Allowed

Subbulakshmi v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC6 Feb 2017WP(MD)/1024/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the rejection of a proposal to appoint the petitioner as a scavenger in an aided minority school. The Court held that accepting posts does not require prior government permission. It set aside restrictions imposed by recent Government Orders and directed approval of the appointment with service benefits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the proposal was set aside. The Third Respondent was directed to approve the petitioner's appointment and grant all service and monetary benefits with effect from 03.09.20

Subbulakshmi Vs the Secretary to Government — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.02.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.1024 of 2017

¶7

Subbulakshmi ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

The Secretary to Government, Education Department, State of Tamil Nadu, St.Fort George,

¶10

Chennai-9.

¶11

The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶12

The District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶13

The Correspondent, Sarah Tuckar Hr.Sec.School for Girls, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in respect of order passed by 3^rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.5837/B4/2015 dated 20.12.2016, quash the same and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner from 03.09.2015 and further direct the respondents to disburse all service and monitory benefits to the petitioner from 03.09.2015.

¶15

For petitioner : Mr.S.Chellapandian For R1 to R3 : Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian Spl. Govt. Pleader *****

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the order of the 3^rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.5837/B4/2015 dated 20.12.2016 vide which, the third respondent has returned the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proposal, stating that the Government constituted a High Level Committee and on receipt of suitable recommendation from the said

¶18

¶19

Committee, grant of approval would be considered . The petitioner also sought a direction to the 3^rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner from 03.09.2015 and also disburse all service and monitory benefits to the petitioner from 03.09.2015.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶21

The petitioner has been appointed as Scavanger with effect from 03.09.2015 in the 4^th respondent school, which is a minority aided school. The fourth respondent herein forwarded the proposal of approval of appointment. The eligibility of the petitioner to the post of Scavanger is not in dispute. By the impugned order dated 20.12.2016, the proposal has been rejected by the 3^rd respondent.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the school is governed by the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Rules 1974 framed thereunder. Section 19 stipulates the qualifications and the conditions of service of employees in private schools. Section 20 speaks about the conditions of appointment. In addition to that, the Tamil Nadu Minority Aided Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant) Rules, 1977 also stipulates the rules in respect of Administration of Aided Minority School. Annexure – III of Rule 8 provides for the sanctioning and appointment of Library Clerk, Record Clerk and Laboratory and Library Assistants, Peons, Watchman, Waterman, Gardener, Sweeper and Scavenger in the Minority Aided Schools.

¶23

It is seen that the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms.212 dated 29.11.2001 imposed ban on appointment of different categories of post, excepting Police, Doctors and Teachers. The ban was lifted vide G.O.14 dated 07.02.2006 enabling the fulfillment of non-teaching staff. G.O.Ms.115 dated 30.05.2007, directed filling up of certain categories of nonteaching staff by appointment and the remaining categories of nonteaching staff by outsourcing. Vide G.O.Ms.No.189 dated 29.07.2009, the vacancies of Junior Assistant and Office Assistant are to be filled upon on a priority basis. Subsequently, G.O.203 dated 23.07.2010 mandated that certain categories of non-teaching staff like Junior Assistant, Librarian, Laboratory Assistant, Record Clerk and Office Assistant are to be approved from the date of appointment.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the post is sanctioned by the Director under Rule 15(1) of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Rules, the 3rd respondent is bound to sanction grant as per Rule 11(2) of the Rules and there is no need to get prior permission from any authority to fill the vacancies that would

¶25

¶26

arise in the sanctioned post. Unless the State Government suitably amends the provisions of the Act and the Rules making it mandatory to obtain prior permission for filling up of those sanctioned nonteaching posts, the Government could not issue impugned Government Orders.

