Dismissed

S.Tamilarasi v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC22 Dec 2022WA(MD)/450/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by a secondary grade teacher seeking regularisation of services and salary for an unapproved appointment period. The appellant, who completed services before undergoing mandatory Child Psychology Training, claimed benefits under specific Government Orders. The court held that regularisation required fulfillment of training conditions pursuant to the sai

What did the court decide?

The request for regularisation of services and payment of salary for the period between 08.06.1998 and 30.04.2003 was dismissed.

S.Tamilarasi Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.450 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

RESERVED ON : 13.12.2022

¶4

PRONOUNCED ON : 22.12.2022

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶7

W.A(MD).No.450 of 2022

¶8

S.Tamilarasi

¶9

...Appellant/Petitioner

¶10

¶11

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Government School Education Department Secretariat Chennai 600 009 2.The Director of School Education DPI Campus College Road Nungambakkam Chennai 600 006 3.The District Elementary Educational Officer Karur District Karur 4.The District Elementary Educational Officer Thanjavur District Thanjavur 1/10

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

W.A.(MD)No.450 of 2022

¶14

5.Church of South India Tiruchirappalli -Thanjavur Diocese by its Bishop Pudur

¶15

Trichy -17

¶16

6.The Accountant General

¶17

Pay & Accounts Office Nandanam Chennai 600 032

¶18

...Respondents/Respondents

¶19

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 14.03.2022 passed in WP(MD).No.17233 of 2015.

¶20

For Appellant : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu

¶21

For R1 to R4 : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja Additional Government Pleader

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

(Made by R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J. )

¶24

The writ petitioner is the appellant.

¶25

2.The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order passed by

¶26

the fourth respondent herein under which the request of the appellant/petitioner

¶27

to regularise her services in the post of Secondary Grade Assistant for the

¶28

period between 08.06.1998 to 30.04.2003 was rejected.

¶29

2/10

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.A.(MD)No.450 of 2022

¶32

3.The appellant/petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher

¶33

by Tiruchirappalli - Thanjavur Diocese in St.Peters Primary School, Thanjavur on 03.06.1998 with effect from 08.06.1998. According to the appellant/petitioner, she was appointed in a sanctioned post which fell vacant due to the retirement of a teacher namely Mrs.J.Helen. The fifth respondent School had sent a proposal for approval of her appointment. However, the petitioner's appointment was not approved by the educational authorities. The petitioner was discharged from service on 30.04.2003. According to the appellant/petitioner, she was not paid any salary for the period from 08.06.1998 to 30.04.2003. The appellant/petitioner had further stated that she was discharged on the ground, that being a Graduate Teacher, she was appointed in the Secondary Grade Post without undergoing Child Psychology Training.

¶34

4.The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner had contended that the appellant was appointed as a Graduate Teacher on 24.11.2003 by Tiruchirappalli -Thanjavur Diocese in C.S.I.Boys Higher Secondary School with effect from 28.11.2003. Her appointment was approved by the authorities with effect from 28.11.2003. The learned counsel had further contended that the Government of Tamil Nadu had passed G.O.Ms.No.155, School Education

¶35

3/10

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.A.(MD)No.450 of 2022

¶38

Department dated 03.10.2002 in order to regularise the services of Graduate Teachers who were appointed to the sanctioned post of Secondary Grade Teachers. As per the said Government Order, the Graduate Teachers were directed to undergo Child PsychologyTraining under their own expenses. Based upon the said training, their services were regularised. Therefore, according to the appellant/petitioner, she is entitled to the benefit of the said Government Order.

¶39

5.Only based upon the said Government Order, the appellant had made a representation to the fourth respondent for payment of salary for the period she worked as a Secondary Grade Teacher and to regularise her services in the said cadre. However, under the impugned order, the fourth respondent has rejected the said request on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner as a Secondary Grade Teacher was never approved by the educational authorities and she was discharged on 30.04.2003 on the ground that she was not qualified to be appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher. This order was challenged before the writ Court.

¶40

6.The learned Single Judge of this Court after considering the rival submissions, has arrived at a finding that as per G.O.Ms.No.155, School

¶41

4/10

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.A.(MD)No.450 of 2022

¶44

Education Department dated 03.10.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.150, School Education (B1) Department dated 02.07.2007, the services of the Secondary Grade Teachers should be regularised only from the date of their obtaining Child Psychology Training. The petitioner having not undergone the said training, the question of regularisation of her services in the said cadre would not arise. On the basis of the above said findings, the writ petition has been dismissed. The said order is under challenge in the present writ appeal.

