Disposed

A.Selvaraj, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC9 Apr 2018WP/22651/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ to quash an order refusing his appointment approval and to direct authorities to approve his appointment as a Night Watchman. The court observes recent rules on government-aided school appointments and directs authorities to decide within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs, directing the respondents to dispose of the matter within 12 weeks.

A.Selvaraj, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.04.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.No.22651 of 2017

A.Selvaraj

... Petitioner

Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Education Department,
Chennai -9.
2. The Director of School Education
D.P.I. Buildings, College Road,
Chennai -6.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Vellore,
Vellore District.
4. The District Educational Officer,
Thirupattur,
Vellore District.
5. The Correspondent,
Dominic Savio Higher Secondary School,
Tirupattur - 6362 601.
... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records connected with the impugned proceeding of the 4th respondent passed vide Aa.Thi.Mu.No.1546/Aa2/16 dated 05.04.2016, signed on 07.04.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Night Watchman in the 5th respondent School w.e.f 01.02.2012, with all consequential benefits, in the light of the order passed in W.A.No.908/2013 dated 25.04.2013 and Deva Asir v. Secretary to Government Education Department, reported in 2016 (3) LLJ 49.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran For Respondents : Mr.C.Munusamy Special Government Pleader (For R1 to R4)

¶11

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

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The relief sought for in this writ petition is to call for the entire records connected with the impugned proceeding of the 4th respondent passed vide Aa.Thi.Mu.No.1546/Aa2/16 dated 05.04.2016, signed on 07.04.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Night Watchman in the 5th respondent School w.e.f 01.02.2012, with all consequential benefits, in the light of the order passed in W.A.No.908/2013 dated 25.04.2013 and Deva Asir v. Secretary to Government Education Department, reported in 2016 (3) LLJ 49.

¶14

2.The claim of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed in a sanctioned post and in spite of that approval of the appointment was not granted.

¶15

3.The grievances of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed in accordance with the Rules and procedures in a sanctioned post and therefore, he is entitled for approval of appointment in accordance with the Act and Rules. The proposals were also submitted by the respective Management seeking approval of appointment.

¶16

4.When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents filed the report submitted by the first respondent and paragraphs 3 and 4 of the report are extracted hereunder:

¶17

"3.It is further submitted that the Government of Tamil Nadu has issued Orders in G.O.Ms.No.64, School Education (SE 6 (1) Department, dated 03.04.2018 lifting the ban for according approval to the appointment in the non-teaching posts in Government aided schools. The first respondent in pursuance of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court made in the above said W.P.No.7077 to 7080 of 2018, dated 03.04.2018 has issued detailed circular in the proceedings Rc.No.33112/D1/S4/2013, dated 04.04.2018 reiterating to strictly follow up the conditions laid down in the above said circular, while giving appointment approval of non-teaching posts by the District Educational Officers in Government aided Schools.

¶18

4.The copy of the said G.O.Ms.No.64, School Education (SE 6(1) Department dated 03.04.2018 and the proceedings issued by the first respondent in Rc.No.33112/D1/S4/2013, dated 04.04.2018 and annexed herewith for kind perusal of Hon'ble High Court."

¶19

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

¶20

5.On a perusal of the above, it is seen that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.64, School Education Department dated 03.04.2018 and the Director of School Education issued a circular on 04.04.2018, setting out the procedure for grant of approval in accordance with the Act and Rules. Clause 7 of the circular categorically enumerated that the competent authorities if violates the procedures, disciplinary proceedings will be initiated against those officials, who are committing any such violations. Thus, it is made clear that the approval of appointment has to be granted by following the Act and Rules.

¶21

6.This being the factum of the case, the case of the writ petitioner is to be considered in the light of the Government Order and the circular issued by the Director of School Education and accordingly, the decisions are to be taken and orders are to be issued, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

7.Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
ah
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Education Department,
Chennai -9.
2. The Director of School Education
D.P.I. Buildings, College Road,
Chennai -6.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Vellore,
Vellore District.
4. The District Educational Officer,
Thirupattur,
Vellore District.
+1 CC to Mr.S.N. Ravichandran, Advocate sr 25983.
W.P.No.22651 of 2017
SP(23/05/2018)

¶23

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

A.Selvaraj, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Selvaraj, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The President Vs The Presiding Officer

J.Samuel Prabhakaran, Vs The District Collector

M.Murugesan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Sri Kumarakurubara Swamigal Vs The State Tamil Nadu

A.Priyanka, Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

St. Josephs Girls Higher Vs The Director of School