IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NOs.6707, 6708 and 7306 of 1999, 45624, 44181, 44182, 44183 and 44184 OF 2006, 8591 and 2754 of 2007, 26074 of 2005, 13627, 14129, 13949, 13556, 13545 of 2006 and 1022 of 2007 (T.A.Nos.7 to 9 of 2000, O.A.NOs.8829 OF 2000, 1097 and 1099 of 2002, 8878 of 2000, 4150 of 2001, 1192 of 2002, 1695 of 2001, 4422 of 1999, 4215 of 1991, 1587 of 1993, 2139 of 1992, 1679 of 1992, 2815 of 2000) 1.S.Velayudham 2.K.Illayaperumal. 3.C.Periyasamy 4.P.Vallinayagi 5.P.Ramalingam 6.N.R.Navaneethanarayanan 7.A.Ponnaiyan 8.S.Sudarappan 9.S.Vivekananda 10.R.Rangasamy 11.P.Vijayalakshmi 12.H.Balandoss 13.S.Samikkan 14.G.Radhabai 15.K.Arumugam 16.Vani Somasundaram 17.S.Adhilakshmi 18.C.K.Eswari 19.K.R.Raju 20.N.Visalakshi 21.S.Rukmani 22.M.Santhamani 23.V.Yogalakshmi 24.T.Baby Nazeem 25.K.Nazmabegum 26.B.Rupavathy 27.P.Mathiazhagan 28.M.Vasantha 29.E.S.Swaraj 30.D.Alagarsami 31.R.Santha 32.P.Selvam 33.A.Zarinabegum https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 34.J.Hepsybai 35.V.Bose 36.T.Paramathai 37.D.Mythilignanasulotchana 38.S.Gopalakrishnan .. Petitioners in W.P.Nos.6707 and 6708 of 1999 1.Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service Association, rep by its President K.Subramani. 2.A.Maruthappa Pandian 3.S.Venkatasubramanian .. Petitioners in W.P.No.7306 of 1999 V.Yogalakshmi .. Petitioner in W.P.No.45624 of 2006 Vani Somasundaram .. Petitioner in W.P.No.44181 of 2006 Baby Nazeem .. Petitioner in W.P.No.44182 of 2006 C.K.Eswari .. Petitioner in W.P.No.44183 of 2006 Baby Nazeem .. Petitioner in W.P.No.44184 of 2006 G.Bala .. Petitioner in W.P.No.8591 of 2007 1.K.Ilayaperumal 2.S.Velayutham 3.K.Arumugham 4.K.R.Raju 5.S.Vivekanandan 6.H.Balandoss 7.Vani Somasundaram 8.Vijayalakshmi 9.T.Baby Nazeem 10.C.Rukmani 11.P.Ramalingam .. Petitioners in W.P.No.2754 of 2007 S.Vivekanandan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.26074 of 2005 K.K.Rajamani .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.13627 and 14129 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ A.Selvaraj .. Petitioner in W.P.No.13949 of 2006 S.Venkatasubramaniam .. Petitioner in W.P.No.13556 of 2006 K.K.Rajamani .. Petitioner in W.P.No.13545 of 2006 S.Rukmani .. Petitioner in W.P.No.1022 of 2007 Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-6. .. Respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.Nos.6707, 6708 and 7306 of 1999, 44181,44182, and 44183 of 2006, 2754 of 2007, 26074/2005, 13627 and 14129 of 2006, 13949, 13556, 13545 of 2006, 1022 of 2007 The District Educational Officer, Kancheepuram .. Respondent in W.P.No.45624 of 2006 The Chief Educational Officer, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District. .. 3rd respondent in W.P.No.44183 of 2006 The Chief Educational Officer, Panagal Building, Chennai-600 015. .. Respondent in W.P.No.44184 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.The Director of School Education, D.P.I. Complex, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 2.The District Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents in W.P.No.8591 of 2007 S.Mangalam .. 3rd respondent in representing herself W.P.Nos.6707 and and on behalf of all the 7306 of 1999 B wing Head Masters District Educational Officer, Periyakulam, Theni District. .. 3rd respondent in W.P.No.26074 of 2005 Association of Government 'B' Wing Teachers, Tamilnadu, rep by its General Secretary S.Thangavelu (as per order in MA No.2428/91,dt.16.12.91) .. 3rd respondent in W.P.Nos.13627 and 14129 of 2006 3.S.Ayyasamy, Regional Deputy Director of Government Examinations, Coimbatore. 4.S.Ramasubramanian, Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Thirumoorthy Nagar, Coimbatore District. 5.N.L.Thirumal Rao, Deputy Director, Monitoring, Office of the Director of Nonformal and Adult Education, Madras. 6.R.Ranganathan, Regional Deputy Director of Government- Examinations, Madras. 7.V.P.Ramachandran, Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Tirur, Chengai M.G.R. District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8.B.Kondappan Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Krishnagiri. 9.R.Parthasarathy, Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Munanjipatti, Tirunelveli District. 10.M.J.S.Appadurai, Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Aduthurai, Thanjavur District. 11.Joice Vatsala, Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Ranipet, North Arcot Ambedkar District. 12.D.R.W.Chella Baskaran, Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Theroor, Kanyakumari District. 13.R.Krishnamoorthy, Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Palayampatti, Kamarajar District. 14.T.N.Murahari, Deputy Director of School Education, (Educational Technology Cell) Madras. .. Respondents 3 to 14 in W.P.Nos.13949 and 13556 of 2006 District Educational Officer, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District. .. 