IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 08-07-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.48394 of 2006 (O.A.No.181 of 2001) M.Sivamani .. Petitioner/Applicant Versus 1.The Commissioner and Director, Most Backward Class and Deniotified Communities, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 2.The Special Deputy Collector, Kallar Reclamation, Madurai Collectorate, Madurai 625 020. .. Respondents. Prayer: Original Application No.181 of 2001 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No.48394 of 2006, seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the promotion panel of the impugned order No.B1/6476/2000, dated 12.12.2000 of the first respondent and direct the respondents herein to include the name of the petitioner in the same panel by modifying the same appropriately, so as to enable the petitioner to be promoted as Post Graduate Tamil Teacher in the same panel for the year 2000. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thangavel For Respondents : Mr.V.Arun Additional Government Pleader O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner had joined in service as a Secondary Grade Teacher, on 1.6.1972, at Pallapatty, Dindigul District. Thereafter, she had been transferred to various places and finally, she was posted at Chekkanurani, Madurai District. She had been promoted as a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Graduate Tamil Teacher, on 15.11.1994, and she had been posted at Mellakkal Government Kallar Higher Secondary School, Madurai District. Since she had acquired the qualification of B.Ed. degree in the year, 1987 and M.A. Tamil Degree in the year, 1989, she was fully qualified and eligible to be promoted as a Post Graduate Teacher in Tamil. However, due to the shortage of vacancies the petitioner had not been included in the panel upto the year, 1996. However, the respondent did not prepare the panel for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999. The petitioner had been representing the matter through the Tamil Nadu Elementary School Teachers Federation to fill up the vacancies. Thereafter, the second respondent had prepared the list of qualified and eligible candidates for inclusion of their names in the panel for the year, 2000. The name of the petitioner had been listed at Serial No.3 in the list of qualified and eligible candidates. 3. The second respondent has also prepared the list of Post Graduate Teachers to be appointed, as per the existing vacancies in which 50% of the vacancies were to be filled up by direct recruitment and the other 50% of the vacancies were to be filled up by promotion, from amongst the qualified and eligible candidates. Therefore, the second respondent had recommended the list of 13 candidates to be filled up by promotion and a list of 10 candidates to be appointed by direct recruitment. 4. It has also been submitted that the second respondent had rightly recommended the list of candidates subject wise, vide his letter, dated 25.7.2000, in which the name of the petitioner had also been included. The panel which was prepared in the month of December, 2000, would have effect till the end of February, 2001. According to the relevant provisions the promotion the panel had always been prepared in the month of March. Therefore, the existing panel had been wrongly prepared, without including the name of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the crucial date for preparation of the panel is the first of March every year. However, due to administrative reasons, the panel for the year 2000, had been prepared by way of the proceedings, dated 12.12.2000, considering all the relevant factors. However, the petitioner's name had not been included in the panel, as the promotion from Secondary Grade to B.T. Tamil had not been regularised. 6. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that the request of the petitioner is being considered. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the respondents are directed to consider and pass appropriate orders relating to the request of the petitioner, within a specified time. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had no objection for this Court passing such an order. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, the first respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if such an order had not been passed, till date. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To 1.The Commissioner and Director, Most Backward Class and Deniotified Communities, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 2.The Special Deputy Collector, Kallar Reclamation, Madurai Collectorate, Madurai 625 020. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.29779 Writ Petition No.48394 of 2006 BKY(CO) SRA(03/08/2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/