Dismissed

The District Elementary v. D.Seran

Madras HC25 Mar 2021WA(MD)/676/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the State challenging the grant of salary benefits to a Headmaster. The Court held that based on Government Order No.1297 of 1979, the petitioner was entitled to the post's benefits despite lacking experience, and equity mandates payment of the prescribed salary.

What did the court decide?

Disallowed the challange to the order of the Single Judge directing the State to sanction increments; no costs awarded.

The District Elementary Vs D.Seran — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.A(MD)No.676 of 2014

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 25.03.2021

¶4

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL

¶5

W.A(MD)No.676 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2014

¶6

1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli.

¶7

2.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Pappakudi – 627 602. ... Appellants/Respondents 1 & 2

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.D.Seran ... 1^st Respondent/Petitioner

¶10

2.Hindu Middle School, Odaikarai Thulukkapatti, Rep. by its Secretary, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶11

... 2^nd Respondent/3^rd Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 02.04.2013 made in W.P(MD)No.7142 of 2008 on the file of this Court.

¶13

Prayer in WP(MD). 7142 of 2008 :

¶14

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to sanction the annual increments from the year 2002 in the cadre of middle school Headmaster with all the consequential benefits.

¶15

For Appellants : Mrs.S.Srimathy Special Government Pleader For R – 1 : Mr.V.Paneer Selvam For R – 2 : NA

¶16

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

¶17

1/4

¶18

W.A(MD)No.676 of 2014

¶19

JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)

¶20

The above Writ Appeal is filed by the Government challenging the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.7142 of 2008, dated 02.04.2013.

¶21

2.The first respondent, who was the writ petitioner, has acquired the qualification of M.A (Tamil) and M.Ed. He was appointed directly in an interview conducted by the third respondent as Headmaster of the Middle School on 05.09.1990. The said appointment was also approved by the first appellant/the District Elementary Educational Officer. He acquired M.Ed Degree in the year 1992, for which also, he was sanctioned incentive increment. On 05.09.2000, he was awarded with selection grade. Whileso, the second appellant/the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer made an entry in the Service Register stating that the writ petitioner was appointed as Headmaster of a Middle School without possessing 5 years experience and the Government also had ratified the same. The second appellant also orally compelled the writ petitioner to reduce the scale of pay. As the writ petitioner was appointed by the Management directly as Headmaster of Middle School pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.1297, Education Department dated 21.07.1979, there was no requirement of 5 years experience as stated by the second appellant.

¶22

3.Since the writ petitioner was appointed directly as a Headmaster of the Middle School, the contention of the Government was wrong. He was appointed pursuant to the G.O, in which, the Government had relaxed the qualification of 5 years experience. In such circumstances, he had filed the above said Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the appellants to sanction annual increment from the year 2002 in the cadre of middle School Headmaster. The said Writ Petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge based on G.O.3D.No.17, School Education (P1) Department, dated 20.01.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the above Writ Appeal has been preferred.

¶23

4.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants argued that the requirement of 5 years teaching experience is inserted in the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, in the year 1978. Therefore, the writ petitioner is required to have the experience. It was further argued that G.O.Ms.No.97, School Education, dated 05.07.2001, has got no application to the case of the writ petitioner.

¶24

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ perused the materials available on record.

¶25

2/4

¶26

W.A(MD)No.676 of 2014

¶27

6.Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to advert to the various Government Orders passed in this regard.

¶28

7.In G.O.Ms.No.1297, Education Department, dated 21.07.1979, the Government had decided that the Middle Schools under all kinds of managements should be provided with Headmasters on the particular scale and the vacancy of a Middle School Headmaster shall be filled up by the senior most among persons working as Secondary Grade Teachers or in the other cadre of trained but qualified for B.Ed/Tamil Pandit. The said G.O further provided that if no such Secondary Grade or other Teacher qualified with B.Ed., Tamil Pandit is in service on the date on which a vacancy arose, such vacancy shall be filled up by appointing a Tamil Pandit (from the open market or by transfer from another management) as Headmaster. The writ petitioner was appointed by way of direct interview in the year 1990.