3rd respondent in W.P.No.1022 of 2007 W.P.No.6707 of 1999 has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in No.87555/C4/98, dated 22.8.1998 and to quash the same. W.P.No.6708 of 1999 has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring that A wing and B wing staff cannot be integrated as on 1.4.1970 and consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to follow the Tamil Nadu School Education Service Rules in the matter of promotion to the post of Headmaster, District Educational Officers, Deputy Director, etc., https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.7306 of 1999 has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.84920/C8/C33/98, dated 15.2.1999 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to make appointments and promotions to the post of Headmasters, District Educational Officers, etc., in accordance with the Tamil Nadu School Educational Service Rules. O.A.No.8829 of 2000 has been preferred before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and on transfer to this court renumbered as W.P.No.45624 of 2006 praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.7017/B2/98, dated 29.8.2000 on the file of the respondent and to set aside the same. O.A.Nos.1097 and 1099 of 2002 have been preferred before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and on transfer to this court renumbered as W.P.Nos.44181 and 44182 of 2006 seeking for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to promote the applicants from the post of Headmistress to the post of D.E.O. on the basis of rank to be assigned with reference to the date of feeder category appointment with seniority and service benefits to the applicants by giving necessary retrospective promotion with monetary benefits. O.A.No.8878 of 2000 has been preferred before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and on transfer to this court renumbered as W.P.No.44183 of 2006 seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the third respondent in Mu.Mu.No.3657/A4/99, dated 29.08.1999, which was served on the applicant on 9.12.1999 and to quash the same insofar as this applicant is concerned. O.A.No.4150 of 2001 has been preferred before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and on transfer to this court renumbered as W.P.No.44184 of 2006 praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1325/A1/2000, dated 17.4.2001 on the file of the respondent and to set aside the same. O.A.No.1192 of 2002 has been preferred before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and on transfer to this court renumbered as W.P.No.8591 of 2007 seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.043642/C4, dated 14.8.2001 and Na.Ka.No.8649/A1/2001, dated 26.11.2001 on the file of the first and second respondents and to set aside the same. O.A.No.1695 of 2001 has been preferred before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and on transfer to this court renumbered as W.P.No.2754 of 2007 seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorarifed mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings circular in Na.Ka.No.15715/C10/2000, dated 27.9.2000 on the file of the second respondent and to quash the entire proceedings and consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to publish the combined integrated list https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of seniority of the Headmasters of 'A' and 'B' Wing Schools taking into account the date of integration as 1.4.1970 in the category of Headmaster in the ratio of 2:3 between 'A' Wing and 'B' Wing Teaching staff of the School Education Department and then to publish the panel of headmaster fit for promotion to the post of District Educational Officer in the ratio of 40% and 30% between Headmasters of 'A' Wing and 'B' Wing. O.A.No.4422 of 1999 has been preferred before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and on transfer to this court renumbered as W.P.No.26074 of 2005 seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.87555/C.4/98, dated 16.12.1998 and the order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.4912/A1/99, dated 5.4.1999 and to quash the same. O.A.No.4215 of 1991 has been preferred before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and on transfer to this court renumbered as W.P.Nos.13627 and 14129 of 2006 seeking for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant as District Educational Officer in accordance with the ratio of 40% for 'A' Wing and 30% for B-Wing in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1968, Education, dated 2.11.1978. O.A.Nos.1587 of 1993 and 2139 of 1992 have been preferred before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and on transfer to this court renumbered as W.P.Nos.13949 and 13556 of 2006 seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.1052 Education dated 8.11.91, G.O.Ms.No.181 Education, dated 20.2.92 and the first respondent passed G.O.Ms.No.207 Education, dated 27.2.92, quash all the G.Os insofar as it relates to the promotion of respondents 3 to 14 as Chief Educational Officers and to direct respondents 1 and 2 to promote the applicants as Chief Educational Officers. O.A.No.1679 of 1992 has been preferred before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and on transfer to this court