(Prayer : Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide Na.Ka.No.301/A1/2019, dated 09.07.2019, and consequential order passed by the third respondent vide Na.No.588/A1/2019 dated 31.07.2019 and quash the same and consequently Direct the respondents 1 to 3 to restore the post of petitioner as Middle School Headmaster, P.U.Middle School, Periyanargunam, Bhuvanagiri Union, Cuddalore District, w.e.f.1.08.2019, with all monetary benefits.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3, and perused the records.

2. Despite service of notice to the fourth respondent and her name being printed in the cause list, there is no representation either in person or through counsel.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she joined as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 26.12.1988 and was subsequently promoted to different levels; and that while working as a B.T. Assistant (English) at a Panchayat Union Middle School, she was promoted as Headmaster of the Panchayat Union Middle School, Periyanargunam, Bhuvanagir Union, Cuddalore District, vide proceedings dated 15.05.2017 issued by the second respondent, and was granted the pay scale applicable to a B.T. Headmaster, Panchayat Union Middle School. It is the further case of the petitioner that all of a sudden, she was issued with an order of reversion dated 09.07.2019 by the second respondent, reverting her from the post of Middle School Headmaster to the post of B.T.Assistant (English), which position she had held prior to her promotion in May 2017.

4. The petitioner further contended that although the respondents undertook the exercise of re-fixing seniority pursuant to the objection raised by one T.M.T. Devasena, who was originally placed below the petitioner in the seniority list, and after considering the objection, placed her at Serial No.4 in the seniority list as on 01.01.2019 resulting in the petitioner’s seniority being altered from Serial No.17 to Serial No. 18, such alteration by itself did not result in the cancellation of the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Headmaster or warrant her reversion to the post of B.T.Assistant (English).

5. It is further contended that the respondents, by considering the request made by the fourth respondent herein, who was working as a Block Educational Officer for appointment as Middle School Headmaster, reverted the petitioner to the post of B.T. Assistant (English) without protecting her pay, without issuing any notice, and without taking note of the fact that such reversion would result in a reduction of the petitioner’s scale of pay. The said action of the respondents, it is contended, is illegal, arbitrary, and also contrary to the law laid down by this Court in W.A.No.210 of 2009 and also in the decision of this Court in W.A.No.2444 of 2018 dated 23.11.2018.

6. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3.

7. The respondents 1 to 3, by their counter affidavit, contended that as per the Government Order, the General Transfer Counselling was conducted on 09.07.2019; that in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai dated 28.06.2019, the fourth respondent opted for transfer to the post of B.T.Middle School Headmaster; that the parent Unit of Establishment of the fourth respondent is Bhuvanagiri Union; and that with a view to accommodate the fourth respondent as B.T.Middle School Headmaster in Bhuvanagiri Union, the seniority among the B.T.Middle School Headmaster in Bhuvanagiri Union as on 01.01.2019 was examined; and that on account of the requirement to accommodate the fourth respondent who is senior to petitioner, the petitioner was placed at Serial No.18 in the seniority list. Consequently, as the petitioner was the juniormost in the cadre of B.T.Middle School Headmaster in Bhuvanagiri Union as on 01.01.2019, the petitioner was reverted from the post of B.T.Middle School Headmaster to the post of B.T.Assistant (English), Panchayat Union Middle School, as per the proceedings of the second respondent dated 09.07.2019.

8. The respondents 1 to 3, by their counter affidavit, contended that the promotions and reversions are effected strictly in accordance with seniority and general counselling, in a transparent manner; that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the fixation of seniority, she was at liberty to prefer an appeal before the competent authority; and that there is no provision under the existing rules requiring the issuance of prior notice before effecting reversion.

9. The respondents 1 to 3, by their counter affidavit, contended that since, the petitioner was promoted as B.T. Middle School Headmaster only on 01.06.2017, there is nothing improper in revising the seniority as on 01.01.2019, and consequently, petitioner being reverted to the post of B.T.Assistant.

