Partly allowed

D.Angeline Stella v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC8 Feb 2023WP(MD)/793/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a government order declaring a Junior Assistant post surplus and refusing appointment approval. The court held the subsequent retrospective government order could not affect a pre-existing valid appointment. The order quashing the surplus declaration was amended and the writ petition was partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

The Government Order and consequential proceedings declaring the petitioner's post surplus were quashed to the extent of affecting her pre-dated appointment; fresh order within six weeks.

D.Angeline Stella Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.793 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

RESERVED ON : 03.11.2022

¶4

DELIVERED ON : 08.02.2023

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶7

W.P(MD)No.793 of 2020 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.567 & 568 of 2020

D.Angeline Stella

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Through its Secretary to Government Education Department, Secretariat, St.Fort George, Chennai-9.

¶12

2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-6.

¶13

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Thoothukudi.

¶14

4.The District Educational Officer, Thoothukudi.

¶15

5.The Correspondent, Tucker Higher Secondary School, Pannaivilai-628 751, Thoothukudi District.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

1/5

¶18

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

¶19

PRAYER:

¶20

W.P(MD)No.793 of 2020

¶21

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the government order passed by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.238, School Education department dated 13.11.2018 and the subsequent original staff fixation for the year of 2019-2020 for fifth respondent school issued by the third respondent in his proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.6105/A3/2019 dated 15.11.2019 in respect of declaring surplus of the petitioner's post of Junior Assistant and quash the same and consequent direction may be issued to the respondents to approve petitioner's appointment as Junior Assistant from the date of her appointment on 01.11.2018 and to disburse all service and monetary benefits within stipulated time.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran, Additional Advocate General, Assisted by Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶25

2.The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the fifth respondent school. The school management had sent proposal for

¶26

2/5

¶27

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

¶28

W.P(MD)No.793 of 2020

¶29

approving her appointment to the fourth respondent. Citing G.O.(Ms) No. 238, School Education Department, dated 13.11.2018, the proposal was returned. Questioning the said Government Order as well as the consequential proceedings, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶30

3.Vide order dated 07.02.2023 in W.P.(MD)No.13428 of 2020, I upheld the validity of G.O.(Ms) No.238, dated 13.11.2018. However, interference is called for with regard to the petitioner's appointment alone. Because the petitioner was appointed on 01.11.2018 ie., well before the issuance of G.O.(Ms) No.238, dated 13.11.2018. The said Government Order cannot operate retrospectively. The Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 06.12.2020 in W.A.(MD)No.1052 of 2020 had taken such a view. The impugned order is interfered with to this extent. The school management is permitted to resubmit the proposal pertaining to the petitioner's appointment to the fourth respondent. The respondents 3 and 4 are directed to consider the same without reference to G.O.(Ms) No.238, dated 13.11.2018 and appropriate order on merits and in accordance with law will be passed within a period of six weeks after re-submission of the proposal.

¶31

3/5

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)No.793 of 2020

¶34

4.This writ petition is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected

¶35

miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

08.02.2023

¶37

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Btr/SKM

¶38

¶39

1.The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Education Department, Secretariat, St.Fort George, Chennai-9.

¶40

2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-6.

¶41

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Thoothukudi.

¶42

4.The District Educational Officer, Thoothukudi.

¶43

5.The Correspondent, Tucker Higher Secondary School, Pannaivilai-628 751, Thoothukudi District.

¶44

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶45

4/5

¶46

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

¶47

W.P(MD)No.793 of 2020

¶48

Btr/SKM

¶49

W.P(MD)No.793 of 2020

¶50

08.02.2023

¶51

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

D.Angeline Stella v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Angeline Stella 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Correspondent Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Vetrikondan. D Vs Regional Passport Officer

Kailasa Nadar Vs The Dig of Registration

The Secretary Vs The Secretary to Government

Justin Raj Vs Salomi

Maria Thangam.J Vs the State of Tamil Nadu