Skip to content


D. Gowthaman Vs. The Secretary, Department of Education, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.A.(MD)No. 209 of 2010
Judge
AppellantD. Gowthaman
RespondentThe Secretary, Department of Education, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai and Others
Excerpt:
.....2000 and thereafter, he was not engaged. 2. the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner is that the school education department has passed g.o.ms.no.527, education department, dated 30.12.1997, bringing the markers working in government / municipal / corporation / aided schools in the time scale of pay and by virtue of the said government order, very many persons have been accommodated and therefore, the principle of parity should be followed. 3. it is the further submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that subsequently, the school education department vide govt. letter no.235, school education, dated 02.11.2006, has accommodated some markers who have been left out. all the markers who have been accommodated in terms of g.o.ms.no.527, education department,.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed in W.P(MD)No.6555 of 2007, dated 17.02.2010. )

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

1. The appellant/writ petitioner joined as a Marker in the fifth respondent aided school on 05.10.1998. According to him, he has completed 10th Standard, but failed in +2. At the time of his appointment, he was paid a consolidated sum of Rs.125/- per month and further 10% of the amount from the games fund of the school was also given to the Markers, like the appellant/writ petitioner. The appellant/writ petitioner was in service as a Market till March 2000 and thereafter, he was not engaged.

2. The claim of the appellant/writ petitioner is that the School Education Department has passed G.O.Ms.No.527, Education Department, dated 30.12.1997, bringing the Markers working in Government / Municipal / Corporation / Aided Schools in the time scale of pay and by virtue of the said Government Order, very many persons have been accommodated and therefore, the principle of parity should be followed.

3. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that subsequently, the School Education Department vide Govt. Letter No.235, School Education, dated 02.11.2006, has accommodated some Markers who have been left out. All the Markers who have been accommodated in terms of G.O.Ms.No.527, Education Department, dated 30.12.1997 as well as Govt. Letter No.235, School Education, dated 02.11.2006, are to be appointed in the vacant posts of Office Assistants in the Government Aided schools and if it is not available, the post along with the person can be transferred to the Government schools. Therefore, he submitted that he is entitled to the said benefits. It is also indicated that in future, the service of the Markers can be engaged.

4. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, since similarly placed persons as Markers, who have been accommodated in the light of the above said Government Order as well as the administrative instructions, appellant/writ petitioner is also entitled to such an accommodation and since no response was forthcoming, he came forward with the writ petition in W.P(MD)No. 6555 of 2007.

5. The third respondent had filed a counter affidavit and took a stand that G.O.Ms.No.527, Education Department, came to be issued only on 30.12.1997 and admittedly, the appellant/writ petitioner has entered into the services of the fifth respondent only on 05.10.1998 and as such, he is not entitled to the benefits.

6. Insofar as the contention put forth by the appellant/writ petitioner that he is also entitled to the benefits of Govt. Letter No. 235, School Education, dated 02.11.2006, the third respondent took a stand that the persons who have been left out in G.O.Ms.No.527, Education Department, dated 30.12.1997, have been accommodated and further a policy decision has been taken to accommodate them as Office Assistants in Government/Aided Schools and therefore, both the Government Order as well as the administrative instructions cannot be made applicable to the appellant/writ petitioner and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

7. The learned Judge, after taking note of the rival submissions and the materials placed on record, found that since he came to be appointed only after the above said Government Order and that his name did not find place in both the list of the Government, he is not entitled to the relief and dismissed the writ petition.

8. Challenging the legality of the same, the appellant/writ petitioner had filed this appeal.

9. The learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner would contend that since the persons who were working as Markers in time scale of pay as well as later on accommodated as Office Assistants, he is also entitled to such a benevolence and as on today, he is aged about 43 years and therefore, it is difficult for him to get any employment and therefore, prays for allowing the writ appeal.

10. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter and would submit that since the appellant/writ petitioner was not in service, he was not eligible for absorption in the post of Office Assistant and also would not get time scale of pay, however, the Markers who were in service alone were eligible to the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.527, Education Department, dated 30.12.1997 and admittedly, the appellant/writ petitioner came to be appointed as a Marker in a temporary capacity in the fifth respondent school only during the year 1998 and therefore, he cannot be accommodated.

11. This Court, after considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials placed on record, is of the view that this writ appeal deserves dismissal for the following reasons:

11.1. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.527, Education Department, dated 30.12.1997, as well as Govt. Letter No.235, School Education, dated 02.11.2006, would be made applicable only to the Markers who were in service as on 30.12.1997 and admittedly, the appellant/writ petitioner claims that he was working as Marker in the fifth respondent school from 05.10.1998 only.

11.2. No doubt, the appellant/writ petitioner had discharged his functions as Marker, but, in the light of the fact that he came to be appointed in a temporary capacity as a Marker, after passing of the said Government Order, the benefits of the said Government Order as well as the Government Letter may not be made applicable to him and the said material aspect has been rightly taken note of by the learned Judge.

12. This Court finds no error or infirmity in the reasons/conclusions arrived at by the learned Judge in dismissing the writ petition.

13. Therefore, this writ appeal is dismissed, confirming the order dated 17.02.2010, passed in W.P(MD)No.6555 of 2007.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //