Allowed

R.Jasmine Alex Geetha v. the District Educational

Madras HC5 Jul 2022WP(MD)/7023/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking approval of petitioner's appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher. Court held that surplus in other corporate schools is no ground for rejection as school is the unit for strength. Petitioner's pre-2019 appointment approved; impugned order quashed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.03.2019 quashed; third respondent directed to resubmit proposal to first respondent for approval within six weeks.

R.Jasmine Alex Geetha Vs the District… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.7023 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.07.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.7023 of 2019

¶7

R.Jasmine Alex Geetha ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Educational Officer, Tiruchendur, Tuticorin District.

¶10

2.The Block Educational Officer – III, Sathankulam, Tuticorin District.

¶11

3.The Correspondent, Sacred Heart Primary School, Sathankulam – 628 704, Tuticorin District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 2^nd respondent herein vide O.Mu.No. 258/A1/2019, dated 22.03.2019, quash the same and further direct the 1^st respondent herein to approve the appointment of petitioner as Secondary

¶13

1/9

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD) No.7023 of 2019

¶16

Grade Teacher in the 3^rd respondent school w.e.f., 02.07.2018 and disburse

¶17

grant-in-aid towards salary and other attendant benefits.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ajith Geethan For Respondents : Mr.S.Shaji Bino for R1 and R2 Additional Government Pleader

¶19

Fr.Savarimuthu for M/s.Father Xavier Associates for R3

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶22

2. The third respondent school is a Minority Aided Educational

¶23

Institution. The petitioner herein was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the third respondent's School on 02.07.2018 in the sanctioned vacancy that arose due to the retirement of another teacher. The third respondent school had submitted a proposal to the District Educational Officer herein, seeking for approval of the petitioner's appointment with effect from 02.07.2018, which was rejected on the ground that there were surplus teachers working in other Schools run by the same Management of the third respondent School.

¶24

2/9

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.7023 of 2019

¶27

3.The issue as to whether the Educational Authorities can reject a proposal of the Management seeking for approval of the appointment of a teacher in Minority Institution on the ground that there are surplus teachers either in the District or under the Corporate Management of the School is no more res integra , since it has been dealt with in various decisions, against the Authorities.

¶28

4.In a batch of writ petitions filed before this Court in the case of The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department and others Vs. Iruthaya Amali and another reported in 2021 SCC online Madras 1285 , the Honourable Division Bench of this Court had held that for the purpose of fixing the staff strength of the School, the School as such, shall be the unit and not the Educational Agencies/ School Management/ Corporate Management. This finding has been applied in various other orders in writ petitions, whereby, it was held that the existence of surplus teachers in other Schools under the same Management, cannot be a ground for rejection of the proposal.

¶29

3/9

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.7023 of 2019

¶33

In a recent decision taken in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.3194 of 2020, etc. , dated 18.04.2022 in the case of B.Kurinjimalaron vs. the State

¶34

of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Education Department, Fort

¶35

St.George, Chennai 600009 , this aspect was dealt with in the following manner:

¶36

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 as well as the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in a Batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD) No.76 of 2019 are prospective in nature. In the present cases, the appointment was made prior to the Government order passed in G.O.Ms.No.165 issued by School Education Department, dated 17.9.2019. Therefore, there is no legal impediment for approving the appointment made by the School Management to the aforesaid posts in the light of the existing Rules thereunder.

¶37

6. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that as against the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in a Batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD) No.76 of 2019, etc., the State Government has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.15702 of 2021. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶38

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

¶39

4/9

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.7023 of 2019

¶41

stayed the judgment only in respect of Clause (i) of paragraph 95 of the said judgment. Further, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Division Bench in paragraph 6 of the said judgment, has observed that, ''no fresh appointment even in the sanctioned vacancy shall be made by any school which are managed by the Corporate Management.

¶42

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in the instant case, no appointment was made by the School Management pursuant to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court. All the appointments were made prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 and the proposals were also sent to the educational authorities prior to the said G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019. Thus, G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 and the Division Bench judgment will not bind over the appointment made by the School Management in the instant writ petitions. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks to quash the impugned orders and consequently, direct the educational authorities to accord approval to the appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant and Secondary Grade Teacher, made by the School Management in the instant writ petitions.

¶43

8. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the State Government has preferred an appeal

¶44

5/9

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(MD) No.7023 of 2019

¶47

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.15702 of 2021 as against the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the Batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD) No.76 of 2019, etc. and obtained stay in sofar as Clause (i) of paragraph 95 of the said judgment. Except the aforesaid clause (i) of paragraph 95, there was no stay in respect of remaining portion of the judgment. It is agreed by the learned Additional Advocate General that the writ petitioners were appointed prior to the G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 and therefore, it can be considered and an appropriate order may be passed.

¶48

9. On perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid Batch of cases and also the G.O.Ms.No.165 issued by the School Education Department, dated 17.9.2019, both the judgment as well as G.O.Ms.No.165 are prospective in nature. The appointments made by the School Management in the instant writ petitions are prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 and proposals for the said appointment were also forwarded to the educational authorities prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019. Therefore, there is no legal impediments for the respondents to accord approval to the appointment made by the School Management in the instant writ petitions.

¶49

6/9

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.(MD) No.7023 of 2019

¶52

10. Having regard to the rival submissions of the parties, taking note of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in a Batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD) No.76 of 2019, etc., G.O.Ms.No.165 issued by the School Education department, dated 17.9.2019 will not prohibit the educational authorities to approve the appointment made by the School Management in the instant writ petitions since the proposals for approval of appointment made by the School Management were forwarded to the educational authorities prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondent department without considering the G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 in proper perspective and passed the impugned order rejecting the proposals submitted by the School Management. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondent department are liable to be quashed.”

¶53

6. Thus, the reason assigned by the respondents for rejecting the proposal, on the ground of availability of surplus teacher, under the Corporate Management of the respondent's School, cannot be sustained.

¶54

7/9

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.(MD) No.7023 of 2019

¶57

7. For all the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the 2 nd respondent herein vide O.Mu.No.258/A1/2019, dated 22.03.2019, is hereby quashed. Consequently, the third respondent herein is called upon to resubmit the proposal to the first respondent herein and on receipt of such proposal, the first respondent herein shall pass appropriate orders approving the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 02.07.2018. Such orders shall be passed, atleast within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of re-submission of the proposal.

¶58

8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs.

¶59

05.07.2022

¶60

Index : Yes Speaking Order TM

¶61

¶62