10. The respondents 1 to 3, by their counter affidavit, further contended that the petitioner has neither challenged the seniority panel for promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster as on 01.01.2019 nor preferred any appeal before the competent authority, therefore, the petitioner’s claim cannot be considered. It is also contended that since, no notice is required to be issued at the time of granting promotion, the same principle would apply when reversion is undertaken.

11. By contending as above, the respondents 1 to 3 prayed for dismissal of the writ petition as against them.

12. I have taken note of the respective submissions.

13. The proceedings dated 15.05.2017, by which the petitioner was granted promotion from the post of B.T.Assistant (English) in a Panchayat Union Middle School to the post of Middel School Headmaster, clearly indicates that the appointment was made by way of regular promotion and not as an additional charge or temporary arrangement. The promotion was granted by the District Elementary Educational Officer, and pursuant to the same, the petitioner joined in the post of B.T. Headmaster, Panchayat Union Middle School, Periyanergunam, Bhuvanagiri Union. If the respondents intended to withdraw the promotion granted to the petitioner or to revert her to her earlier post, they ought to have issued a notice informing her of the proposed action. Had such a notice been issued, the petitioner would have had an opportunity to submit her explanation.

14. Though the respondents contend that, as no notice was issued at the time of granting promotion, the same principle would apply while reverting the petitioner, this Court is unable to accept the said contention, as on account of the promotion, the status of the petitioner was elevated, resulting in her being placed in a higher scale of pay.

15. On the other hand, by the impugned proceedings, the respondents seek to downgrade the petitioner from the post of B.T.Headmaster to that of B.T.Assistant, which is not an equivalent post but only a feeder category for promotion. Therefore, the reversion of the petitioner could have been undertaken only after issuing a notice. Further, such reversion would also result in a reduction in the scale of pay, which mandates that the affected party, namely the petitioner, be put on notice. Any downgrading of position or pay is required to be construed as being in the nature of punishment, and hence, the respondents were duty-bound to issue notice to the petitioner before taking such action.

16. Though the respondents contended that the fourth respondent is senior to the petitioner for appointment to the post of B.T.Assistant, and therefore the respondents having revised the seniority list in order to accommodate an otherwise eligible candidate and thus, the petitioner being reverted to the post of B.T.Assistant, however, a perusal of the seniority list of B.T.Assistants, as on 01.01.2009 does not reflect the name of the fourth respondent, for this Court to accept the contention advanced by the respondents.

17. Further, the respondents while claiming that the reversion of the petitioner was made to accommodate the request of the fourth respondent in terms of the guidelines dated 28.06.2019, the respondents could not have reverted the petitioner when the fourth respondent’s name did not figure in the seniority list as on 01.01.2019. If the respondents really intended to accommodate the request of the fourth respondent based on her seniority they ought to have published a revised seniority list including the name of the fourth respondent and invited objections.

18. In absence of publication of seniority list, the respondents cannot contend that the petitioner failed to file objections to the seniority list does not merit consideration. Further, the contention of the respondents that no notice is required to be issued before reversion, or that the petitioner can be reverted merely on the request like the one made by the fourth respondent, cannot be accepted as valid.

19. Further, the respondents while reverting the petitioner to the post of B.T.Assistant, failed to take note of the fact that upon promotion to the post of Headmaster, the petitioner was placed in a higher scale of pay applicable to the post of Headmaster. Since, the post of B.T.Assistant is a feeder category to the post of Headmaster, the respondents were bound to protect the pay drawn by the petitioner in the post of Headmaster, Panchayat Union Middle School.

20. The failure of the respondents to protect the petitioner’s pay renders the impugned proceedings unsustainable, as such action is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in W.A.No.210 of 2009 dated 30.04.2009. The said decision has been reiterated by another Division Bench of this Court in order dated 23.11.2018 in W.A.No.2444 of 2018.

21. In view of the above, the impugned proceedings as issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.301/A1/2019, dated 09.07.2019, and the consequential order passed by the third respondent in Na.No.588/A1/2019, dated 31.07.2019, cannot be sustained.

22. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned proceedings of the second and third respondents dated 09.07.2019 and 31.07.2019 respectively are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to restore the position of the petitioner to the post of Middle School Headmaster based on the seniority list published on 01.01.2019. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.