Writ petition filed by a teacher challenging appointment approval granted from the date of subject roster conversion rather than initial appointment. The court quashed the impugned order and directed approval from the initial appointment date.
Impugned order quashed; appointment approved from initial date with all consequential benefits.
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.No.1598 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 19.03.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
W.P.No.1598 of 2018 and WMP.No.2008 of 2018
A.Jayapandian
... Petitioner
Vs.
1/18
W.P.No.1598 of 2018
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.3043/Aa2/2016, dated 10.10.2017 and to quash the same insofar as the date of granting approval of appointment as 22.02.2016 is concerned and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to grant approval of appointment of the petitioner in the post of B.T. Assistant in 4th respondent School from the date of initial appointment on 02.01.2012 with consequential benefits including payment of salary from the date of initial appointment and other service benefits along with interest for the delay in payment, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Ms.M.Kaviya for Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Alagu Goutham for RR1 to 3
O R D E R
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 10.10.2017 in Na.Ka.No.3043/Aa2/2016 passed by the third respondent and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to grant approval of appointment of the petitioner in the post of B.T. Assistant in 4th respondent School from the date of initial appointment on 02.01.2012 with all consequential benefits
2/18
W.P.No.1598 of 2018
including payment of salary from the date of initial appointment and other service benefits.
Teachers. As per the orders of the Government, as and when vacancies arose to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers taking classes for Standards 6 to 8, the same would be upgraded as B.T. Assistant and it would be filled up with qualified person.
3/18
W.P.No.1598 of 2018
appointment issued by the fourth respondent, dated 30th December 2011, the petitioner joined in the said post on 02.01.2012. From the date of appointment, he has been continuously working in the fourth respondent School as B.T. Assistant (History). After appointment of the petitioner, the fourth respondent has forwarded a proposal dated 29.05.2012 to the third respondent for approval of appointment of the petitioner. The said proposal was returned by the third respondent on 26.06.2012 stating that for approval of the petitioner, necessary permission to be obtained from the Department regarding subject roster as B.T. Assistant (History) instead of B.T. Assistant (Maths). The fourth respondent has forwarded the proposal to the third respondent on 28.08.2012 seeking permission to fill up the post of B.T. Assistant (History) by referring to the fact that there is a need for the post of B.T. Assistant (History) in the School for taking classes for Standards 6 to 8. Consequently, the third respondent has forwarded the proposal to the second respondent on 05.09.2012 for approval of subject roster. The second respondent has forwarded the proposal to the Joint Director of School Education (Secondary) on 31st January 2013. However, no further orders have been passed for granting approval of subject roster by the office of the
first respondent thereafter.
4/18
W.P.No.1598 of 2018
the teacher appointed on 02.01.2012 should be qualified with passing of Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). The fourth respondent has again resubmitted the proposal on 26.08.2016 stating that passing of TET cannot be insisted
in respect of appointment made in Minority Institution as per the orders
5/18
W.P.No.1598 of 2018
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pamati Educational Trust case as well as the orders passed by the High Court of Madras. Thereafter, the second respondent issued orders on 10.10.2017 granting approval of petitioner's appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant (History) in the fourth respondent School. But approval of appointment of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant was granted with effect from 22.02.2016, i.e., the date on which the subject approval was granted by the second respondent. Aggrieved by the action the second respondent granting approval of the petitioner's appointment, with effect from 22.02.2016, the present Writ Petition is filed.
6/18
W.P.No.1598 of 2018
7/18
W.P.No.1598 of 2018
proposal to the Chief Educational Officer, Nagapattinam, through third respondent. The same was forwarded to the Director of School Education (Secondary), recommending to change the subject roster from Maths to History. Considering the same, the first respondent passed order on 22.02.2016 changing the subject roster from Maths to History. Thereafter, the third respondent has approved the appointment of the petitioner in the post of B.T. Assistant (History) and salary and other benefits also paid to the petitioner. It is also averred in the counter affidavit that as per the Government Orders, salary and other benefits have to be calculated from the period of appointment only. In the present case, subject roster has been changed by the first respondent on 22.02.2016 and the approval was granted with effect from that date.
from the said date only, and the petitioner is not entitled for approval of appointment from the initial date of appointment.
8/18
W.P.No.1598 of 2018
9/18
W.P.No.1598 of 2018
Director of School Education, Chennai and others , reported in 2012 3 MLJ 678, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held as follows:
"12. A Perusal of the judgments, which are relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner support his case for seeking approval of the post of P.G.Assistant (English) from the date of appointment of the petitioner namely on 19.01.1999 and get the salary and other attendant benefits instead of 19.03.2002 being the date of the order passed by the 1st respondent permitting the conversion. Once the 1st respondent granted permission to convert the post from P.G.Assistant (Tamil) into P.G.Assistant (English) at the 4th respondent school, such permission should take effect from the date of appointment of the petitioner, especially when the request for con"version of the post was made by the school based on the appointment of the petitioner on 19.1.1999.”
