Allowed

K. Suresh, Lab Attendant, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC4 Feb 2013WP(MD)/13349/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench held that no prior approval is required for appointing sanctioned non-teaching staff in a recognized aided minority educational institution. The Court quashed an order rejecting an appointment on merits and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus issued to quash the impugned order and direct the District Educational Officer to consider the appointment proposal on merits.

K. Suresh, Lab Attendant, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.02.2013 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶4

W.P(MD)No.13349 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011

K.Suresh

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George,

¶9

Chennai – 600 009.

¶10

2.The Director of School Education, College Road,

¶11

Chennai – 600 006.

¶12

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶13

4.The District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District.

¶14

5.The Manager, Higher Secondary School, Arumana, Kanyakumari District – 629 151.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent Director of School Education in O.Mu.No.79043/D1/E3/2011 dated 04.10.2011, quash the same, and further direct the fourth respondent District Educational Officer to approve forthwith the appointment of petitioner as Lab Attendant from 06.12.2010 in the fifth respondent-school with salary and other attendant benefits.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.E.V.N.Siva

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalendhi (R1 to R4) Spl. Govt. Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard Mr.E.V.N.Siva, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.

¶21

The prayer in the writ petition is for issuing the Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the second respondent

¶22

¶23

dated 04.10.2011 and to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Lab Attendant from 06.12.2010.

¶24

The facts of the case lie in a narrow campass:-

¶25

The fifth respondent school is an aided minority institution and among the other posts which was sanctioned by the department, one post of Lab Attendant was also sanctioned and in the said post, one K.P.Sudhamony was working. The said incumbent attained the age of superannuation, on 30.11.2010. In the said retirement vacancy, the petitioner was appointed on 06.12.2010. It is stated that the petitioner is fully qualified to hold the said post. The fifth respondent school submitted the papers for approval to the fourth respondent by their proposal dated 20.12.2010. The proposal was returned directing the Management to submit the proposal after obtaining order as per G.O.Ms.No.115, dated 30.05.2007.

¶26

The case of the petitioner is that the fifth respondent institution is an aided minority educational institution and the question of obtaining prior approval does not arise under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School (Regulations) Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the third respondent by submitting a representation on 05.04.2011 and since there was no response to the said representation, another representation was made to the second respondent on 30.08.2011. While so, the second respondent by the impugned order, dated 04.10.2011, informed the petitioner that the request for approval should be considered on priority after getting necessary orders from the State Government to fill up nonteaching posts. Challenging the said order, this writ petition has been filed.

¶27

Admittedly, the post, in which the petitioner was appointed as a Lab Attendant was a sanctioned post and since the fifth respondent institution is a minority institution, the question of obtaining prior approval does not arise. Further, so far as the qualification is concerned, the second respondent has not assessed the same, but rejected the proposal of the Management on the sole ground that the prior permission was not obtained. This Court in several decisions has held that there was no ban on employment of non-teaching staff imposed under the provisions of the Act and Rule. Under such circumstances, solely on the ground that prior approval was not obtained, the second respondent was not justified in rejecting the proposal. Hence, on that ground alone the impugned order is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the fourth respondent for fresh consideration. It is made clear that the proposal shall be considered on merits and since this Court has already held that the petitioner's proposal cannot be rejected on the ground of not obtaining prior approval. Therefore, the fourth respondent shall consider the other aspects of the matter and pass orders on merits.

¶29

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

Deputy Registrar(W)

¶33

/True copy/

¶34

Assistant Registrar