S SHARFUDDIN Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed seeking for a writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned orders issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.100 School Education (M1) Department, dated 18.4.2000, and the consequential orders passed by the Chief Educational Officer, Thiruvannamalai in Na.Ka.No.1469/A4/2000, dated 28.8.2000 and set aside the same and award all the consequential benefits.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) IT is submitted that the petitioner who was initially a Secondary Grade teacher, was appointed as Grade-II Tamil Pandit, on 8.9.1967, and he had served as such till 1.9.1969 in the Government High School, Irumbedu, Tiruvannamalai District. While so, he was ousted from service during the summer vacations in the month of May of the years 1968 and 1969. Later, he was posted as a Secondary Grade teacher, on regular basis, in the Government High School, Sorakolathur, Thiruvannamalai District and he had been functioning as such, from 2.6.1969 to 14.7.1995. Based on his qualifications and seniority he was promoted as a B.T.Assistant, on 15.7.1995. The request of the petitioner is that his service as Tamil Pandit Grade-II, which is equivalent to the service of a Secondary Grade Assistant, should be counted as Secondary Grade service for all purposes, including regularization of Secondary Grade service, Selection/Special Grade in Secondary Grade Assistant service. However, by the impugned orders issued by the first respondent, in G.O.Ms.No.100, School Education (M1) Department, dated 18.4.2000, and the consequential orders passed by the Chief Educational Officer, Thiruvannamalai, in Na.Ka.No.1469/A4/2000, dated 28.8.2000, the respondents are seeking to reduce the pay of the petitioner to recover the alleged excess payment made in favour of the petitioner. The reduction of the pay scale of the petitioner is a major penalty and therefore, the respondents ought to have followed the procedures established in Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Since no opportunity had been given to the petitioner to put forth his case, the impugned orders are devoid of merits and therefore, liable to be set aside.

(3.) IN view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and in view of the decisions cited above, the impugned order of the first respondent, in G.O.Ms.No.100, School Education (M1) Department, dated 18.4.2000, and the consequential order passed by the Chief Educational Officer, Thiruvannamalai, in Na.Ka.No.1469/A4/2000, dated 28.8.2000, are set aside, in so far as it relates to the recovery of the amounts already paid to the petitioner as salary. However, it is open to the respondents to regularize the scale of pay of the petitioner, in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed as noted above. No costs.