1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P(MD)No.13111 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 Abimannan .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of Tamilnadu, Fort St.George, Chennai. 2. The Joint Director(personnel), School Education, College Road, Chennai-6. 3. The Joint Director (Higher Secondary, School Education, College Road, Chennai-6. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the third respondent in publishing the eligible candidates for the promotion list displayed through internet on 15.11.2011 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, consequently direct the third respondent to prepare the fresh panel list including the petitioner's name for post graduate promotion process. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivasubramanian For Respondents : Mrs.S.Bharathi Government Advocate. O R D E R This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner Abimannan under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the third respondent in publishing the eligible candidates for the promotion list displayed through internet on 15.11.2011 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, consequently direct the third respondent to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 prepare the fresh panel list including the petitioner's name for post graduate promotion process. 2. Heard Mr.S.Sivasubramanian, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Bharathi, learned Government Advocate, who takes notice for the respondents. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioner Abimannan was appointed through Teacher Recruitment Board selection as BT Assistant Science (graduate teacher) on 29.07.2004 at Government Higher Secondary School, Villupuram. He is working presently at Government Higher Secondary School, Alagankulam in Ramanathapuram District from 21.09.2011 onwards. 5. On 02.02.2007, when he was in charge of the school, as the Headmaster was on leave, he has taken the students to goodluck theatre, R.S.Mangalam, Ramanathapuram District to see a movie displayed about the autobiography of former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Mr.Kamaraj. Within five minutes of commencing the journey, 6 of the students felt sensation of vomiting and the programme was cancelled. Consequently, the petitioner was made to face a departmental proceedings, that was initiated on 30.09.2009. Finally, the departmental proceedings came to an end with a punishment of censure passed in proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.11930/C2/E3/07 dated 07.06.2010 by the Joint Director (Personal) School Education, Chennai, the respondent No.2, herein. 6. He added that the criminal case filed against the petitioner and four others in Cr.No.14 of 2007, under Sections 279, 336 I.P.C. and under Sections 184 and 188 of Motor Vehicles Act and Rle 21(10) r/w under Section 177 of Motor Vehicles Act also came to be dismissed and he was acquitted from all charges by order dated 01.09.2008. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is that he suffered only the order of censure. Therefore, wrongly thinking that the petitioner has to face the check period of one year, the third respondent has wrongly failed to include his name in the promotion panel for the post of Post Graduate Teachers. Subsequently, the petitioner, on coming to know that his name was not included, submitted his application on 13.10.2011 to the Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram through the Headmaster of Government Higher Secondary School, Alagankulam, Ramanathapuram District. Even though, the said application was forwarded by the Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram to the Joint Director (Higher Secondary) in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.7654/A3/2011 no improvement whatsoever has been shown. In the meanwhile, the respondents omitted the petitioner's name from the promotional panel, called for counselling which is scheduled to be held on 18.11.2011, informing the eligible candidates to appear and participate in the promotion process from graduate teachers at Chennai. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has come up to this Court with the above writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further repeated in his argument saying that except the order of censure dated 07.06.2010, the petitioner does not have any disciplinary proceedings or currency of punishment. As the law has been well settled by the Full Bench Decision in The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur and Another Vs. V.Rani reported in 2011(3) CTC 129, that no embargo can be put against the petitioner from being considered for promotion, after the period of minor punishment is over and in the case of the petitioner, the petitioner has suffered only a censure by order dated 07.06.2010 passed by the Joint Director (Personal) School Education, Chennai, therefore, the check period of one year in the case of censure has been set aside as illegal and impermissible by the Full Bench Judgment. Hence, the respondent is bound to include the petitioner's name in the panel and thereupon, he should be permitted to participate in the counselling that is scheduled to be held on 18.11.2011. 8. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents also submitted that prima facie it appears that the petitioner suffers only a censure by proceedings dated 07.06.2010 passed by the Joint Director (Personal) School Education, Chennai. Therefore, in view of the Ruling of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur and Another Vs. V.Rani reported in 2011 (3) CTC 129, since, the petitioner is not facing any other departmental proceedings or any currency of punishment or 17(B) charges, he will be permitted to participate in the counselling that is scheduled to be held on 18.11.2011. 9. The statement of the learned Government Advocate is recorded. 10. As I mentioned earlier, the petitioner has suffered only a censure by order dated 07.06.2010 passed by the Joint Director (Personal) School Education, Chennai. Therefore, the so called check period of one year in the case of censure cannot be put against the petitioner from including his name in the promotional panel. The name of the petitioner should have been included in the panel list. As it has not been done so, this Court directs the third respondent/The Joint Director (Higher Secondary, School Education, Chennai, to include his name in the promotional panel for the post of Post Graduate Teachers by permitting the petitioner to participate in the counselling that is scheduled to be held on 18.11.2011. 11. With these observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 To 1. The Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of Tamilnadu, Fort St.George, Chennai. 2. The Joint Director(personnel), School Education, College Road, Chennai-6. 3. The Joint Director (Higher Secondary, School Education, College Road, Chennai-6. +1cc to Mr.S.Sivasubramanian, Advocate, Sr.No.40065 ssl ssk/17.11.2011 /5c -4p/- W.P(MD)No.13111 of 2011 17.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/