M ARULSEKARI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have come forward with this writ petition seeking for a Declaration to declare that the proceedings dated 10.02.2011 of the Second respondent is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, contrary to the principles of natural justice, legitimate expectation, social justice, contrary to the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and consequently direct the official respondents 1 to 8 to consider and promote the petitioners in terms of G.O. Ms. No.60 dated 27.04.2006 by placing them in the appropriate place above their juniors interpolating in the seniority list and to grant them continuity of service and other consequential service and monetary benefits.

(2.) At the time of filing the present writ petition, the petitioners were working as Librarian Grade-III or Librarian Grade-II as the case may be. According to the petitioners, the petitioners were employed in the Public Library which were under the control of the Local Library Authority till 31.03.1982. On 01.04.1982, by virtue of the order passed by the Government in GO Ms. No.1735, Education Department dated 11.12.1989, the service of Staff of the Local Library Authority, including the petitioners herein, were provincialised. In and by the said Government Order, the Government Ordered for implementation of one unit system in the Public Library Department from 01.04.1982. According to the petitioners, the hierachy of the promotions to those who were employed in the respective District Library is Record Clerk, Grade-III Librarian, Grade-II LIbrarian, Grade-I Librarian, District Library Officer, Deputy Director of Libraries and Joint Director of Libraries. According to the petitioners, even at the time of initial appointment, they possess the requisite qualification for holding the post of Inspector of Libraries and therefore they are entitled for being conferred with the promotions which they are eligible.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioners is that the State-wise seniority has been implemented for all the cadres such as Librarian Grade-I, Librarian Grade-II, Record Clerk etc., whereas, District-wise seniority is being followed and implemented in respect of Librarian Grade-III as per GO Ms. No.1336 of 1981, According to the petitiners, State-wide seniority has been prepared in the year 1989 on the basis of the directions given by the first respondent and which was published in the proceedings dated 15.03.1990 of the District Library Officer with reference to the date of appointment and date of joining duty. It is the further grievance of the petitioners that such seniority list published on 11.12.1989 was accepted by the Government and also by the various persons who were holding the post of Grade-III Librarian by then. Following the same, promotions were also given to Grade-III Librarian by following the District-wise Seniority. In other words, the grievance of the petitioners is if the State-wise Seniority is followed in the matter of conferment of promotion to Grade-III Librarian, there would not be any anomaly in the matter of conferment of seniority to the petitioners who are holding the post of Grade-II and Grade-I LIbrarian at the relevant point of time.