Madras High Court
The Chief Educational Officer vs R.Venkatachalam ... 1St on 23 April, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.875 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.875 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.3924 of 2021
1.The Chief Educational Officer,
Karur.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Karur. ... Appellants / Respondents 1 & 2
Vs.
1.R.Venkatachalam ... 1st Respondent / Writ Petitioner
2.The Correspondent,
Marist Higher Secondary School,
Karur,
Karur District. ... 2nd Respondent / 3rd Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to
set aside the order dated 17.12.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.14508 of 2014 on the
file of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.A.(MD)No.875 of 2021
For Appellants : Mrs.S.Srimathy,
Special Government Pleader
For 1st Respondent : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam
JUDGMENT
************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
We have heard Mrs.S.Srimathy, learned Special Government Pleader
for the appellant and Mr.V.Panneer Selvam, learned Counsel for the first
respondent.
2.This Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order,
dated 17.12.2019 passed in W.P(MD) No.14508 of 2014, which was allowed
directing that the respondent / writ petitioner appointment be approved w.e.f.
01.06.2002.
3.The learned Single Bench in paragraph No.6 has assigned the
following reason for allowing the Writ Petition :
"6.Perusal of record shows that the appointment
made prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.79, dated 14.06.2002
is concerned, this Court issued direction to approve the
appointment with effect from 01.06.2002. This Court has
allowed the writ petitions in W.P(MD).Nos.2322 and 2323
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.875 of 2021
of 2009 dated 24.11.2014, observed that the appointment of
the teachers appointed after 19.05.1998 can be considered
in terms of G.O.Ms.No.79, dated 14.06.2002 with salary
and other benefits. Against which, the educational
authorities has filed an appeal and the Hon'ble Division
Bench dismissed the same by confirming the order of the
learned Single Judge in W.A.(MD).Nos. 637 and 638 of
2015, dated 02.12.2016. The Hon'ble Principal Bench has
also allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.26483 of 2005,
dated 16.04.2014 with direction to approve the appointment
with effect from 01.06.2002 with all service and monetary
benefits as middle grade graduate teachers by following the
earlier decisions. Now, the issue is settled by this Court that
the appointment can be approved with effect from
01.06.2002 as per G.O.Ms.No.79, dated 14.06.2002. As per
the decisions of this Court, the petitioner is entitled to get
approval with effect from 01.06.2002 as per G.O.Ms.No.79,
dated 14.06.2002."
4.The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that apart from
G.O.Ms.No.79 which has been referred to in the impugned order, there are a
couple of other Government Order, more particularly, G.O.Ms.No.35.
5. We have carefully perused the counter affidavit filed in the writ
petition as well as the memorandum of grounds filed in this appeal and we find
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.875 of 2021
that nowhere, the department has taken a stand that G.O.Ms.No.35 would be
applicable to the case of the respondent. Therefore, the appellant cannot be
permitted to take a different stand, by way of oral submission, when the appeal
is heard. Furthermore, we find that the learned Single Bench had allowed the
writ petition taking note of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in
W.A.(MD)Nos.637 and 638 of 2015, dated 02.12.2016. The appellant
-department is unable to demonstrate before us, as to how the said judgment of
the Hon’ble Division Bench is not applicable to the case on hand. Therefore,
we find no grounds to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single
Bench.
6.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. If according to the
appellant-department, certain Government orders should have been placed
before the court, then it is up to them to seek for review before the learned
Single Bench, if so advised. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is also dismissed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
23.04.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
RM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.875 of 2021
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.875 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
RM
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.875 of 2021
23.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
