Allowed

V.Beaulah Diamond v. The Chief Educational officer

Madras HC4 Dec 2024WP/19895/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order rejecting the appointment of a teacher, holding reliance on a specific G.O. unsustainable after it was declared inoperative. The court directed authorities to consider fresh representations and grant approval pending the outcome of pending Special Leave Petitions before the Apex Court.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings quashed; direction to make fresh representation and grant appointment approval within two months; exercise to be completed subject to appeal results.

V.Beaulah Diamond Vs The Chief Educational… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.19895 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

¶6

W.P.No.19895 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.21142 of 2021

V.Beaulah Diamond

...Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Chief Educational Officer, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶11

2.The District Educational Officer, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶12

3.The Block Educational Officer II, Kilpennathur Block, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶13

4.The Central Manager/ Education Board, Arcot Lutheran Church, D.M.Elementary & Higher Elementary Schools, D.M.Lebanon Bungalow, 1, Vettavalam Road, Thiruvannamalai 606 601.

¶14

5.The Correspondent, Danish Mission Elementary School, Somasipadi 606 601, Kilpennathur Range, Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents

¶15

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

¶16

Page 1 of 7

¶17

W.P.No.19895 of 2024

¶18

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.101/A1/2021 dated 08.02.2021 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the sanctioned post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the 5^th respondent School from the date of appointment dated 01.02.2021 with all consequential and other attendant benefits, including the arrears of salary, within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan

¶20

For Respondents : M/s.P.Rajarajeswari, GA for R1 to R3

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This writ petition is filed for quashment of the impugned order issued by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.101/A1/2021 dated 08.02.2021 and onsequently, to direct the respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the sanctioned post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the 5^th respondent School from the date of appointment i.e., on 01.02.2021, with all consequential and other attendant benefits, including the arrears of salary, within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

¶23

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

¶24

Page 2 of 7

¶25

W.P.No.19895 of 2024

¶26

Considering the limited issue involved in this writ petition and also the

¶27

fact that it is covered by the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.76 etc., of 2019, dated 31.03.2021, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing.

¶28

The case of the petitioner is that one post of Secondary Grade Teacher fell vacant due to transfer and promotion of the incumbent, one V.Emily Arunothoyam, on 03.11.2020 to the post of Headmistress. Thereafter, the petitioner was selected and appointed in the said vacant post. The 5^th respondent has forwarded proposal to the 2^nd respondent through 3^rd respondent seeking for approval of the appointment of the petitioner in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 01.02.2021. The 3^rd respondent instead of forwarding the said proposal to the 2^nd respondent, passed the impugned order returning the proposal by stating that there are surplus teachers working in other schools and therefore, the approval of the appointment of the petitioner in the said post cannot be granted. That apart, the 3^rd respondent has also placed reliance upon G.O.Ms.No.165, dated 17.09.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

¶29

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

¶30

Page 3 of 7

¶31

W.P.No.19895 of 2024

¶32

4. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶33

5. It is seen from the records that the transfer and promotion of the previous incumbent has already been approved on 03.11.2020. In view of the same, the post has fallen vacant. Insofar as the approval for the fresh appointment is concerned, the same cannot be denied by the respondents while placing reliance upon G.O.Ms.No.165, dated 17.09.2019.

¶34

6. T his Court had an occasion to deal with the very similar issue in W.P.No.2115 of 2013 and the following order was passed by this Court.

¶35

8.It is not necessary for this Court to go into the merits of the case, since the entire issue is focused on the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.165, dated 17.09.2019. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) Nos.76 etc., of 2019 has considered the issue in detail and final orders have been passed on 31.03.2021. A series of directions have been issued by the Division Bench. The Division Bench has declared that the G.O.Ms.No.165, dated 17.09.2019 is declared to be inoperative. In view of the same, the very basis on which the impugned order has been passed by the 4^th respondent on 27.09.2022, becomes unsustainable.

¶36

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

¶37

Page 4 of 7

¶38

W.P.No.19895 of 2024

¶39

9.In the light of the above discussion, the impugned proceedings of the 4^th respondent dated 27.09.2022, is hereby quashed. There shall be a direction to the 4^th respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner School for approving the appointment of the B.T. Assistant. If any Special Leave Petition is pending in this regard, such approval can be granted subject to the result of the Special Leave Petitions before the Apex Court. This exercise shall be completed by the 4^th respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶40

7.This writ petition can also be disposed of in the above terms. Hence, the

¶41

impugned proceedings of the 3^rd respondent dated 08.02.2021, is hereby quashed. There shall be a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the 2^nd respondent through 3^rd respondent along with all the relevant documents and also a copy of this order. The 2^nd respondent is directed to grant approval for the appointment and it can be made subject to the result of the Special Leave Petitions, pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. This process shall be completed by the 2^nd respondent, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the fresh representation from the petitioner.

¶42

8.In the result, this writ petition stands allowed with the above directions. Page 5 of 7

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.19895 of 2024

¶45

No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶46

04.12.2024

¶47

Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No vkr

¶48

¶49

1.The Chief Educational Officer, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶50

2.The District Educational Officer, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶51

3.The Block Educational Officer II, Kilpennathur Block, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶52

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH. J,

¶53

vkr

¶54

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

¶55

Page 6 of 7

¶56

W.P.No.19895 of 2024

¶57

W.P.No.19895 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.21142 of 2021

¶58

04.12.2024

¶59

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

¶60

Page 7 of 7

V.Beaulah Diamond v. The Chief Educational officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Beaulah Diamond v. The Chief Educational officer

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

P.Dharageshwaran Vs Union of India

G.Murugan Vs The Director general of Police

Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Centre Vs the National Medical Commission

R.Sangeetha Vs The District Collector

K.Kamalakannan Vs the Director

Bhuvaneshwari Vs The Managing Director