R KANTHIMATHI Vs. SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though there are two writ petitions, the petitioner is one and the same, and her grievance is also the same. The petitioner joined as a member of the Madras Educational Service with effect from 13-3-1950 and she had been holdirrsr several posts subsequently. Admittedly respondents 3 to 10 in the later writ petition joined service later than the petitioner, as has been pointed out in paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in support of these writ petitions. According to the case of the petitioner, though resrxxnidents 3 to 10 are junior to her in service, they had been promoted as Deputy Directors in the Directorate of Secondary Education, or Divisional Inspectors of Schools, earlier than the petitioner. The petitioner herself was promoted as Divisional Inspector of Schools only on 25-7-1966, while others had been promoted earlier. In G. O. Ms. No. 2507 Education dated 3-10- 1962 temporary posts of Joint Directors of Public Instruction were created by the Government and these posts were directed to be constituted as a separate category in Class I of the Madras Educational Service, on a pay scale of Rs. 1100-50-1300 per month, and the general and special rules applicable to the permanent post of the Director of Public Instruction were made applicable to the said post also. The petitioner's grievance is that, notwithstanding the fact that she was senior to respondents 3 to 7 herein in the Madras Educational Service, her claim for promotion as Joint Director was not considered:, but the above respondents were promoted. The petitioner had been filing representation after representation to the Government, both with regard to the promotion of respondents 3 to 7 as Deputy Directors or Divisional Inspectors of Schools earlier than the petitioner, and also their promotion as Joint Directors overlooking the claim of the petitioner. The appeals preferred and representations made by the petitioner to the Government were rejected by the Government by two memoranda dated 19-6-1970 and 18-9-1970 respectively. In the memorandum dated 19-6-1970 the petitioner was informed by the Government that her request for fixing her seniority in the category of Deputy Director, Chief Educational Officers, etc., above that of Dr. H. S. S. Lawrence (third respondent herein) and for fixation of her pay and allowances at the stage at which Dr. H. S. S. Lawrence would have drawn under the Government could not be complied with. By the memorandum dated 18-9-1970 the petitioner was informed that her appeal petitions cited, namely, those dated 6-8-1969, 30-10-1969 6-11-1969 and 23-2-1970, were rejected. The petitioner has filed W. P. No. 3885 of 1970 praying for the issue of a writ of Ceritorari to quash these memoranda, and She also filed W. P. No. 3886 of 1970, whose prayer, as amended by W. M. P. No. 3694 of 1974 (which I am allowing) states as follows:

(2.) As far as W. P. No. 3885 of 1970 is concerned, the petitioner's grievance is that the various factors which were brought to the notice of the Government concerning her claim for promotion as Deputy Director and as Joint Director had not been properly considered by the Government at all and that the Government had summarily rejected her representations and appeals. As a matter of fact, the two orders did not even refer to certain representations made by her. Apart from contending that the said orders being bald and not containing any reason whatever for the rejection of the claim of the petitioner, have to be quashed, the learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the said orders are not even in conformity with the order of the Government passed in G, O. Ms.No. 419 Public (Services A) Department, dated 27th February 1970, which prescribed the manner in which the representations and appeals preferred by Government servants should be considered and disposed of by the Government. This Government order dated 27th February, 1970, reads:

(3.) Thus it is clear that the two memoranda dated 19-6-1970 and 18-9-1970 of the Government do not conform to' the requirements of this Government. Order, and, independent of this, they cannot be sustained, because, they have not given any reasons1 for rejecting the request of the petitioner. The file produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader also does not show that the various points urged by the petitioner were properly considered by the appropriate authority before her request was rejected.