renumbered as W.P.No.13545 of 2006 seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No1052 Education, dated 8.11.1991 and to quash the same insofar as the applicant is concerned. O.A.No.2815 of 2000 has been preferred before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and on transfer to this court renumbered as W.P.No.1022 of 2007 seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the third respondent in Na.No.750/A1/99, dated 16.2.2000 and to quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioners : Mr.V.Selvaraj in W.P.Nos.6707 & 6708/99, 7306/99, 44183/2006, 26074/05,13627/06, 14129/06, 13949, 13556, 13545 of 2006, 1022/07. Mr.N.S.Nandakumar in W.P.Nos.45624/06, 44181, 44182, 44184/06, 8591 and 2754 of 2007 For Respondents : Mr.R.Murali, GA for RR1 & 2 in all W.Ps. R3 in WP 44183/06,26074/05,1022/07 Respondent in WP 45624/06,44184/06 Mr.R.Muthukannu for R-3 in W.P.No.13627 of 2006 No appearance for R-3 in W.P.No.7306/99 - - - - COMMON ORDER 1.These matters came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice by an order, dated 11.2.2011. 2.Heard both sides. 3.1.The first three writ petitions which were filed before this Court were W.P.Nos.6707, 6708 and 7306 of 1999. In W.P.No.6707 of 1999, the petitioners were one S.Velayudham and 37 others seeking to challenge the proceedings of the Director of School Education, dated 22.8.1998. In W.P.No.6708 of 1999, the same petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of declaration declaring that 'A' Wing and 'B' Wing staff cannot be integrated as on 1.4.1970 and for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to follow the Tamil Nadu School Education Service Rules in the matter of promotion to the post of Headmaster, District Educational Officers, Deputy Director, etc. 3.2.In W.P.No.7306 of 1999, the petitioner is an Association by name Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service Association represented by its President and two others. They have challenged the proceedings, dated 15.2.1999 and after quashing the same, seeks for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioners to the post of Headmasters, District Elementary Officers in accordance with the Tamil Nadu School Educational Service Rules. 3.3.By a proceedings, dated 15.2.1999, the State Government had prepared a seniority list of 'A' Wing and 'B' Wing Graduate Teachers ad Headmasters as per the judgment of the Supreme Court, dated 28.4.1996. It is not clear as to how these three writ petitions were filed before this court especially when the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal had come into existence by then and was having jurisdiction to adjudicate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ all service matters of the State Government servants covered by Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunal Act. Even though these matters were not pending on the date of the notification, constituting the Tribunal which alone required an automatic transfer, however all the three writ petitions were transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. They were renumbered as T.A.Nos.7,8 and 9 of 2000. Even before transfer of these petitions before the Tribunal, certain matters were pending before the Tribunal projecting individual grievances filed by certain individuals belonging to 'A' Wing. 3.4.In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, all these matters were retransferred to this court. While the transferred application retained their original writ petition numbers, the original applications filed before the Tribunal were renumbered as various writ petitions as noted in the cause title above. However in respect of O.A.No.4215 of 1991, it was renumbered as two different writ petitions, i.e., W.P.Nos.13627 and 14129 of 2006 inadvertently. Since all the writ petitions were interconnected, they were heard together and a common order is passed. 3.5.The controversy in these writ petitions was raised by the teachers who are otherwise called 'A' wing teachers having affiliation to the association representing in the interest of 'A' Wing teachers. The litigation between 'A' Wing and 'B' Wing teachers had already three rounds before the Supreme Court. This may be the starting point for a fourth round by them. 3.6.In order to appreciate the facts involved, it is necessary to put forth the averments made by the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service Association in W.P.No.7306 of 1999. At the time of existence of District Board, they were running several schools under their control. Apart from District schools, there were Government schools as well as private aided schools. The State Government took a policy decision to abolish the schools run under the District Board. They were taken over by the Government and were to be under the control of the District Collector. Subsequently, they were brought under the control of Director of School Education with effect from 1.4.1970. The Government found that there was administrative difficulties and impracticable to integrate the services of teaching staff and non teaching staff