10/18
W.P.No.1598 of 2018
Court in WA.(MD).No.828 of 2014 etc., batch of cases has held as follows:
“12.Contention by the appellants that the returned proposals were not challenged by the management and hence it has to be treated as accepted and hence the teachers have no right to question the same cannot be accepted. It has to be seen that ultimately, it is the teachers who are affected. Therefore, even if the management has not taken up the cause, the aggrieved teacher has every reason to question the returned proposals. The educational authorities ought to have considered that the very object of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Rules made thereunder are to protect the interests of the teachers and students. Therefore, right of the teacher cannot be said to be extinguished. Power of the educational authorities to issue directions to fill-up the posts on conversion cannot be questioned. At the same time, the schools should be given latitude to fill-up the required posts. If Maths and other subject teachers are already working in a school, the management should have the right to fill up the posts with other subjects, if there is a need for filling up the posts with the required subjects. ”
11/18
W.P.No.1598 of 2018
2017, and by an order dated 27.06.2013, this Court held as follows:
“6. After considering the entire gamut of facts and law, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court concluded that the institutions being recognised as minority institutions were protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Though the State may have power to regulate the minority educational institutions in the interest of 'Efficiency', 'Discipline', 'Health', 'Sanitation', 'Morality' and 'Public order', the same cannot extend over entire administrative control of the minority institutions over its staff and its right to establish unregistered educational institutions. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court agreed with the order of the learned Single Judge and held that no prior permission was required before converting the Secondary Grade post to B.T.Assistant post.
7. One another Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).No.201 of 2020 dated 14.08.2020 had followed the consistent view taken by this Court and held that it is settled position of law that once the appointment is made to a sanctioned post, then, prior approval is not necessary. The said writ appeal was also at the instance of the State and it came to be dismissed.
12/18
W.P.No.1598 of 2018
8. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would place reliance on the judgment in Rev.Aplc(MD).No.136 of 2022 in W.A.(MD).No.1115 of 2019 dated 06.6.2023 and submit that the recent view taken by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court should prevail and the review application was disposed of directing the management to fill up the vacancies in the teaching post only after getting prior permission from the Department and the petitioner's case cannot be accepted.
9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, including the various pronouncements of this Court upto the recent pronouncement in Rev.Aplc(MD).No.136 of 2022 in W.A.(MD).No.1115 of 2019 dated 06.6.2023, the issue certainly is no longer res integra.
10. In view of the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, two of which are the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. However, the decision relied on by the learned Additional Government Pleader, appears to be taking a contrary view. However, at the same time, from the reading of the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench rendered in Rev.Aplc(MD).No.136 of 2022 in W.A.(MD).No. 1115 of 2019 dated 06.6.2023, it is clear that a direction was given to the management to fill up the vacancies in teaching post only after getting prior permission from the Department and the right of the minority institution has also been discussed. However, at
13/18
W.P.No.1598 of 2018
the same time, none of the earlier judgments of this Court had been placed before the Hon'ble Division Bench and moreover a direction was given by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the review application, which appears to be only prospective while filling up the vacancies in teaching post. However, in the instant case the petitioner's appointment was made on 10.09.2012 and she has already attained the age of superannuation and she is before this Court only for getting her service benefits that she would be entitled. ”
“6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 05.12.2023 in Na.Ka.No.4502/Aa3/2020 passed by the third respondent, is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. The third respondent is directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner as BT Assistant (History) in the fifth respondent School from initial date of appointment with effect from 12.09.2008 with all consequential and monetary benefits, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.”
14/18
W.P.No.1598 of 2018
liable to be quashed.
following directions:
i) The impugned order in
Na.Ka.No.3043/Aa2/2016, dated 10.10.2017 passed by
the third respondent is hereby quashed.
ii) The third respondent is directed to approve the
appointment of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant (History) in the fourth respondent School from the initial date of appointment i.e., on 02.01.2012 with all consequential
and monetary benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.03.2024
Speaking/Non-speaking order
15/18
W.P.No.1598 of 2018
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No pvs
16/18
W.P.No.1598 of 2018
To
17/18
W.P.No.1598 of 2018
BATTU DEVANAND.J., pvs
W.P.No.1598 of 2018
19.03.2024
18/18
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a teacher appointed in a converted subject roster post is entitled to salary and benefits from the date of initial appointment rather than the date of roster conversion approval.
Whether the school management can be denied the right to fill vacant posts with qualified teachers of a different subject in a minority aided institution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C.Wilson Sundar Raj vs. Director of School Education, Chennai and othersReferred¶59
C.Wilson Sundar Raj vs. Director of School Education, Chennai and others, 2012 3 MLJ 678
WA.(MD).No.828 of 2014 etc.Referred¶63
WA.(MD).No.828 of 2014 etc., batch of cases
WP.No.34238 of 2017Referred¶68
WP.No.34238 of 2017
W.A.(MD).No.201 of 2020Referred¶71
W.A.(MD).No.201 of 2020
Rev.Aplc(MD).No.136 of 2022 in W.A.(MD).No.1115 of 2019Distinguished¶74
Rev.Aplc(MD).No.136 of 2022 in W.A.(MD).No.1115 of 2019
W.P.No.2251 of 2024Referred¶80
W.P.No.2251 of 2024
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A.Jayapandian
Director of School Education
Chief Educational Officer, Nagapattinam
District Educational Officer, Mayiladuthurai
Headmaster, Annai Velankanni Matha Hr. Sec. School
BATTU DEVANAND
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
