B NARAYANASWAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Mr. Karthick Rajan, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pa. Kadirvel, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents and perused the records.

(2.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 16 Higher Education Department dated 01. 02. 2007. Though the order passed by the first respondent Government is in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner is only aggrieved about the relaxation that has been granted by the Government Order was only with effect from 02. 3. 2006 in terms of the power exercised under Rule 48 of the General Rules of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said exemption ought to have been granted from the date the petitioner was qualified to have been appointed as the Lecturer under the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Education Services and not from a prospective date.

(3.) IT is seen from the records that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 08. 01. 1982 and subsequently was promoted as an Assistant and finally as an Office Superintendent. All these categories of employment come under the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services and the petitioner was working as a non-teaching staff in a Government College. The petitioner claims that even at the time of entering into subordinate service, he had M. A. (Tamil) Degree and thereafter, in the year 1990, he had passed the State Level Screening Test (SLST ). Besides these qualifications, which are requisite for a Lecturer post in the Collegiate Service, the petitioner also claims to possess M. Ed. Degree and BLIS. Under the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Service, it is claimed that the post of Lecturers can be filled up by direct recruitment, recruitment by transfer among tutors and Demonstrators (this post has been abolished subsequently) and recruitment by transfer from the category of Headmaster in the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Services and thereafter, if no qualified and suitable candidates are available for appointment, then transfer from any other service can be made. It must be noted that the question of there being any dearth of qualified and suitable candidates being available does not exist in this State and, therefore, the petitioner's reliance that he ought to have been recruited by transfer from the non-teaching staff post, which is a Ministerial post, held by him does not arise.