The petitioner sought approval of his 1998 appointment and benefits under G.O.Ms.No.155 and 79. The Court held he is not entitled to regularization as he failed to undergo mandatory training and the governing orders did not apply to his non-vacant post.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.12738 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 23.12.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 06.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD)No.12738 of 2019
I.Salaludeen Ibrahim
... Petitioner
vs.
... Respondents
1/14
W.P.(MD)No.12738 of 2019
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to approve the petitioner's appointment with effect from 01.06.1998 with time scale of pay as admissible for that post and release the differential pay, allowance and other attendant benefits including pensionary benefits from the said date forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar For R1 to 3 : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja Additional Government Pleader For R4 : No appearance *****
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the
respondents to approve the petitioner's appointment with effect from 01.06.1998 with time scale of pay as admissible for that post and release the differential pay, allowance and other attendant benefits including pensionary benefits from the said date forthwith.
2/14
W.P.(MD)No.12738 of 2019
was appointed on 01.06.1998 as Secondary Grade Assistant in Al-Ameen Higher Secondary School, K.Pudur. Madurai, a private minority aided institution. The said Secondary Grade Assistant post was sanctioned to the school by the 1st respondent, vide G.O.Ms.No.523, School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997. After the appointment, the 4th respondent submitted the proposal to approve the appointment. The 3rd respondent, vide order, dated 15.08.1998, returned the proposal stating that as per G.O.Ms.No.394, School Education (D2) Department, dated 12.09.1997, approval could not be granted for the petitioner, since the petitioner is possessing B.Ed., qualification and no B.T. Assistant can be appointed in the post of Secondary Grade Assistant after 10.07.1995.
3/14
W.P.(MD)No.12738 of 2019
Education Department. Further, the Court directed the 3rd respondent to make consolidated pay from 12.11.2003 and treat the petitioner's service from 01.06.1998 for the purpose of service benefits. Pursuant to the order the school again submitted the proposal dated 20.01.2005 to grant approval and the 3rd respondent, vide his proceedings, dated 16.06.2015, approved the petitioner's appointment with consolidated pay of Rs.4,000/- per month with effect from 12.11.2003. Subsequently, based on G.O.Ms.No.99, Education Department, dated 27.06.2006, the petitioner was granted time scale of pay from 01.06.2006, vide proceedings, dated 14.09.2006.
would arise only in respect of appointments approved, vide G.O.Ms.No.4, School Education (X2) Department, dated 19.01.2004, which governs only the vacancies arising from 01.06.2003 and the appointments made therein. In the petitioner's case, the post was sanctioned vide, G.O.Ms.No.523, School Education (D1)
4/14
W.P.(MD)No.12738 of 2019
Department, dated 29.12.1997, before the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.4. Therefore, the petitioner's appointment would not come within the scheme of consolidated pay. Subsequently, the petitioner was granted time scale of pay from 01.06.2006 instead of 01.06.1998. The delay caused in passing approval cannot be fasten on the petitioner. Infact, subsequently, an order was issued, vide G.O.Ms.No.79, School Education dated 14.06.2002, to fill the post of Secondary Grade Teachers only with the candidates possessing B.Ed., qualification. The petitioner's retirement date on attaining superannuation was 31.07.2018, but the petitioner was granted re-employment for the academic year and the petitioner has served from 01.08.2018 to 31.05.2019. The petitioner came to know that several teachers appointed before 01.04.2003 filed writ petitions before this Court to grant time scale of pay. Since the petitioner is also placed on the same footing, the petitioner should be considered on par with the similarly placed persons and direct the respondents to grant the benefits as per G.O.Ms.No.79.
5/14
W.P.(MD)No.12738 of 2019
approval was declined pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.394 School Education (D2) Department, dated 12.09.1997, since the B.T. Assistants could not be appointed in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. The issue of Child Psychology arose from the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.559, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 11.07.1995, directing the educational authorities not to approve the appointment of B.Ed., Teachers in the Secondary Grade Teacher vacancies. Prior to 11.07.1995, the Government permitted the Aided Schools to appoint B.T. Assistants in the Secondary Grade Teacher vacancies, due to the non-availability of the candidates with Diploma in Teachers Education (D.T.Ed.) qualification for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers. When the candidates were available, the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.559, dated 11.07.1995, was issued. Even after the issuance of aforesaid G.O.No.559, dated 11.07.1995, the Aided Schools continued to appoint B.T. Assistants in Secondary Grade Teacher vacancies.