¶29

8.In G.O.Ms.No.97, Education Department, dated 05.07.2001, it has been directed as follows:-

¶30

“,) eLepiyg; gs;spfspy; gp.o gl;ljhhp kw;Wk ; jkpHhrphpah; ehLeh;fs ; ,ilepiy Mrphpag; gzp Kd; mDgtj;Jld; fpilg;gJ fodk; vd;gjhy; mth;fs ; ntiy tha;g ;gYtyfj;jpy; ehLeh; ,d;ik rhd;W (Non Availability Certificate) bgw;w gpd; neuo epakdk; bra;ag ;gLk ; nghJk; gzp Kd; mDgtk; njit vd;w tpjpapid jsh;j ;jpa [k ; muR MizapLfpwJ.”

¶31

9.The next relevant G.O would G.O(3D)No.17, School Education (P1) Department, dated 20.01.2011. The above said G.O ratified the salary of 18 of the Headmasters of Middle School. In paragraph Nos.5 and 6, it has been held as follows:-

¶32

“5.jw;nghJ bjhlf;ff ; fy;tp ,af;Feh; rkh;g ;gpj ;Js ;s fUj;JUf;fspy; ghprPypf;fg ;gLk ;> muR cjtpbgWk; gs;spfspy; 5 Mz;Lfs; gzp Kd; mDgtkpd;wp epakdk; bra;ag ;gl ;Ls ;s jiyikahrphpah;fs ;> brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wj ;jpy; tHf;Ffs ; bjhlh;e ;J jkJ epakdq;fSf;F epakd ehs; Kjy; jiyikahrphpah; Cjpa tpfpjj;jpy; Cjpak; bgw;wpl jPh;g ;ghizfs; bgw;Ws ;sdh;.

¶33

6.nkny bjhptpf;fg ;gl ;l tptuq;fspd; mog;gilapy;> bjhlf;ff; fy;tp , af;Fehpd; fUj;JUf;fis muR ftdKld; ghprPypj;jJ. brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w jPhg;ghizfis bray;gLj ;Jk ; bghUl;L> bjhlf;ff ; fy;tp ,af;Feuhy; Fwpg;gplg;gl ;l 18 jiyikahrphpah;fs ; 5 Mz;Lfs; gzp Kd; mDgtkpd;wp epakdk; bra;ag ;gl ;ljw;F 1974 Mk; Mz;L jkpH; ehL mq;fPfhpf;fg ;gl ;l jdpahh; gs;spfs; (xGq;FKiw tpjp 1974,y; ,izg;g [ V-y; 1A(3)f;F jsh;tspj;J epakd ehs; Kjy; jiyikahrphpah; Cjpa tpfpjj;jpy; Cjpak; tHq;fpl mDkjpj;J muR ,jd;tHp MizapLfpwJ.”

¶34

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

¶35

3/4

¶36

W.A(MD)No.676 of 2014

¶37

10.There was yet another G.O(3D)No.18, Education Department, dated 21.01.2011, which had relaxed 5 years experience for appointment of a Middle School Headmaster for those Teachers, who have been appointed without experience.

¶38

11.The above referred G.O.Ms.No.97, Education Department, dated 05.07.2001, provide for regularization of those Headmasters, who were appointed without experience. Even presuming for a moment that the said G.O is not applicable, in equity, the writ petitioner had been directly appointed as a Headmaster and had been working in the School from 05.09.1990. As the writ petitioner had worked in the capacity of Headmaster, equity warrants that the salary payable for the said post should be paid. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge also had rightly issued a direction that the writ petitioner was entitled to all the benefits attached to the said post and allowed the Writ Petition and we see no merit in the arguments of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶39

Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶40

// True Copy //

¶41

Note :

¶42

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶43

¶44

1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli. 2.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,Pappakudi–627 602.

¶45

+1 CC to M/s.V.PANNEER SELVAM, Advocate ( SR-13751[F] dated 25/03/2021 )

¶46

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-13914[F] dated 26/03/2021 )

¶47

W.A(MD)No.676 of 2014 25.03.2021

¶48

SSS(CO)

¶49

TR(24.04.2021) 4P 5C

¶50

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

¶51

4/4

The District Elementary v. D.Seran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The District Elementary v. D.Seran

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

R.Mani Ambalam Vs the District Revenue Officer

Maniyara Manickam Vs the Managing Director

The Management Vs R.Sabapathy

M.S. Ramalingasami,(Died) Vs the Addl. Inspector General of

C.Mani, Vs a.Sankaranarayanan @

M/S.Royal Sundaram Alliance Vs Rajammal