Allowed

Pon Usha Rani.M v. The Chief Education Officer

Madras HC8 Sept 2022WP(MD)/11211/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice G.R. Swaminathan, Madurai Bench, allowed this writ petition challenging the rejection of a Sewing Teacher's appointment. The Court held that a decline in student strength subsequent to appointment is not a ground to deny approval for a sanctioned post, directing respondents to regularize the appointment and pay arrears.

What did the court decide?

Direct disposal of the first and second respondents to approve the petitioner's appointment as Sewing Teacher w.e.f. 01.08.2017 and disburse salary arrears.

Pon Usha Rani.M Vs The Chief Education Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.11211 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.09.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.11211 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD)No.8006 of 2022

M.Pon Usha Rani

: Petitioner

The Chief Education Officer,, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District

¶11

The District Educational Officer, Thuckalay, Kannyakumari District

¶12

The Correspondent, V.K.P. Higher Secondary School Colachel, Kannyakumari District

¶13

: Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent/Chief Educational Officer in Na.Ka.No.6702/A1/2020 dated 16.12.2021, quash the same, and further direct the first respondent/ Chief Educational Officer herein to approve forthwith the appointment of

¶15

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

¶16

W.P(MD)No.11211 of 2022

¶17

the petitioner as Sewing teacher in the third respondent school, namely, V.K.P. Higher Secondary School, Colachel from the date of her appointment i.e., 01.08.2017 and disburse the grant-in-aid towards her salary and allowance w.e.f. the said date,

¶18

For Petitioner : Mrs.Amala.A, For R1 and R2 : Mr.Shaji Bino, Special Government Pleader

¶19

**O R D E R ***************

¶20

Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side.

¶21

2.The writ petitioner was appointed as Sewing Teacher in the third

¶22

respondent school on 01.08.2017. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner was appointed only against a sanctioned vacancy. The writ petitioner was also qualified to be appointed as such. However, by the impugned order dated 16.12.2021, the first respondent had declined to grant approval primarily for the reason that the strength of the girl students fell from 364 to 153. Reliance was placed on G.O.Ms.No.132 School Education Department, dated 22.04.1998, which fixes the minimum number of female students at 250 for sanctioning a post.

¶23

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

¶24

W.P(MD)No.11211 of 2022

¶25

3.The rejection order is put to challenge in this petition.

¶26

4.Though the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents wanted to sustain the impugned order on the strength of the aforesaid GO, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 31.01.2019 in the case of W.A.No.108 of 2019 The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary Vs. Y.Thangababy and another, wherein this Court had held that subsequent reduction in the number of students is not a ground to refuse appointment against a sanctioned post.

¶27

5.Admittedly, the writ petitioner was appointed w.e.f., 01.08.2017. On the said date, the number of female students studying in classes VI to VIII was above 250. It is true that the said number has now fallen to 153. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench, I direct the respondents 1 and 2 to approve the appointment of the writ petitioner in the third respondent school w.e.f., 01.08.2017 and disburse the grant-in-aid towards her salary and other allowances with arrears forthwith. It is always open to the authorities to assess the current student strength and if the petitioner is found to be surplus, redeploy her https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P(MD)No.11211 of 2022

¶29

to some other school.

¶30

6.With the above direction, this writ petition stands allowed. No

¶31

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

08.09.2022

Index:Yes/No lr

The Chief Education Officer,, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District

¶36

The District Educational Officer, Thuckalay, Kannyakumari District

¶37

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

¶38

W.P(MD)No.11211 of 2022

¶39

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶40

¶41

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.11211 of 2022

¶42

08.09.2022

¶43

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

Pon Usha Rani.M v. The Chief Education Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pon Usha Rani.M v. The Chief Education Officer

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

Uma.T Vs the Chief Manager

Dr. Ravi .O Vs The Director of Collegiate Education

The Secretary Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Rajendran.T Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Rajendran .T Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Rajendran.T Vs The Inspector General of Registration