Allowed

The Correspondent v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC1 Mar 2017WP(MD)/3524/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order refusing to approve the appointment and grant for a Junior Assistant in an aided minority school. The court held that since the post was sanctioned, prior permission was not required under the applicable Act and Rules, and impermissible Government Orders were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and respondent directed to approve appointment of petitioner's employee as Junior Assistant w.e.f. 02.09.2011 with all service and monetary benefits within four weeks.

The Correspondent Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.03.2017

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)Nos.3524 of 2017

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P(MD)Nos.2851 and 2852 of 2017

¶9

The Correspondent,

¶10

St.Aloysius Girls Higher Secondary School, Velliavilai, Palappallam post, Kanyakumari District – 629 159.

¶11

... Petitioner

¶12

vs.

¶13

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its secretary, Department of School Education, Fort. St. George, Chennai – 600 009

¶14

The Director of School Education,

¶15

College Road, Chennai – 600 006

¶16

The Chief Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District,

¶17

Nagarcoil – 629 001

¶18

The District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai at Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. ...Respondents

¶19

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 4^th respondent District Educational Officer in A.Thi.Mu.No.8706/A2/17 dated 25.02.2017, quash the same and further direct the 4^th respondent District Educational Officer to approve forthwith the appointment of Sr. G. Theresa as Junior Assistant in the petitioner school w.e.f., 02.09.2011 with all attendant benefits including arrears of salary and allowances.

¶20

For Petitioner : Ms.S.Xavier Rajini

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For R1 to R4 : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian Special Government Pleader

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the order of the 4^th respondent passed in A.Thi.Mu.No.8706/A2/17 dated 25.02.2017, vide which, the 4^th respondent has returned the proposal of the petitioner school, directing the school to resubmit the proposal after obtaining permission from the Director of School Education to fill up the post. The petitioner has also sought for direction to the respondents to accord approval for the appointment of Sr.G.Theresa as Junior Assistant in the petitioner school w.e.f. 02.09.2011 with all service and monetary benefits.

¶25

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶26

3.The petitioner has appointed one Sr.G.Theresa as Junior Assistant in their school w.e.f. 02.09.2011, which is an aided minority school. The petitioner school forwarded the proposal of approval of appointment on 02.09.2011. The eligibility of Sr.G.Theresa to the post of Junior Assistant is not in dispute.

¶27

4.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.

¶28

5.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 non-teaching staff by appointment and the remaining categories of non-teaching staff to be outsourced. 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Office Assistant are to be approved from the date of appointment.

¶29

¶30

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the post is sanctioned by the Director under Rule 15(1) of the Rules, sanction of grant ought to have been done 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 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 non-teaching posts, the Government could not issue Government Orders.

¶31

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 4^th respondent could not rely on the 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 order refusing to approve of the non-teaching post for the purpose of grant, is issued in gross violation of the provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the Act read with Rule 15 of the Rules.

¶32

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:

¶33

“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”

¶34

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 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 :

¶35

“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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sanctioned post, the approval of appointment cannot be rejected and if there is fall in strength and the post become surplus, after granting approval of the post, the

¶36

¶37

said teacher along with post could be transferred/deployed to a needy school. The said Judgment of the Division Bench 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.”

¶38

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:-

¶39

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

¶40

(i) All these writ petitions are allowed.

¶41

(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.

¶42

(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.''

¶43

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 is liable to be set aside.

¶44

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the 4^th respondent is directed to accord approval to the appointment of Sr. G. Theresa as Junior Assistant in the petitioner school w.e.f. 02.09.2011 with all monetary and other service benefits, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶45

In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P(MD)Nos.2851 and 2852 of 2017 are closed.

¶46

Sd/Assistant Registrar(P&A)

¶47

/True Copy/

¶48

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

¶49

Sub Assistant Registrar

nbi

1. The secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of School Education, Fort. St. George, Chennai – 600 009
2. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006
3. The Chief Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District, Nagarcoil – 629 001
4. The District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai at Marthandam, Kanyakumari District.
+1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No. 11960
+1cc to Mr.Xavier Rajini, Advocate Sr.No. 11680
JAM/20.03.17 /BS/ 5p-7c
W.P(MD)Nos.3524 of 2017 01.03.2017

¶54

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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Chithra Rani Vs the District Collector

M/S.Dollar Industries Ltd., Vs Tangedco

V.Selvaraj Vs Pol Matilda

A.M.Murugesan Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S the Tuticorin Spinning Vs the Chairman

R.Muthuvelpandian Vs the Commissioner