11.2009 made in W.P.(MD)Nos.4582 and 4583 of 2008 whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition directing the appellants herein to fix the seniority of the writ petitioners as per roaster method as contemplated under Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and consequently the petitioners should be placed in their respective seniority on the basis of the representation given by the petitioners dated 28.04.2008. 2.It is the case of the writ petitioners as well as other respondents that they are the secondary grade teachers in the third appellant union working in different schools under the panchayat union. The writ petitioners have been appointed as secondary grade teachers based on the employment exchange seniority. The first respondent in W.A.No.116 of 2011 was appointed in a vacancy bearing Roster No.171 and the first respondent in W.A.No.117 of 2011 was appointed in a vacancy bearing roster No.146. The next promotion of the writ petitioners is Primary School Headmaster. The second appellant is drawing seniority panel every year. From 1996, the writ petitioners have been placed in the seniority list based on their roaster point. Whileso, the writ petitioners were called for to attend counseling in the year 2006. But due to the non availability of vacancy, they were not promoted. Thereafter, the appellants did not circulate the seniority list for the year 2007 and the writ petitioners were informed that there were few vacancies therefore, they were not called for counseling. Thereafter, in the month of March 2008, the appellants orally informed the writ petitioners that they re-arranged the seniority list based on the date of birth and date of joining which is against Rule 35-A of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. Hence, the first respondent gave representations to the appellants to restore the seniority list prepared on the basis of roster. But till date, the said representations were not considered. Moreover, the appellants without considering the request of the writ petitioners have proposed to conduct counseling on 17.05.2008 and promote others. Hence, they have filed the writ petitions. 3.The learned single Judge on consideration of the submissions made on either side allowed the writ petitions. Hence, the present appeals. 4.We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5.It is the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that only Rule 35(aa) is applicable. It is submitted that Rule 35(a) would be applicable only in respect of the approved candidates drawn by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and as the writ petitioners and the respondents have not been selected through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rule 35(a) is not applicable and on the other hand only Rule 35(aa) is applicable. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the guideline issued by the first appellant herein in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.9683/D1/2004, dated 03.05.2004. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6.Keeping the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, we have carefully gone through the entire records. We are not inclined to accept the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader since the guidelines or instructions cannot over ride the rules. In fact, the learned single Judge by elaborately dealing with Rule 35 and 35(aa) has come to a conclusion that the writ petitioners are coming under the roaster and they are appointed through the District Employment offices and thus, allowed the writ petitions. 7.In the light of the same, we do not find any infirmity in the said direction. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai-06. 2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai District, Madurai. 3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Vadipatti, Madurai District. 4.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Vadipatti, Madurai District +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.11016 +2CC TO MR.R.SUBRAMANIAN, ADVOCATE SR.10699 sms SR : 06.04.2011 : 3p/8c W.A.(MD) Nos.116 and 117 of 2011 and MP(MD) No.1 & 2 of 2011 01.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/