Dismissed

The Chief Educational Officer v. v Janet Swerna Rubi

Madras HC15 Oct 2024WA(MD)/1785/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed the state authorities' appeal against a writ order that quashed their refusal to approve a sewing teacher's appointment. Upholding the principle that sanctioned posts cannot be considered surplus when filled, the court directed immediate approval of the appointment and payment of back salary.

What did the court decide?

The appointment of the 1st respondent was ordered to be approved with effect from her initial date of appointment within 8 weeks. Arrears of salary payable to her must also be paid within 12 weeks wit

The Chief Educational Officer Vs v Janet Swerna Rubi — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A(MD)No.1785 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 15.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.A(MD)No.1785 of 2024 and

¶7

C.M.P.(MD)No.13611 of 2024

¶8

1.The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Thoothukudi District. 2.The District Educational Officer, Office of the District Educational Officer, Thoothukudi District. ... Appellants / Respondents 1 & 2 -vs1.V.Janet Swerna Rubi ...1^st Respondent / Writ Petitioner 2.The Correspondent, St. Mary's Girls Higher Secondary School, Sawyerpuram, Thoothukudi District. ... 2^nd Respondent / 3^rd Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 19.12.2023 in W.P.(MD)No.30205 of 2023.

¶10

For Appellants : Mr.S.P.Maharajan, Special Government Pleader

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 1 of 4_

¶12

W.A(MD)No.1785 of 2024

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]

¶15

The appeal is at the instance of the state, aggrieved by the order of the writ Court quashing the order of the 2^nd appellant dated 03.08.2020, returning the proposal for approval of the appointment of the 1^st respondent herein in the 2^nd respondent school.

¶16

The 1^st respondent was appointed as a Sewing Teacher on 01.11.2018. The 2^nd respondent which is a minority institution sought for approval. The 2^nd appellant returned the application on the ground that there are surplus teachers and till such time the surplus is exhausted or till such time the surplus teachers are redeployed, the appointment of the 1^st respondent in the 2^nd respondent school cannot be approved. The writ Court relied upon the decisions of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.1321 of 2020 which was confirmed in W.A.(MD)No.81 of 2022 wherein the very issue relating to approval of appointment of Sewing Teachers was considered, the Division Bench had held that if there is a single teacher and the post is a sanctioned post, there cannot be any question of surplus and the authorities cannot reject the approval or refuse the approval on the ground that there is surplus.

¶17

We have also followed the said legal position in W.A.(MD)No.228 of 2023 and have upheld similar orders of this Court directing approval by

¶18

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

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

W.A(MD)No.1785 of 2024

¶21

our order dated 22.08.2024. In the light of the settled legal position, we are

¶22

unable to fault the writ Court for having allowed the writ petition.

¶23

The Writ Appeal, therefore, fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. The authorities will approve the appointment of the 1^st respondent with effect from her initial date of appointment within a period of eight (8) weeks from today. It is also made clear that the arrears of salary payable to the 1^st respondent shall be paid within a period of twelve (12) weeks with interest at 6 percent per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition, that is, 10.12.2023, till the date of payment. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]

¶25

15.10.2024

¶26

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet: Yes Sml

¶27

¶28

1.The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Thoothukudi District.

¶29

2.The District Educational Officer, Office of the District Educational Officer, Thoothukudi District.

¶30

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

¶31

_____________ Page 3 of 4_

¶32

W.A(MD)No.1785 of 2024 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶33

Sml

¶34

W.A(MD)No.1785 of 2024

¶35

15.10.2024

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 4 of 4_

The Chief Educational Officer v. v Janet Swerna Rubi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Educational Officer v. v Janet Swerna Rubi

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

Karuppasamy Vs The Director

Arumigu Mariamman thirukovil Vs The District Collector

Pitchairaja .P Vs The Secretary to Government

The Managing Director Vs K.Kannadhasan (Staff No.97DR3018)

Hari Anand Vs The Joint Commissioner

The Sub Registrar Vs Anthonyammal