LexTAMIL NADU EDUCATION DEPARTMENT MINISTERIAL & GENERAL SUBORDINATE SERVICE ASSOCIATION versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1026 A TAMIL NADU EDUCATION DEPARTMENT MINISTERIAL & GENERAL SUBORDINATE SERVICE ASSOCIATION c D E F G H v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. October 23, 1979 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] Civil Service--lntegration of two services-Governrnent revising policy- G.O. issued integrating staff of 'A' and 'B' Tflings of service, fixing ra1io for pro- nzotion & principle of computation of service in detennining comn1on .~l'niority- Whether pennisslble and valid. The State of Tamil Nadu had schools at various le\"els, primary, JJ1iddle and high which were run by the public sector consisting of Pancbayats, District Boards and the. Government. Progressively, Panchayat schools were absorbed by District Boards and eventually those managed by the latter were taken over by the Government. Ini 1970, the State Government took a major policy- dec:isions that all District Board schoo]s be taken over with effect from 1 s-t April. 1970. By G.O.M.S. No. 761 dated 16th May, 1970 the teaching and non-teaching personnel were, absorbed as a separate service in the Education Department nani.ed the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service. The ministerial service, which related to the non-ieaching staff, also was kept sepe- rate. The dfrecl consequence of the· maintenance of two separate services was that white promotional prospects were available to Government employees, they were not open to lhe former District Board servants on their absorption into Government service. This led to agitation and representation. Government considered afresh the question, and by G.O. 1786 dated October 17, 1974 reorganised the service, to provide that all Government Schools' ser- vants be called the 'A' Wing and the staff of tho former District Board Schools be referred 'to as 'B' \Ving and de"cided that as complete integration of the Wings \Vas administratively difficult, they be kept separate as two ~lings of the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service and the Tan1il Nadu EducatiOnal Service. The personnel of the 'B~ \Ving represented to the Government that ever since their absorption as Govemmnt servants with effect from April 1, 1970 they were not having enough promotional avenues. Government again examined the matter, decided to re-integrate these Wings and for this purpose passed G.O. No. 1968 dated November 2, 1978 which provided for fixing the ratio between the two Wings in the matter of promotion and also the principle for compu- tation of ser,·ice in determining the common seniority. In the· \vrit petitions to this Court, the petitioners contended that there was no rational formula for integration of the two separate \Vings; the methods of recruitment, qualification and seniority provided for the two wings being diffe- rent, their integration into a common service cadre and equalisation of their service condi\ions was violative of Articles 14 and 16. The 'B' Wing personnel having been absorbed into Government service with effect from April 1, 1970 EDUCATION DEPARTJ\IENT ASSN. V. TAMIL NADU 1027 i.\. was not perniissiblc to grant seniority from a date anterior to thdr eligibility A .as Government servants. The State Government however contended that the decision for integration ·Of the lwo wings was taken after examining the matter in gceat detail and :taking into account the number of personnel of different categories in both the ~ings and their promotional opportunities. Dismi s~ in g the petitions, HELD : l. The smdents who frc coached for examinations, the syllabu;, for such coimcs and the nature of the teaching are virtually identical in the t'vo .sets of schoois and the qualifications of the t.eacbers also resemble. In this background, the Sta te probably assumed as inadmissible of contrary :lrgument th:lt the ·qualit'f of the service, the nature of the qualifications for employment anJ other feature5 were ·de fac:o identical and consequentially service in Dis- trict Board Schools and service in Government Schools could be legitimately equated for purposes of reckoning seniority. Mathematical precision in equa- tion is a vain chase. [1034 B.C) 2. In Service Jurisprudence integration is a complicated administrative pro- blem where, in doing broad justice> to many, some bruise to· a few cannot be ruled out. Some play in the joint~, even some wobbling, must be left to Government with.out fussy forensic monitoring, since the administration has been entrusted by th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.