G MAREESWARI Vs. DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL OFICER RAMANATHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the Respondent-1 in his Proceedings Na.Ka.No.13992/A3/98 dated 29.09.1999 and set-aside the same.

(2.) The petitioner was originally appointed as a Tamil Pandit and was later on appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher giving necessary exemption. While the petitioner was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher, seniority list was drawn and published in which the petitioner was placed above the respondents 2 and 3. Later on she was promoted as Tamil Pandit on 30.06.1997. But when the panel for the year 1997 was drawn no promotion was given to the petitioner, even though she was included in the list. When the next promotion is due namely to the post of Head Master, a panel was drawn in the year 1998 and when the vacancy arose they did not implement the panel and give promotion to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition no.3087 of 1999 and this Court directed the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner for promotion made on 12.01.1999 within three months by an order dated 25.02.1999. But subsequently, the impugned order was passed on 29.09.1999, pursuant to which she was reverted back to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher on the ground that two other persons who were senior to the petitioner was left out by mistake and the mistake was rectified and the revised seniority list was fixed and consequently, the reversion order was passed. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed this petition.

(3.) The first respondent has filed a detailed counter in which it was very clearly brought out that the petitioner's seniority was wrongly fixed and on her revision and as per the direction of the Hon'ble Court, the seniority list was taken up where in it was found out by mistake two other persons seniority was wrongly given who were much senior to the petitioner. Therefore, by the impugned order, even before the impugned order by an order dated 03.09.1999 in Proceedings No.20510/Ed.1/99, the seniority list was fixed and consequently, the impugned order dated 29.09.1999 was passed reverting the petitioner to the post. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not challenged the original order dated 03.09.1999 and has come forward only to challenge the order of consequential under law. Such a procedure is not maintainable. Further it is an admitted case that the respondent/petitioner is junior to the other two persons and it was a mistake committed by the Department in fixing the seniority which could always be rectified and in this case, the matter was taken up only as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in his petition seeking for promotion. Under those circumstances, the impugned order is valid and correct.