Vocational instructors appointed under different Government Orders constitute distinct classes, precluding parity in time scales.

The State of Tamil Nadu (Appellants) filed an intra-court writ appeal challenging the order dated March 5, 2024, passed in W.P. No. 6655 of 2020.

The dispute involved the pay scales and classification of Vocational Instructors within the School Education Department. The respondents sought parity or specific time scales based on prior judicial precedents.

The matter was brought before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court to determine if the issues had been definitively settled by higher judicial authorities.

1. Whether the issues regarding the pay scales of Vocational Instructors appointed under G.O.Ms.No.129 (1999) and G.O.Ms.No.6 (2000) are res integra (already decided) in view of recent Full Bench decisions.

2. Whether the Vocational Instructors in different streams (Agriculture vs. others) are entitled to different time scales of pay.

The Court applied the principle of Stare Decisis, relying on the Full Bench judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. S. Rajaram (W.A.(MD).No.201/2021), which established that Vocational Instructors across all streams (Home Science, Commerce, Agriculture, etc.) are placed in the same time scale of Rs. 5500–9000 and constitute a distinct class from those in previous litigations like G. Narayanasamy.

The court further applied the doctrine that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality; a wrong order in one case does not compel a public authority to repeat the error in another.

The Court observed that the controversy regarding Vocational Instructors' pay scales has been settled by a Full Bench in Government of Tamil Nadu v. P.L.S. Palaniappan (2026:MHC:2255), which incorporated findings from the S. Rajaram case.

The Court reasoned that the Division Bench in earlier cases (like Kalarani) had erroneously assumed a disparity in duties and pay scales that did not exist under G.O.Ms.No.6.

Since the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP No. 16732/2022) against the Full Bench decision on September 26, 2022, the findings attained finality. Consequently, there was no requirement for a larger bench or reconsideration of the merits, as the respondents were bound by the established legal position that they belong to a separate, distinct class of appointees.

The Writ Appeal was allowed, and the impugned order dated March 5, 2024, in W.P. No. 6655 of 2020 was set aside. No order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.