Petitioner sought writ directing approval of her 2008 appointment and payment of arrears. Court held representation could be considered without merits and directed Department to dispose within 4 weeks.
No order as to costs.
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.
WP.(MD).No.971 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 20.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.P.(MD)No.971 of 2024
B.Sree Valli
... Petitioner
Vs.
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent DEO to approve forthwith the appointment of the
1/7
WP.(MD).No.971 of 2024
petitioner as Office Assistant in the fourth respondent School namely L.M.S. Higher Secondary School, Kadamalaikuntu, Kanyakumari District for the period from 24.03.2008 to 01.09.2011 and release the arrears of salary with all other attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar M/s.Isaac Chambers For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, seeking to direct the 2 nd respondent to approve forthwith the appointment of the petitioner as Office Assistant in the fourth respondent School namely L.M.S. Higher Secondary School, Kadamalaikuntu, Kanyakumari District for the period from 24.03.2008 to 01.09.2011 and release the arrears of salary with all other attendant benefits.
2 .The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this Writ Petition is as follows:-
The petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant on 24.03.2008 in the fourth respondent School and she served there till 01.09.2011. Thereafter, she was appointed on 02.09.2011 in the fifth respondent School vide proceedings of the Corporate Manager, CSI, Kanyakumari Diocese, Nagercoil dated 01.09.2011.
2/7
WP.(MD).No.971 of 2024
Pursuant to the same, the petitioner is working in the fifth respondent School and the said appointment was duly approved by the second respondent by order dated 29.07.2016. However, the second respondent has not approved the appointment of the petitioner in the fourth respondent School, which was made on 24.03.2008. Hence, the petitioner repeatedly approached the second respondent requesting to approve her appointment in the fourth respondent School, which was made as early as on 24.03.2008. She also submitted several representations and the last of which, was made on 12.02.2020 and on 29.07.2021 and the same was also not considered. Hence, the Writ Petition came to be filed.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as soon as the petitioner was appointed in the fourth respondent School, a proposal for approval of her appointment was duly made by the fourth respondent School. However, the said proposal was returned for want of certain certificates and that was duly complied and thereafter, the proposal was resubmitted for approval. However, the same was not considered and kept pending.
3/7
WP.(MD).No.971 of 2024
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further argued that only since the said appointment was not approved in the meanwhile due to the vacancy, which had arisen in the fifth respondent School, the Corporate Management made up their mind to appoint the petitioner in the fifth respondent School. In view of the same, there was continuity of service in the same Corporate Management from the year 2008 to till date. On that basis, she is entitled for approval of appointment in the fourth respondent School on 24.03.2008 and pressed for allowing the Writ Petition.
5.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents vehemently submitted that the appointment made in the fifth respondent School can be considered only as a fresh appointment and the second respondent had never approved the appointment of the petitioner in the fourth respondent School which was made as early as in the year 2008 and seeking approval of appointment of the petitioner in the fourth respondent in the year 2008 would not arise in the question of latches itself and pressed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
6.For which the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
4/7
WP.(MD).No.971 of 2024
refuted the aspect of latches by submitting that the question of latches would be considered only when the third party right accrues in the case of consideration of approval of appointment of the petitioner. In this case, third party right has not accrued in any
way. Hence, this Writ Petition is liable to be allowed.
7 .Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and carefully perused the entire materials available on record.
8.In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the representation of the petitioner can be duly considered by the second respondent and without going into the merits of the case, I direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.06.2019 and the remainders dated 12.02.2020 and 29.07.2021 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
5/7
WP.(MD).No.971 of 2024
20.02.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Mrn
To
6/7
WP.(MD).No.971 of 2024
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Mrn
W.P.(MD)No.971 of 2024
20.02.2024
7/7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners representation dated 2020 and 2021 requires consideration regarding approval of her appointment in the fourth respondent School.
Whether the petitioner can claim arrears of salary and attendant benefits for the period 2008 to 2011.
Whether the question of latches applies in absence of third party right in matter of appointment approval.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
B. Sree Valli
The Director of School Education College Road, Chennai - 600 006
The District Educational Officer, Thuckalay, Kanniyakumari District
The Block Educational Officer, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District
The Correspondent, L.M.S. Higher Secondary School, Kadamalaikuntu, Kanniyakumari District
The Correspondent, L.M.S. Higher Secondary School, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District
L. Victoria Gowri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