¶45

7.The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner had contended that the petitioner has served as a Secondary Grade Teacher from 03.06.1998 to 30.04.2003 and she is eligible to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.155, School Education Department dated 03.10.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.150 School Education (B1) Department dated 02.07.2007. If the benefit of the said G.Os are extended to the appellant, the appellant would be entitled to get her services regularised in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher and she would be entitled to the monetary benefits and regularisation of her service.

¶46

8.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had contended that the appellant has never undergone the Child

¶47

5/10

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.A.(MD)No.450 of 2022

¶50

Psychology Training and hence, she is not entitled to invoke the benefit of the Government Orders cited by the appellant. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal.

¶51

9.We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶52

10.The appellant, though is a Graduate Teacher, was appointed in the sanctioned Secondary Grade Teacher Post on 03.06.1998. She has not undergone the Child Psychology Training. Her initial appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher itself is invalid and the same was not approved by the educational authorities at any point of time.

¶53

11.In G.O.Ms.No.155, School Education Department dated 03.10.2002, the Government had taken a policy decision to approve the appointment of Graduate Teachers appointed in the sanctioned Secondary Grade Posts from the date of their completion of Child Psychology Training. Under G.O.Ms.No.150, School Education (B1) Department dated 02.07.2007, the said benefit has been extended to the teachers who were appointed between 1999 to 2001 also,

¶54

6/10

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

W.A.(MD)No.450 of 2022

¶57

subject to the condition laid down in G.O.Ms.No.155, School Education Department dated 03.10.2002.

¶58

12.A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.155, School Education Department dated 03.10.2002 would clearly indicate that the appointment of Graduate Teacher between 11.07.1995 to 19.05.1998 in the sanctioned Secondary Grade Post would be approved only from the date on which the teachers have completed the Child Psychology Training. Therefore, the said condition is also applicable for those teachers who were appointed between 1999 and 2011 as per G.O.Ms.No. 150, School Education (B1) Department dated 02.07.2007.

¶59

13.In the present case, the appellant has not completed the Child Psychology Training during her tenure between 03.06.1998 and 30.04.2003. Hence, the question of regularising her services for the said period in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher based upon the above said Government Order does not arise. The appellant is not eligible to get her services regularised either under G.O.Ms.No.155, School Education Department dated 03.10.2002 or under G.O.Ms.No.150 , School Education (B1) Department dated 02.07.2007.

¶60

7/10

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

W.A.(MD)No.450 of 2022

¶63

14.In view of the above said facts, the fourth respondent has rightly

¶64

rejected the request of the appellant/petitioner on the ground that she has not fulfilled her eligible criteria for getting regularisation in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher. That apart, the question of regularisation would arise only if the basic qualification is fulfilled by the candidates. The learned Single Judge after careful consideration of the above said facts had chosen to dismiss the writ petition.

¶65

15.We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the writ Court. The writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.

¶66

(D.K.K.J.,) (R.V.J.,)

¶67

22.12.2022

¶68

Index :yes Internet :yes msa

¶69

8/10

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

W.A.(MD)No.450 of 2022

¶72

¶73

The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu School Education Department Secretariat Chennai 600 009 2.The Director of School Education DPI Campus College Road Nungambakkam Chennai 600 006

¶74

3.The District Elementary Educational Officer Karur District Karur

¶75

4.The District Elementary Educational Officer Thanjavur District Thanjavur

¶76

9/10

¶77

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶78

W.A.(MD)No.450 of 2022

¶79

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

¶80

msa

¶81

Pre-delivery Judgment made in W.A(MD).No.450 of 2022

¶82

22.12.2022

¶83

10/10

¶84

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.Tamilarasi v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Tamilarasi v. the State of Tamilnadu

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

Premnath Vs the District Collector

A.M.P. Shunmugavel Vs the District Collector

Mohaideen Abdul Kathar.P Vs the Chief Manager

Gopi Raghul K Vs The Additional Chief Secretary

Maruthaiyammal. S Vs The Authorized Officer

Subburaj. M Vs The State of Tamil Nadu