IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.01.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.No.19941 of 2007(T) (O.A.No.7928/97 Tamil Nadu Corporation School Teachers Association Madurai. Rep. by its Vice-President M.Thangavel, Reg.No.97/85. ... Petitioner versus 1.The Secretary to Government Education Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Ripon Building Chennai – 600 003. 3.The Commissioner Corporation of Madurai Madurai – 3. 4.The Commissioner Corporation of Coimbatore Coimbatore. 5.The Principal (Administration) District Teachers Education and Training Centre Kallupatti, Madurai District. 6.R.Loganathan 7.M.Vijayalakshmi (R-7 impleaded as per order of the Court-I in M.A.No.4898 / 1998 dated 01.07.1998) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8.S.Mano Radha 9.S.Florence Navaneedham 10.R.Christal Mary (R8 to R10 impleaded by I-Bench vide M.A.No.5150 / 1998 dated 21.08.1998) 11.R.Anandi Sathyamoorthy (R11 impleaded by I-Bench vide M.A.No.3187 / 1998 dated 21.08.1998) 12.K.Rukmani (R12 impleaded as per M.A.No.3728 / 1998 and as per cause list dated 21.08.1998 and order of the Court dated 28.08.1998 in M.A.No.3729 / 98 in O.A.No.7928 / 1997) 13.K.Venkatesan 14.K.Chandrmala 15.R.Thamilarasi (R13 to R15 impleaded as per M.A.No.4212/1999 as per order of the Court dated 06.04.2000) 16.G.Jayalakshmi (R16 impleaded as per M.A.No.5649 / 1999 as per order of the Court dated 06.04.2000) 17.Tamilarasi (R17 impleaded as per M.A.No.736 / 2000 as per order of the Court dated 06.04.2000) 18.P.Chithra 19.M.Rajeswari 20.V.Poongavanam 21.N.Viswanathan 22.Tamilarasi 23.Durairaj Joseph 24.V.Thamizhpozhil 25.P.Jaganathan 26.S.Sathishkumar 27.Jansi Rani 28.G.Balasubramanian (R18 to R28 impleaded as per order of the Court in M.As.3106, 3876, 4032, 4122, 3933 3935 / 2000 dated 23.06.2000) 29.R.Premasundari 30.RM.Meenal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 31.G.Valli 32.S.Sumathi 33.S.Rameswari 34.M.Tamilarasi 35.S.Vijaya 36.D.Baby Latha (R29 to R36 impleaded as per order of the Court in M.As.4162, 4164, 4166, 4168, 4170 4172, 4265 and 4274 / 2000 dated 29.06.2000) 37.G.Chithra (R37 impleaded as per order of the Court in M.A.5157/2000 dated 31.07.2000) 38.D.Madhiri 39.A.Rosalind Santhi 40.C.Ravindran 41.P.Amalar Pavamary 42.A.Amala Rani 43.P.Navamani (R38 to R43 impleaded as per order of the Court in M.As.5429, 6503, 6521, 6523, 6945 and 6934 of 2000 dated 23.10.2000) ... Respondents PRAYER:Upon Abolition this writ petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.7928 of 1997 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to quash the order of the first respondent herein in his G.O.Ms.No.209 School Education Department dated 08.05.1997 and the consequential order passed by the third respondent herein in his Na.Ka.No.A3/18171/97 dated 27.08.1997 in so far as the sixth respondent is concerned and the consequential order passed by the 5th respondent herein in his Na.Ka.No.519/A1/97 dated 01.09.1997 in so far as the 6th respondent herein is concerned and direct the respondents to maintain seniority of Teachers within the respective Corporations. For Petitioner : Mr.Ravi Shanmugam For Respondents 1&5 : Mr.S.Shiva Shanmugam Government Advocate For Respondent 3&2 : Mr.P.Srinivas For Respondent 4 : Mr.R.Shivakumar For Respondent 11 : Mr.Bharathidasan O R D E R The Original Application in O.A.No.7928 of 1997 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.209, School Education Department, dated 08.05.1997 fixing the seniority of Teachers employed in Madurai Corporation. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Teachers employed outside the Madurai Corporation were brought in and they were also included in the seniority list. Some of those Teachers who were allegedly brought from outside the Madurai Corporation were shown as respondents 6 to 43 in the Original Application filed by the petitioner in O.A.No.7928 of 1997 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. 3.On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and the same was renumbered as W.P.No.19941 of 2007. 4.Heard the submissions made by all the parties. 5.The learned Government Advocate submits that the very writ petition itself is not maintainable at the instance of an Association. It is submitted that in matters relating to seniority, the concerned Teacher should approach the Court and the Association could not maintain a writ petition. The learned Government Advocate relies on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in TAMILAGA ASIRIYAR KOOTTANI VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND 19 OTHERS reported in 2005 WRIT L.R. 389 in this regard. 6.However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. 7.I have considered the submissions made by all the parties and I have also perused the aforesaid judgment relied on by the learned Government Advocate. I am of the considered view that the said judgment squarely applies to the facts of this case as the Association could not maintain a writ petition as held in paras 11, 12 and 15 of the said judgment and the same are extracted here-under: "11.In Sand Carrier's Owners' Union and Others Vs. Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta, AIR 1990 Cal 176 it was observed by the Calcutta High Court that "a Public Interest Litigation can be moved, where persons concerned for whose benefit it is moved are socially and educationally backward, and Public Interest Litigation is also maintainable in cases such as environmental pollution, etc" https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ However, it was also observed:- "The members of such association may be affected by a common order and may have common grievance, but for the purpose of enforcing the rights of the members, writ petition at the instance of such association is not maintainable". Accordingly, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Owners' Union. 12.A similar view has been taken in Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore, AIR 1962 Mysore 25. 15.In our opinion, if any educational institution or Head Master or Teacher is aggrieved by the impugned G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 9.2.2005 they can file a writ petition in this Court challenging the same, but the appellant – association had no locus standi in the matter. It cannot be said that the educational institutions or Head Masters are so poor that they are unable to approach this Court. If any particular educational institution or Head Master has a grievance against the impugned G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 9.2.2005 it is for such person to file a writ petition or writ appeal, and not for any association. The writ appeal is dismissed on the ground of lack of locus standi. The writ petition is dismissed for the same reason." 8.In view of the categorical pronouncement of this Court, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. TK Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government Education Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Ripon Building Chennai – 600 003. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The Commissioner Corporation of Madurai Madurai – 3. 4.The Commissioner Corporation of Coimbatore Coimbatore. 5.The Principal (Administration) District Teachers Education and Training Centre Kallupatti, Madurai District. W.P.NO.19941 OF 2007 DM(CO) EU 18.01.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/