IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.09.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P.No. 20649 OF 2010 and M.P.No. 1 of 2010 1.N.Mari 2.A.R.Durairajan 3.R.Kumutha 4.P.Senthamarai 5.R.Deelipkumar 6.K.Thayee 7.R.Venkatachalam 8.N.Murugesan 9.R.Deivanai 10.V.Gunavathi 11.C.Rangaraju 12.V.Revathi 13.S.Radha All are formerly employed in the scheme, called continuing Education Scheme (since discharged from service) Continuing Education Scheme Salem District. [ PETITIONERS] Vs. 1.Union of India rep. by its Secretary to Government Human Resource Development Department of School Education & Litercay Shastri Bhavan New Delhi-110 115. 2.The Director of Adult Education Ministry of Human Resource Development No.10, Jamnagar House Shahjahan Road New Delhi-110 011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The Secretary to Government Education Department Fort St. George Chennai-600 009. 4.The Collector Salem District. ... Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners for the post of Preraks, Nodal Preraks, Block Project Co-ordinator etc., for the scheme called Saakshar Bharat Scheme in the existing vacancies, the claim of the petitioners should not be rejected on the ground that the Scheme has not been extended to the Municipal areas and Town Panchayat areas. For petitioners : Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi For respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran, ASGI for R.1 and R.2 Mrs.E.Ranganayaki Government Advocate for R.3 and R.4 ORDER This Writ Petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners in the post of Preraks, Nodal Preraks, Block Project Co-ordinator etc., in the Scheme called "Saakshar Bharat Scheme". 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners worked in different capacities under the old Scheme viz., Continuing Education Scheme from 2003 to 2008. Therefore, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court seeking for the above said relief. It is contended that the respondents are going to establish a new scheme called "Saakshar Bharat Scheme." and in the said scheme, the petitioners may be absorbed. 3. Learned Government Advocate submitted that the old Scheme was already closed. It is contended that the petitioners are not working under the old Scheme as on date. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the petitioners would be given preference in absorbing in the existing new Scheme "Saakshar Bharat Scheme." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and perused the entire materials available on record. 5. It is seen that the petitioners worked under the old Scheme "Continuing Education Scheme" in different capacities. It is pertinent to note that the said old Scheme was closed and it is claimed that the petitioners who were working in Salem District, were paid poor salary. However, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents categorically stated before this Court that the petitioners are not working under the old Scheme, which was closed. It is also categorically stated before this Court by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioners would be given preference in respect of employment under the new and existing Scheme viz., "Saakshar Bharat Scheme." 6. Considering the said submissions of the learned Government Advocate, it is suffice for this Court to dispose of the petition, by recording the above said statement of the learned Government Advocate to the effect that the petitioners would be given preferential right in absorbing under the present existing Scheme namely "Saakshar Bharat Scheme". It is made clear that it is open to the petitioners to make a representation to the respondents seeking for the relief of payment of arrears of salary, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of such representation, the respondents shall consider such representation on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition No. 1 of 2010 is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar paa https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Secretary to Govt. Union of India Human Resource Development Department of School Education & Litercay Shastri Bhavan New Delhi-110 115. 2.The Director of Adult Education Ministry of Human Resource Development No.10, Jamnagar House Shahjahan Road New Delhi-110 011. 3.The Secretary to Government Education Department Fort St. George Chennai-600 009. 4.The Collector Salem District. + 1 cc to Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi, ADvocate SR.70497 + 1 cc to Mr. S. Ravindran, ADvocate SR.70395 + 1 cc to Government Pleader SR.70430 W.P.No. 20649 OF 2010 NSM(CO) EU 5.10.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/