of Board schools with the teachers and non teaching staff working in Government schools. Therefore, separate service rules were framed for teachers in the Government school as well as teachers of erstwhile District Board schools. The teachers working in the Government schools were known as 'A' Wing staff. The erstwhile District Board schools staff were known as 'B' Wing staff. The service conditions of 'A' Wing and 'B' Wing are vastly different. For example, there was no gazetted post of Headmaster in the 'B' Wing as on 1.4.1970. Such posts were created for 'B' Wing only during 1971. The Government also under the Tamil Nadu Educational Service Rules, during 1974 had reserved 30% posts of District Educational Officers to 'B' Wing Headmasters. The distinction between 'A' Wing and "B' Wing Headmasters were continued to be maintained. Further there was no distinction made when a person is promoted as a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ District Educational Officer (DEO for short) either from 'A' Wing or from 'B' Wing headmasters. Further, promotions of the District Educational Officers were depending upon the seniority in the cadre of DEOs. Hence as per the service rules, separate quota for 'A' Wing and 'B' Wing schools were maintained for promotion to the post of DEO. Apart from that, there were also rules provided for direct appointment to the post of DEO. 3.7.By G.O.Ms.No.1968, Education Department, dated 2.11.1978, the Government took a policy decision to integrate both 'A' wing and 'B' wing into one unit. The date of integration was fixed on 2.11.1978 as the Government felt that integration had taken place only on that day as equivalent posts were created in both 'A' wing and 'B' wing. The Government, by the said G.O., had stated that all promotions after notification 2.11.1978 shall be made on the basis of combined seniority list. Thereafter, the said decision of the Government was challenged before the Supreme Court of India by the 'A' Wing teachers. Those writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India were dismissed by the Supreme Court by a common judgment, dated 23.10.1979. The Supreme Court held that the decision taken by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1968, Education, dated 2.11.1978 is valid and it had upheld the policy. 3.8.In that judgment (which was subsequently reported in 1980 (3) SCC 97 (The Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial & General Subordinate Association Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another)), the Supreme Court had observed in paragraphs 16 to 20 as follows: 16..... The court cannot strike down a GO, or a policy merely because there is a variation or contradiction. Life is sometimes contradiction and even consistency is not always a virtue. What is important is to know whether mala fides vitiates or irrational and extraneous factor fouls. It is impossible to maintain that the length of service as District Board employees is irrational as a criterion. Let us assume for argument’s sake that the mode of selection by the District Boards is not as good as by the Public Service Commission. Even so it is difficult to dislodge the Government’s position that the teachers with mostly the same qualifications, discharging similar functions and training similar students for similar examinations cannot be equated from a pragmatic angle without being condemned as guilty of arbitrariness. 17. Sri Govind Swaminathan drove home the point that in some cases even a few hundred “A” wing members have been passed over by someone in the “B” wing far junior to them. Once the principle is found to be rational the fact that a few freak instances of hardship may arise on either side cannot be a ground to invalidate the order or the policy. Every cause claims a martyr and however unhappy we be to see the seniors of yesterday becoming the juniors of today, this is an area where, absent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ arbitrariness and irrationality, the court has to adopt a hands-off policy. 18. The “B” wing members complain that they have really suffered by being denied what is due to them on account of length of service all these years after 1970. The boot is in the other leg, they lament. Probably, the injustice of the past, when suddenly set right by the equity of the present, puts on a molested mien and the beneficiaries of the status quo cry for help against injustice to them. The law, as a instrument of social justice, takes a longer look to neutralise the sins of history. Be that as it may, judicial power cannot rush in where even administrative feet fear to tread. 19. We see the force of the petitioners’ grievance and realise that an alternative policy may well be fabricated. That is a matter for the State and not for the court. 20. We hold that the impugned GO cannot be voided as violative of Articles 14 and 16, and, therefore, dismiss the petitions. The parties will bear their respective costs." 