IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 2-7-2010 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P.No.4778 of 2006 M. Gaspar .... Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 2. Teachers Recruitment Board, rep.by its Chairman, Chennai – 6. 3. Director of School Education, Chennai – 6. ... Respondents This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.1381/Aa1/04, dated 27.5.2005 and the consequential order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings Mu.Mu.No.52588/W.20/05 dated 21.10.2005 and quash the same, insofar as it describes the petitioner as Junior Grade P.G.Assistant on consolidated pay selected for the year 2005-2006 and direct the respondents to declare that the petitioner has been selected as regular P.G.Assistant for the year 2002 and entitled to all the consequential benefits from the date on which the persons who have secured lesser mark than the petitioner and selected and appointed as regular P.G.Assistant and confer all the consequential benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganesan for Mr.S.Mani For Respondents : Mr.A.Suresh, Government Advocate (Education) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 27.5.2005 passed by the second respondent and the consequential order passed by the third respondent dated 21.10.2005 insofar as it describes the petitioner as Junior Grade P.G.Assistant on consolidated pay, selected for the year 2005-2006 and direct the respondents to declare that the petitioner has been selected as regular P.G.Assistant for the year 2002 and entitled to all consequential benefits from the date on which the persons who have secured lesser marks than the petitioner and selected and appointed as regular P.G.Assistant and confer all consequential benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the Teachers Recruitment Board called for applications on 3.7.2002 for filling up 50 posts in the cadre of P.G.Assistants (Commerce). Petitioner applied under the seats reserved for B.C., General as well as Burma repatriates. Petitioner appeared for the written examinations on 18.8.2002. Results were published on 4.10.2002 and the petitioner secured 97 marks out of 150 and he was placed in 16th rank. Petitioner was selected in OC general category as well as BC priority. 3. On 25.10.2002 petitioner was called upon for certificate verification. As there was a mistake in the passport issued by the Government of India with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner, petitioner's selection was withheld. The first list of the selected candidates was announced on 2.11.2002; second list published on 11.12.2002; and the third list was released on 24.12.2002. Petitioner having not been selected filed O.A.No.903 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal having been abolished, petitioner filed W.P.No.1302 of 2005 and got a direction to consider his representations dated 25.10.2002 and 27.10.2002, by order dated 20.1.2005. Pursuant to the said order the second respondent on 28.4.2005 called the petitioner for certificate verification and issued appointment order on 27.5.2005. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that while issuing appointment order, petitioner was granted appointment as Junior Grade P.G.Assistant with consolidated payment of Rs.4,500/- per month and the petitioner having been selected as per the application submitted for P.G.Assistant General category with time scale of pay, he ought not to have been posted as Junior grade teacher. 5. The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner gave a declaration while attending certificate verification in the year 2005 that he is willing to be considered https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for the post of P.G.Assistant junior grade (Commerce) on consolidated pay of Rs.4,500/- per month for the year 2005-2006. By accepting the said declaration only petitioner's claim was considered and he was offered with the appointment. Further, the P.G.Assistant posts were down graded for five years through G.O.Ms.No.100 Education Department, dated 27.6.2003 with consolidated pay. Petitioner having been appointed after issuance of the said Government order, petitioner is not entitled to get regular time scale of pay. 6. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 7. The point in issue is whether the petitioner can argue against his own declaration given before the second respondent at the time of certificate verification and whether the respondents can appoint the petitioner on regular basis after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 27.6.2003. 8. Admittedly petitioner's selection was withheld due to verification of his credentials and verification was not over before issuance of G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 27.6.2003. Pursuant to the order of this Court certificate verification was completed and order of appointment was given to the petitioner. Petitioner also accepted the order of appointment and joined the post. In the light of the same no case is made out to quash the impugned order. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government has changed its policy to give consolidated salary to P.G. Assistants in the year 2006 and upgraded the junior grade P.G. Assistants as regular grade P.G. Assistants with time scale of pay and if the petitioner is not given the said benefit till date, the same may be ordered to be given to the petitioner as it was given to the similarly placed persons. 10. The said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is recorded and the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the third respondent to consider the said aspect. If the petitioner is not given time scale of pay as per the Government order, the same is directed to be implemented within eight weeks without relying upon the undertaking given by the petitioner at the time of selection. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. vr Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 2. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai – 6. 3. The Director of School Education, Chennai – 6. W.P.No.4778 of 2006 SGL(CO) EU 13.07.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/