6/14
W.P.(MD)No.12738 of 2019
Hence, the Government did not approve those appointments and hence the respondents pray to dismiss the writ petition.
Minority School on 01.06.1998 in a Secondary Grade Teacher post, but the petitioner was possessing B.T. Assistant. As per G.O.Ms.No.559, dated 11.07.1995, such appointments cannot be approved. The said G.O. was challenged in several writ petitions and such appointments were elaborately discussed in the case of Secretary & Correspondent Uswathun Hasana Oriental (Arabic) Girls Higher Secondary School Pallapatti reported in 2002 Writ LR 173 , wherein the Hon’ble Court had held that the said G.O. is valid, since the B.T.
7/14
W.P.(MD)No.12738 of 2019
Assistants cannot handle children from 1 to 6 years of age and appointments made defying the G.O. are illegal. Since such teachers were in service for several years and hence the Government submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Government would grant them Child Phycology training for one month and thereafter the service would be regularized. Thereafter the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.155 dated School Education Department dated 03.10.2002, wherein the Teachers ought to undergo child psychology training for a period of one month and on completion of the training, from the next day onwards, their service would be regularized. The said G.O.Ms.No.155 was put to challenge in State VS Pallivasal Primary School represented by its Correspondent reported in 2004 2 Law Weekly 591 and this Court has upheld the validity of the said G.O. In the said G.O. it has been stated that the teacher would be entitled to regularize the service the next day of completion of the training.
8/14
W.P.(MD)No.12738 of 2019
9/14
W.P.(MD)No.12738 of 2019
Division Bench as well as it is against G.O.Ms.No.155, School Education Department, dated 03.10.2002.
10/14
W.P.(MD)No.12738 of 2019
12.11.2003. Treating the petitioner’s case as a special case and after getting permission from the Joint Director, vide proceedings, dated 23.03.2005, the respondents approved the appointment of the petitioner on consolidated pay with effect from 12.11.2003 on condition that the period from 01.06.1998 to 11.11.2003, will not be taken for any monetary benefits. Hence, the appointment of the petitioner itself is a concession granted to the petitioner on the strength of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No1151 of 2004, dated 13.12.2004.
11/14
W.P.(MD)No.12738 of 2019
when the post is not vacant, invoking G.O.Ms.No.79 would not arise and hence the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits under the said G.O.
12/14
W.P.(MD)No.12738 of 2019
was granted consolidated pay and thereafter regularized in service from 2006
onwards. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefits. With the above said observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes NCC : Yes / No Tmg
06.04.2023
To
13/14
W.P.(MD)No.12738 of 2019
S.SRIMATHY, J
Tmg
W.P.(MD)No.12738 of 2019
06.04.2023
14/14
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularize his service and grant time scale of pay from 01.06.1998 under G.O.Ms.No.155 and G.O.Ms.No.79.
Whether the petitioner can be directed to undergo child psychology training to avail regularization benefits given he has retired.
Whether the post of the petitioner was vacant at the time G.O.Ms.No.79 was issued, thus making it inapplicable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Secretary & Correspondent Uswathun Hasana Oriental (Arabic) Girls Higher Secondary School PallapattiReferred¶44
Secretary & Correspondent Uswathun Hasana Oriental (Arabic) Girls Higher Secondary School Pallapatti reported in 2002 Writ LR 173
State of Tamil Nadu vs. Pallivasal Primary SchoolReferred¶48
State VS Pallivasal Primary School represented by its Correspondent reported in 2004 2 Law Weekly 591
W.P.(MD)No.1151 of 2004Referred¶27
W.P.(MD)No.1151 of 2004
I. Salaludeen Ibrahim
The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Department of School Education
The Director of School Education
The District Educational Officer, Melur
The Correspondent, Al-Ameen Higher Secondary School, K.Pudur
S. Srimathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