¶27

6.1. This Court is in entire agreement with the said submission. Since there is no such provision in the Act and the Rules to seek prior permission, the 3^rd respondent could not rely on the impugned Government Orders/Government Letters imposing condition seeking permission of the State Government or the Director or any authority to fill up the sanctioned posts for approving of the same for the purpose of grant and therefore, the impugned Government Orders and the consequential proceedings refusing to approve of the non-teaching posts for the purpose of grant are issued in gross violation of the provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the Act read with Rule 15 of the Rules.

¶28

6.2. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in The Manager, Concordia High and Higher Secondary Schools V. Tmt.S.Christy and Others , reported in 2013 Writ L.R. 691 held as under:

¶29

“4. In considering the contentions as put forth in the writ petition, learned single Judge pointed out to the judgment passed by this Court in W.A.Nos.93 and 94 of 2009 decided on 06.01.2010 that for any sanctioned post, no prior approval is necessary. In respect of proceedings noting the availability of posts, the learned single Judge pointed out that there is no necessity for prior approval. In any event, the appointment without getting approval could not be a ground for not considering the writ petitioner's plea”.

¶30

6.3. A similar question arose for consideration in the case of S.Rasheetha Banu V. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Chennai and others , reported in (2012) 4 MLJ 198

¶31

wherein this Court has categorically held that “if a person is appointed in a sanctioned post in the Private Aided Minority School, the approval cannot be rejected for the purpose of grant on the ground that no prior permission was obtained before appointment”. It is useful to extract paragraph 7 of the said order in this regard :

¶32

“7. The issue involved in this Writ Petition was already considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1263 of 2001, dated 22.1.2004. In the said Judgment, it is held that if a person is appointed in a sanctioned post, the approval of appointment cannot be rejected and if there is fall in strength and the post https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ become surplus, after granting approval of the post, the said teacher along with post could be transferred/deployed to a needy school. The said Judgment of the Division Bench

¶33

¶34

was followed in W.P.(MD)No.11353 of 2008, dated 11.9.2009. As against the said order dated 11.9.2009, the department preferred W.A.(MD)No.703 of 2009. A Division Bench of this Court, by Judgment dated 1.2.2011, dismissed the said Writ Appeal.”

¶35

The question of approval to the appointment of nonteaching staff in the sanctioned post after the introduction of G.O.Ms.No.115 and G.O.203 came to be considered by this Court and the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court quashed G.O.Ms.115 dated 30.05.2007 and G.O.203 dated 23.07.2010 vide order dated 15.03.2016 passed in W.P.(MD) Nos.11481 of 2008, etc. batch. It will be appropriate to extract the operative portion of the order as under:

¶36

“38. In the result, for the details reasons mentioned above,

¶37

(i) All these writ petitions are allowed.

¶38

(ii) Impugned G.Os., namely, G.O.Ms.No.115, School Education Department, dated 30.05.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.203, School Education Department, dated 23.07.2010 and Government Letter No.8884/D1/2011-2, dated 09.07.2012, are quashed.

¶39

(iii) The impugned orders of the DEOs/DEEOs refusing to approve of the appointments of various non-teaching posts in these writ petitions are set aside and the official respondents are directed to approve of those appointments of the non-teaching staff in the Private Aided Schools concerned in these writ petitions and to sanction grant.”

¶40

In view of the above stated position and also in the light of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.11481 of 2008, etc. batch (stated supra), this Court is of the view that the impugned order of the 3^rd respondent dated 20.12.2016 is liable to be set aside.

¶41

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.12.2016 of the third respondent, returning the proposal of the fourth respondent, amounting to refusal to approve the appointment of the petitioner, as Scavenger in the fourth respondent school with effect from 03.09.2015, is set aside and the third respondent is directed to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Scavenger in the fourth respondent school (on the proposal of the fourth respondent being submitted / re-submitted) with effect from 03.09.2015 with all monetary and other service benefits, including arrears of salary https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and allowances, within a period of two weeks from the date on which the proposal is submitted / re-submitted by the fourth

¶42

¶43

respondent. No costs.

¶44

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To:

¶45