Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government vs K.Vijila on 7 April, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.819 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.819 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3641 of 2021
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Kuzhithurai,
Kanyakumari District – 629 175. : Appellants
Vs.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.819 of 2021
1.K.Vijila
2.The Correspondent,
St. Fracies Higher Secondary School.
Vararai.
S.T. Mankad Post,
Kanyakumari District – 629 178. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
praying to set aside the order dated 25.04.2018 passed in W.P.(MD)No.
8110 of 2018.
For Appellants : Mrs.S.Srimathy
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
JUDGMENT
***************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
Heard Mrs.S.Srimathy, learned Special Government Pleader,
appearing for the appellants and Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Counsel
appearing for the respondent.
2.This appeal filed by the Government is directed against the
order dated 25.04.2018, passed in W.P.(MD)No.8110 of 2018, filed by the
first respondent herein. The prayer in the writ petition was for issuance
of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.819 of 2021
fourth appellant herein namely District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai
dated 26.02.2018 and for a consequential direction upon the appellants to
approve the appointment of the first respondent in the post of B.T.
Assistant (Science), from the date of her appointment ie., 01.06.2015, by
considering the proposal submitted and for disbursement of monetary
and other attendant service benefits.
3.The learned Single Bench by the impugned order while
quashing the order passed by the fourth appellant dated 26.02.2018,
remanded the matter back to the fourth appellant for reconsideration of
the representation given by the first respondent / writ petitioner.
4.It is the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader
that the Court, while issuing such a direction ought to have seen that
there are surplus teachers in various schools coming under the same
management namely, Roman Catholic Diocese (RC Schools). Further, it is
submitted that the Corporate management is one unit and in such case
deployment order from one school (one unit) to another school (another
unit) as required under Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private
Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, passed by the Government does not arise
and it requires only a transfer of surplus staff to the needy school.
Further, it is submitted that sanction of aid is not a fundamental right and
it is not automatic and the Government is entitled to refuse the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.819 of 2021
Further, the learned Special Government Pleader also pointed out that
the substantial amount of funds for defraying the expenses has been
incurred for payment of salary to the teachers. Learned Special
Government Pleader placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No.76 of 2019 dated 31.03.2021.
5.Per contra, Mr.Herold Singh, learned Counsel appearing for
the first respondent / writ petitioner would submit that the order and
direction issued by the Writ Court has been complied with and the first
respondent / writ petitioner's appointment has been approved and salary
has also been disbursed.
6.However, no order to the said effect has been placed before us
for our perusal.
7.Be that as it may, we find that no positive direction has been
granted by the learned Writ Court but it has remanded the matter to the
fourth appellant. It goes without saying that such reconsideration should
be in accordance with law. Therefore, we find that the appellant cannot
be aggrieved by the direction issued by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.819 of 2021
8.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of, recording the
submissions made on either side. However, there shall be no order as to
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
07.04.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.819 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
MR
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.819 of 2021
07.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
