1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:20/09/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR WP(MD)No.10686 of 2011 And MP(MD).No. 1 of 2011 C.Nalina Santha Kumari :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Commissioner, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. 2.The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,Madurai District, Madurai. :Respondents PRAYER:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Head Mistress in any one of Government Adi Dravidar Welfare Elementary School at Madurai District based upon the Seniority List prepared by the second respondent for the year 2011-2012. For petitioner :Mr.P.Gunasekaran for Mr.R.Anand For Respondents:Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen,Additional Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner has sought for a Mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Head Mistress in any one of Government Adi Dravidar Welfare Elementary School at Madurai District based upon the Seniority List prepared by the second respondent for the year 2011- 2012. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that she entered the department of respondents as Secondary Grade Teacher on 01.12.1995 and was posted at Government Adi Dravidar Higher Secondary School, Nachikulam, Madurai District. Thereafter, she has been transferred to Government Adi Dravidar Elementary School, Nachikulam. The next avenue for her promotion is to the post of Head Mistress in any one of the Elementary Schools under the control of the respondents. She further submitted that every year seniority list would be prepared and on that basis, appointments would be made to the post of Head Mistress. She was placed at Serial No. 5 in the seniority list drawn by the District Adi Dravidar and Tribunal Welfare Officer, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Madurai District, Madurai, the second respondent herein. One N.Uma Gandhi, was placed at Serial No. 7 in the said list. 3.According to the petitioner, during the counselling for the year 2010-2012, though the petitioner participated, there was no vacancy and in such circumstances, the District Adi Dravidar and Tribunal Welfare Officer, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Madurai District, Madurai, the second respondent herein, directed the petitioner to give a letter relinquishing her right to the post of Head Mistress. Having no other option, blindly the petitioner obeyed the directions of the second respondent. Making use of the abovesaid letter, obtained under compulsion, the petitioner has not been considered for promotion to the post of Head Mistress. Even in the seniority list for the year 2011-2012, she has been placed at the same position at Serial No.5. According to the petitioner, persons, junior to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 her, have been considered for promotion. She further submitted that under Rule 47 of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules, unless the competent authority passes a specific order accepting the relinquishment the letter of relinquishment cannot be said to have been accepted. she further submitted that the District Adi Dravidar and Tribunal Welfare Officer, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Madurai District, Madurai, the second respondent herein, has overlooked the seniority of the petitioner and thus, deprived her right to be considered to promotion to the post of Head Mistress, in Madurai District. 4.It is the further submission of the petitioner that though a detailed representation, dated 21.08.2011 has been made to the Commissioner, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Chennai, the first respondent herein and the District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Madurai, the second respondent herein, ventilating, her claim for promotion to the post of Head Mistress on the ground that no orders were passed by the second respondent, on the petition obtained under compulsion and entered in the service register, there is no response and in the abovesaid circumstances, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition. 5.Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader, who took notice at the time of admission, submitted that the petitioner due to family circumstances has voluntarily submitted a Petition, dated 22.06.2010 to the District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Madurai, the second respondent herein, relinquishing her right for higher post for three years and desired to continue in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. He further submitted that the said request has also been accepted and approved by the second respondent. To support the aforesaid submissions, he has produced the relevant file. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that having accepted to relinquish the right of privileges, to further promotions, for a period of three years, it is not open to the petitioner to retract the contents and make an allegation against the educational officer. He denied the allegations. He also pointed out that when he submitted the relinquishment letter in 2010, just before the counselling for the year 2011-2012, the petitioner has come forward to submit a representation, dated 21.08.2011, making allegations against the second respondent. For the aforesaid reasons, he prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petition. 6.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7.Rule 47 of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules, deals with relinquishment of rights by members and it is extracted hereunder: "(1)Any person may in writing, relinquish any right or privilege to which he may be entitled under these rules or the Special Rules if in the opinion of the appointing authority, such relinquishment is not opposed to public interest; and nothing contained in these rules or the Special Rules shall be deemed to require the recognition of any right or privilege to the extent to which it has been so relinquished. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 (2)Relinquishment of a right or privilege for a temporary period shall be accepted if it is made for a period of not less than three years subject to the condition that after the expiry of the said period, the claim of the right or privilege relinquished will be with reference to the state of affairs that exist on the date of expiry of period of relinquishment and without restoration of original seniority. If relinquishment of right of privilege is made permanently and is accepted subsequent claim of the relinquished rights or privileges shall not be entertained." 8.The relinquishment letter, dated 22.06.2010 of the writ petitioner submitted to the District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Madurai, the second respondent herein is extracted hereunder:- mDg;Geh; rp.espdrhe;j Fkhhp ,ilepiy Mrphpia muR. M.jp.e.Nky;epiyg;gs;sp ehr;rpFsk; ngWdh; cah;jpU. khtl;l Mjpjpuhtplh; kw;Wk ; goq;Fbapdh; ey mYtyh; ey mth;fs;. kJiu kjpg;gpw;Fhpa Iah, ehd; B.lit- gl;lk; Kbj;Js;Nsd;. vdJ ngah; gjtp cah;T gl;baypy; ,lk ngw;Ws;sJ. vdJ FLk;g#oy; fhuzkhf ,ilepiy Mrphpauhf gzpapy; njhlu ,Ug;gjhy vdf;F Kd;W Mz;LfSf;F gjtp cah;T Ntz;lhk; vd jho;ikAld; Nfl;Lf;nfhs;fpNwd;. ,g;gbf;F jq;fs; cz;ikAs;s 22.06.2010 9.Perusal of the letter shows that the District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Madurai, the second respondent herein, has accepted the relinquishment. The contention that in the absence of any consequential entry made in the service record, the letter of relinquishment, cannot be said to have been acted upon, is not countenanced for the reason that the relinquishment letter, dated 22.06.2010, submitted by the writ petitioner, has been acted upon and that it has also been accepted. 10.Making entries on the service record, is only a ministerial act. If the competent authority has accepted the relinquishment of right of privileges, for a temporary period of three years then the petitioner has to forego her right to any post or privilege. In such circumstances, she cannot be allowed to retract alleging compulsion. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader that if there was any compulsion by the second respondent, nothing prevented the petitioner, from making any complaint to the first respondent or any other competent authority immediately. The relinquishment letter has been given on 22.06.2010. Now after one year and two months, just before counselling the petitioner has come forward alleging compulsion. Further, the allegations levelled in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 supporting affidavit by the writ petitioner regarding compulsion, are not supported by any material and it is clear that it has been made only for the purpose of this case. 11.In such view of the matter, the petitioner, who has already relinquished her right temporarily for a period of three years and acted upon by the second respondent, has no legal or statutory right to seek for promotion to the post of Head Mistress in the Middle School. 12.With the abovesaid observation, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Writs) / TRUE COPY / Assistant Registrar To: 1. The Commissioner Adi Dravidar Welfare Department Ezhilagam Chepauk Chennai - 600 005 2. The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer Adi Dravidar Welfare Department Madurai District Madurai +1CC to The Special Government Pleader. SR.No.32411. RP/28.09.2011/4P/4C. W.P.(MD).No.10686 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 20.09.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/