Allowed

The Correspondent v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC24 Mar 2017WP(MD)/1388/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench quashed the rejection of a teacher appointment by the District Elementary Education Officer. The court held that a primary school with five standards is entitled to five teachers and surplus teacher status in other schools of the same management cannot bar a fresh appointment.

What did the court decide?

The 3rd respondent directed to approve the appointment of N.Felix Acquila with effect from 22.02.2016 and within 6 weeks; teacher entitled to monetary and service benefits.

The Correspondent Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.03.2017

¶3

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶4

W.P.(MD).No.1388 of 2017 and WMP(MD) No. 1141 of 2017

¶5

The Correspondent, R.C. Primary School, Soosaipandiapuram, Pudukottai Range, Tuticorin District – 628 103. ...Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

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

¶8

Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶9

2.The Director of Elementary Education College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶10

3.The District Elementary Educational Officer Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.

¶11

4.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin Rural @ Pudukottai Tuticorin District. ...Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 4^th respondent herein vide O.Mu.No.700/Aa1/2016 dated 28.11.2016, quash the same and further direct the respondents herein to approve the appointment of N.Felix Aqualia as Secondary Grade Teacher in the petitioner school w.e.f., 22.02.2016 and disburse grant-in-aid towards salary and other attendant benefits.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ajith Geethan For Respondents : Mr. N.S.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader. ***

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the proceedings of the 4^th respondent dated 28.11.2016. Thereby the proposal submitted by the petitioner seeking approval for the appointment of teacher, is turned out.

¶18

2.Heard Mr.A.Ajith Geethan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader.

¶19

3.The petitioner’s school is a recognised aided minority institution. Being a primary school, the petitioner is offering education from standard 1 to 5 and the medium of instruction is Tamil. According to the petitioner, one post of Secondary Grade teacher in the school fell vacant on 13.06.2013 due to the promotion of the previous incumbent. It is in the vacancy, one N.Felix Acquila was appointed as Secondary Grade teacher with effect from 22.02.2016. The teacher appointed, possess the qualification required. It is stated that newly appointed person has also passed the Teachers Eligibility Test. However, when the proposal for the appointment approval was submitted, the same was rejected by the impugned order on the following two grounds:

¶20

a)since the other schools run by the same management has got surplus teachers, as per the order of DEEO, fresh appointment cannot be made by the petitioner management.

¶21

b)Since the students strength of the school is below 60, the petitioners school is entitled only for 2 teachers. Hence, there cannot be a further appointment to the 3^rd post.

¶22

4.This Court has repeatedly allowed similar writ petitions following the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (5) CTC 385 (Director of Elementary Education vs. S.Vigila). The Full Bench of this Court has categorically held as follows:

¶23

“Keeping in view the various relevant aspects, we feel that G.O.Ms.No.525, dated 29.12.1997 should be interpreted in the following manner:

¶24

(1) The ratio of students-teacher strength as indicated in the G.O. should be primarily considered by taking each indivdual standard/section as a unit.

¶25

(2) The minimum strenght of teachers required obviously should not fall below the number of Standards/Section in a school. In other words, if there are five standards, obviously the minimum number of teachers should be five, out of which one would be the Headmaster.”

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

5.Thus, the minimum strength of teachers required cannot fall below the number of standards in a school. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has got five standards. The petitioner’s school is entitled to five teachers. However, the petitioner has sought approval only if the appointment of the 3^rd post, even this was negative by the respondent on the ground that the sanction strength for this school is only two, by stating that the students strength is below 60. As it has been clarified by the full bench of this Court, the petitioner's school is entitled for five teachers and the appointment of the third teacher to the school cannot be halted and the reason assigned by the 4^th respondent for rejecting the proposal is contradictory to law. The second reason stated by the respondent is that the other school run by the petitioner's management have surplus teachers and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to appoint a new teacher to the post which fell vacant in the present school. This aspect has also been considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of the Correspondent, R.C. Middle School vs the State of Tamil Nadu and Others in WP. (MD). No. 16841Of 2014.

¶29

6.This Court has set aside the similar order passed by the educational authority refusing to admit the appointment of the teacher on the ground that there are surplus teachers in the other school run by the same management. The learned Single Judge of this Court has followed the judgment of Division Bench of this Court by order dated 09.06.2007 in W.A.(MD)No.194 of 2007.

¶30

7.After referring to the Judgment dated 17.06.2015 in W.A.(MD) No.638 of 2015, this Court has confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing a similar writ petition where the approval was rejected on the ground that there are surplus teachers in the other schools of the same management.

¶31

8.Considering the law laid down by this Court in the judgment above referred to, this Court finds merit that the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the 4^th respondent is set aside. The 3^rd respondent is directed to approve the appointment of N.Felix Acquila with effect from the date of appointment within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the teacher is entitled to get all the monitory benefits and service benefits in accordance with law.

¶32

Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/-

¶33

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶34

/True Copy/

¶35

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

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶37

¶38

¶39

1.The Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Director of Elementary Education College Road, Chennai – 600 006. 3.The District Elementary Education Officer Tuticorin, Tuticorin District. 4.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin Rural @ Pudukottai Tuticorin District. +1cc to Mr.A.Ajith Geethan,Advocate,SR.17861 +1cc to M/S THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.NO.18173

¶40

W.P.(MD).No.1388 of 2017 24.03.2017

¶41

KM/MR kk/MR/SAR2-27.04.2017-4P-7C

¶42

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

The Correspondent v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Correspondent v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Latha Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

G.Sahaya Rani, Vs the State of Tamilnadu

M. Karthikeyan, Vs the Head Master

Raja Durai Vs the Assistant Director

M/S.a 616T Nelmudikarai Vs the Assistant Provident Fund

A.Jesur Mary Jennifer Vs the Director of Elementary