4.1.Subsequent to the order of the Supreme Court, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.1307, Education, dated 12.7.1980 amending Rule 2 of the special rules for the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service. The rules were further amended by G.O.Ms.No.98, Education, dated 21.1.1981. The Government had also issued G.O.Ms.No.38, Education, dated 7.1.1982 amending the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service Rules and Tamil Nadu Educational Service Rules and that the post of headmaster found in the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service Rules was abolished. 4.2.The new rule which is found in the Tamil Nadu School Educational Service provided for appointment to the post of Headmaster and Headmistress. It was indicated that all substantive vacancies that may be raised on or from 2.11.1978 in the category of Headmasters are to be filled up by recruitment by transfer or reserved to be filled up among the holders of the post of Deputy Inspector of School Assistants and Career Masters both in the 'A' Wing and 'B' Wing of the school Education department as per the combined seniority list drawn as on 1.11.1978 in the ratio of 2 : 3 and on rotation of every five posts is also provided. At this stage, aggrieved 'B' Wing teachers filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.9237 of 1983 and W.P.Nos.21 to 24 of 1984. S.Mohan, J. (as he then was) found that there was no discrimination made by the impugned order of the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.98, Education, dated 21.1.1981. 4.3.The matter was taken up by the aggrieved individuals before the division bench in W.A.Nos.733 to 736 of 1986 and W.A.No.650 of 1987. The Division bench of this court by its judgment, dated 10.8.1987 held in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ paragraphs 22 and 23 as follows: "It is clear that as a result of arbitrarily fixing 1.11.1978 as the date with reference to which integration has to be given effect to in the prescribed proportion, persons belonging to the 'A' wing are being given undue preference in the matter of promotion by placing them higher in the seniority list than those who are already in Government service and thus unequals have been treated as equals. It is true that having regard to the ration fixed by the G.O. dated 2.11.1978 it may be that some persons from the 'A' wing might become senior to the personnel in the 'B' wing irrespective of the date of appointment. But as long as the integration is given effect to as from 1.4.1970 it would not be possible for personnel of the 'B' wing to complain of any unfair or unequal treatment and indeed no such grievance has been made before us. There was clearly a rationale behind the adoption of 1.4.1970 as the date with reference to which the 'A' wing and the 'B' wing personnel were to be integrated. The rationale was that all those who were in service as on 1.4.1970 as Government servants were given equal treatment in the process of integrating the two wings. 23.We are therefore satisfied that there is a clear infirmity in the G.O. dated 21.1.981 by which the old rule 2A was substituted by the present rule 2A. The said rule is clearly violative of the guarantee of equality under Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution. The said rule is therefore liable to be quashed. The result is that these appeals are allowed, the order of the learned Judge is set aside and a writ of mandamus will issue to the State Government to redraw the seniority list as originally contemplated by G.O.No.1968, dated 2.11.1978. There will however be no order as to costs in these appeals." 4.4.The matter was taken to the Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) Nos.14250 and 14685 to 14689 of 1987. The Supreme Court had dismissed the SLPs by an order, dated 15.12.1987 and held that the judgment of the division bench was not in conflict with the earlier order passed by the Supreme Court in 1980 (3) SCC 97 (cites supra). 5.1.After the disposal of the SLPs, the State Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.1583, Education Department, dated 12.10.1988 amending the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service Rules relating to promotion from the cadre of secondary grade teacher to school assistant. Once again, the amendment was questioned by the Headmasters belonging to 'B' Wing schools by filing O.A.No.46 of 1988. Even though the Headmasters are no way concerned with the said amendment, yet they filed the original application. The Tribunal held that the promotion to the posts of Headmasters and District Educational Officers could be made only https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ after preparing the combined seniority list of 'A' Wing and 'B' Wing staff as on 1.4.1970. 5.2.Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, dated 4.5.1990, the matter was taken to the Supreme Court by way of direct appeals as per the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act by the Tamil Nadu Teachers Association. It was the third round of litigation. The Supreme Court finally had disposed of those appeals vide its judgment in Tamil Nadu Teachers Association Vs. Association of the Heads of the Government