The High Court dismissed this writ petition filed by a teacher seeking approval of her appointment and salary arrears. The Court held that the failure to clarify the reason for the government ban on the post, which was the ground for rejection, prevented the consideration of the petition.
Petition dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.06.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P. No.13928 of 2003
M.Gracelin Sophiah
.. Petitioner
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government Social Welfare Department Fort St.George, Chennai 600 005.
3.District Rehabilitation Officer Rehabilitation Centre, Tirunelveli.
4.Florence Swainson Higher Secondary School for Deaf, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
.. Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent relating to his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2065/CP.NIR2/2001 dated 4.4.2001 and quash the same and direct the 3 rd respondent to pay the grant for the salary of the petitioner with all attendant benefits from 12.10.2000.
For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Lita Srinivasan (No appearance) For Respondents : Mr.A.Zakkir Hussain 1 to 3 Government Advocate For R4 : No appearance
O R D E R
The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition for quashing the proceedings of the second respondent dated 4.4.2001 and to direct the third respondent to pay the grant for the salary of the petitioner with all attendant benefits from 12.10.2000.
2.The petitioner has completed her B.Sc., degree in the year 1988 and B.Ed., in 1991. She was appointed as Secondary Grade Assistant in the Florence Swainson Higher Secondary School for Deaf at Palayamkottai, on 12.10.2000. A proposal was submitted by the Management seeking approval of appointment of the writ petitioner and the same was rejected by the second respondent by proceedings dated 04.04.2001. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition, on the ground that she is fully qualified to hold the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and has completed the probation period mentioned in the appointment order and therefore, she is entitled for approval of her appointment and for the consequential service and monetary benefits.
3.The contention of the learned Government Advocate is that since there was a ban imposed by the Government for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Assistant during the relevant point of time, her appointment could not be approved. That apart, the second respondent in the impugned order directed the Correspondent of the Institution to submit his explanation, in respect of the fact regarding the ban imposed by the Government.
4.When the second respondent sought for explanation from the Correspondent, the Writ Petitioner had moved this Writ Petition. Whether the Correspondent has offered his explanation to the authorities or not, is not made available to this Court. Under these circumstances, it is the duty of the Management as well as the writ petitioner to see that proper explanation is submitted to the authorities concerned with regard to the lifting of ban during the relevant point of time, when the petitioner got appointe d. Thus, the prayer sought for as such cannot be considered.
5.Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and the same stands dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(J)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpa
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by Secretary to Government
Social Welfare Department
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 005.
2. The Commissioner for the Rehabilitation of disabled
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
3.District Rehabilitation Officer
Rehabilitation Centre,
Tirunelveli.
W.P. No.13928 of 2003
rsi(co)
aa23/06/2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's appointment proposal approval proposed despite a government ban on the post can be granted.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary and attendant benefits given the rejection of her appointment proposal by the second respondent.
M.Gracelin Sophiah
The State of Tamil Nadu
The Commissioner for the Rehabilitation of disabled
District Rehabilitation Officer
Florence Swainson Higher Secondary School for Deaf
S.M.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
