IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 24..3..2008 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice P.K. MISRA and The Honourable Mr.Justice K.CHANDRU W. P. 12029 of 1998 and 13654 of 1999 and W.M.P. Nos. 18313 and 18314 of 1998 in W.P. No. 12029 of 1998 and W.M.P. No. 19649 of 1999 in W.P. No. 13654 of 1999 K. Manimozhi ..Petitioner in W.P. No. 12029 of 1998 B. Rathinavelu ..Petitioner in W.P. No. 13654 of 1999 -vs- 1. Union of India Rep. by Govt. of Pondicherry Through the Secretary to Government Education Department Chief Secretariat Pondicherry 2. Director of Education Romain Rolland Street Pondicherry .. RR1 & 2 in both W.Ps. W.P. No. 12029 of 1998: 3. P.P. Leela 4. V.K. Sreemathy 5. K. Padmavathy 6. D.O. Girija 7. D. Illavarasi 8. Samyvelmarco 9. Shyamala 10. K. Chakkravarthy 11. Margarette Ammal 12. V. Ranganathan 13. N. Vasudevan 14. R. Manusozhan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15. R. Subramania Raju 16. V. Jayabalan 17. V. Balabaskaran 18. S. Padmanabhan 19. Christina Philomina 20. P. Subramanian 21. S. Arulmary 22. N. Deenadayalan 23. A. Sucila ... RR 3 to 23 in W.P. No. 12029 of 1998 W.P. No. 13654 of 1999: 3. D. Illavarasi 4. Samyvelmarco 5. Shyamala 6. K. Chakkravarthy 7. Arimapanogan 8. C. Kaliaperumal 9. M. Gopalakrishnan 10. Mary Savery Edward 11. Margarette Ammal 12. V. Ranganathan 13. N. Vasudevan 14. R. Manusozhan 15. R. Subramania Raju 16. V. Jayabalan 17. V. Balabaskaran 18. S. Padmanabhan 19. Christina Philomina 20. P. Subramanian 21. S. Arulmary 22. N. Deenadayalan 23. A. Sucila 24. N. Arumugam ... RR 3 to 24 in W.P. No. 13654 of 1999 Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 22 of 1994 and 456 of 1994 dated 21.11.1997 and 10.9.1998 respectively. For Petitioners : Mr. V. Ajay Kumar For Respondent 1 : Mr. Syed Mustafa, AGP (Pondy) COMMON ORDER K. CHANDRU, J. Heard the arguments of Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Syed Mustafa, learned Additional Government Pleader (P) representing the respondents 1 and 2 and have perused the records. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 12029 of 1998 is a School Teacher working as a Secondary Grade Assistant [for short, 'SGT'] and she, along with another similarly placed teacher, had challenged the order of promotion granted to the post of School Assistant Grade II (for short, 'SA-II') with effect from 11.3.1994. Under the said list of promotees, the SGTs qualified for SA-II were categorised on the basis of the subject specialisation in their graduation. This was attacked on the ground that once the panel for promotion to the post of SA-II is prepared, there cannot be a further sub-classification on the basis of subject-wise preference and such a classification will result in the seniors being overlooked. They had also questioned the preference shown to graduates in English and Economics. The Tribunal, by its common order dated 21.11.1997 in O.A. No. P. 22 of 1994, rejected said Original Application. 3. W.P. No. 13654 of 1999 was filed by another similarly placed School Teacher, who also filed an Original Application being O.A. No. 456 of 1994. The Tribunal, again, by an order dated 10.9.1998 dismissed the O.A. in the light of its earlier order dated 20.11.1997 in O.A. Nos. 1868 of 1993 and 1147 of 1996. 4. In view of the similar nature of relief in both the writ petitions, they were dealt with together and a common order is passed. 5. It is seen from the records that in the earlier order dated 20.11.1997 in O.A. Nos. 1868 of 1993 and 1147 of 1996, the Tribunal held that it was not within its province to consider the relevancy of qualification prescribed for various posts and the Court will not enter into the realm of policy made by the State. It also held that it is for the respondent State to consider the need for taking into account the level of classes to be handled by Teachers in the General Knowledge and the teachers in the allied subjects. 6. Though it was argued before the Tribunal that for SA-II, any graduate teacher can teach classes below 10th standard and even English teaching is not beyond their competence, but it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the DPC which met on 17.3.1997, made a subject-wise allotment viz., for Mathematics 14 posts; for Science 16 posts; and for Arts, 31 posts were allotted. It was also argued that for teaching English even at the School level, certain specialisation is required and the same issue cannot be viewed purely as an issue regarding promotional avenues for certain teachers. It was on this consideration, the Tribunal rejected the prayer of the teachers. 7. However, Mr. V. Ajaykumar, learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court the relevant Recruitment Rules and pointed out that it only provides for promotion based upon certain basic qualification and once a teacher has the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ necessary qualification, then in the absence of any adverse reasons, seniority alone should be the criteria. He also pointed out that the policy being more often changed by the Education Department at their whim, the petitioners have become losers. After attacking the said policy of subject-wise preference, he also tried to point out as to how the various private respondents who were having lower seniority position, by this manipulation, got the promotional posts of SA-II. 8. As pointed out by the Tribunal, though it is not desirable to frequently change the policy in the educational sphere and also the need to evolve a concrete policy, on that score, we cannot interfere with the present policy of opting for subject specialisation as a criteria for filling up the posts of School Assistants. The issue cannot be looked into only from the angle of promotional avenues to SGTs, but it should be looked into from the perspective of granting quality education to the students studying in the High Schools. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no necessity for specialisation in English subject cannot be accepted. In the increased contents of the syllabi introduced by the educational authorities, it does require certain amount of specialisation especially in the field of Languages, Science and Mathematics. Further, once the matter falls in the realm of policy, the powers of the Court to interdict the same with its own idea of what is the best interest of the student concerned, may not be proper. As rightly held by the Tribunal, the court must lay its hands off and desist from giving further directions so as to avoid complicating the issue further. Further, the the private respondents are teachers working for the last 10 years on the promoted posts of SA-II and at this juncture, these issues cannot be reopened. We do not find that the Recruitment Rules prevent the authorities from having a subject-wise selection. 10. Under the above circumstances, we are not persuaded to take a contrary view to that of the Tribunal. Accordingly, both the writ petitions fail and stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. gri https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Secretary to Government Govt. of Pondicherry Education Department Chief Secretariat Pondicherry 2. Director of Education Pondicherry + 1 CC to the Government Pleader, Pondicherry, SR NO 12029 W. P. Nos. 12029 of 1998 & 13654 of 1999 cmp[co] gp/1.4. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/