Madras High Court
The Director Of Elementary ... vs C.Soundararajan on 21 December, 2021
W.A.(MD) No.2221 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
W.A.(MD) No.2221 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD) No.11018 of 2021
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
DPI Campus,
College Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 6.
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Opposite to Rathna Theatre,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Kadayam,
Ambasamuthiram,
Tirunelveli District. ... Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
C.Soundararajan ... Respondent/Petitioner
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.2221 of 2021
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 03.06.2020, passed in W.P.(MD) No.15733 of 2015, on the file of this
Court.
For Appellants : Mr.SRA.Ramachandran,
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.R.Bala Ramesh
for Mr.P.Bhaskar
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by
The Hon'ble ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]
By this writ appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 03.06.2020,
made in W.P.(MD) No.15733 of 2015, whereby the writ petition preferred by the
respondent/writ petitioner was allowed, whereby he has challenged the order
dated 15.05.2015 to recover a sum of Rs.3,05,869/- [Rupees Three Lakhs Five
Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Nine only].
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.2221 of 2021
2. The case has a chequered history in view of the fact that prior to the
present writ petition, the respondent/writ petitioner has approached this Court
earlier also. Further, it was after his appointment as Middle School Headmaster
by order dated 07.07.1995, but he was provided the scale of pay of Middle School
Teacher. From 01.06.2000, salary of the Middle School Headmaster was given to
the respondent/writ petitioner.
3. Thereafter, the appointment in the post of Middle School Headmaster
was cancelled on the grievance raised by one Sulochana. It was mainly on the
ground that the respondent/writ petitioner was not in possession of required
qualification for the post of Middle School Headmaster. The respondent/writ
petitioner challenged the order of cancellation dated 06.06.1997, by maintaining a
Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.14757 of 1997 and interim order was passed by the
Court followed by acceptance of the writ petition by order dated 04.02.2003 and
the respondent/writ petitioner was extended the benefits in compliance of the
order.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.2221 of 2021
4. In the meanwhile, the respondent/writ petitioner has sent a representation
on 31.12.2010, to relax five years of Secondary Grade experience required for the
post of Headmaster appointed in the Aided School. No order on the aforesaid was
passed and in the meanwhile, the respondent/writ petitioner was allowed to get
Selection Grade. The salary was also fixed as a consequence thereupon by
proceedings dated 22.10.2013. It was thereupon that an inspection was conducted
by the appellants herein that the respondent/writ petitioner did not obtain the
relaxation of five years of Secondary Grade experience and therefore, was not
entitled to the benefit extended to him and an order was passed thereupon to make
a recovery of Rs.3,05,869/- [Rupees Three Lakhs Five Thousand Eight Hundred
and Sixty Nine only] which is after cancelling the benefits of increment and
Selection Grade.
5. The order aforesaid was challenged by maintaining a writ petition and an
order was passed by the learned Single Judge after taking note of the fact that
while at the first instance the appointment of the respondent/writ petitioner was
cancelled followed by a writ petition, an order was passed by this Court on
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.2221 of 2021
04.02.2003 setting aside the order of cancellation of appointment, however,
liberty was given to proceed in the matter as per the principles of law. It was for
the reason that before cancellation order, no opportunity was given to the
respondent/writ petitioner. In view of the liberty given in the order dated
04.02.2003, the appellants/respondents were expected to proceed in the matter
and take action after providing opportunity of hearing to the respondent/writ
petitioner. The appellants/respondents did not pursue themselves to take action
despite the liberty given, rather the respondent/writ petitioner was extended the
benefit of Selection Grade and fixation of salary and consequences thereupon.
6. After lapse of few years, that order of recovery was issued after
withdrawal of benefit of increments. It was again without an opportunity of
hearing to the respondent/writ petitioner though specifically it has been narrated
in the impugned order. The recovery of the amount or withdrawal of any benefit
could not have been made without an opportunity of hearing to the
respondent/writ petitioner.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.2221 of 2021
7. In view of the above and as we do not find any error in the order
impugned herein, we find no reason to call for interference. However, while
disposing of the appeal, we direct the appellants/respondents to initiate action
against the defaulting officer who failed to take action in the matter, despite the
liberty given in the order dated 04.02.2003. It was the stage when the order of
cancellation of the appointment to the post of Headmaster was questioned by
maintaining a writ petition. It was precisely allowed for want of an opportunity
of hearing. Thus, the appellants/respondents were given liberty to adhere to the
Rule of principles of natural justice to take a decision afresh. The officer
defaulted therein needs to be subjected to an action as on account of his lapse, not
only the respondent/writ petitioner was further given the benefit but has given
rise to the present litigation also. The appellants herein are given further liberty to
take action afresh in the matter for compliance of principles of natural justice
within a period of four [4] months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment and for that, the order impugned herein and this judgment would not
come in the way, as we are not causing any interference in the order impugned
subject to the aforesaid liberty.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.2221 of 2021
8. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as
to costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P(MD) No.11018 of 2021 is closed.
[M.N.B., ACJ.] [P.S.N., J.]
21.12.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MR/RM
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.2221 of 2021
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
MR/RM
W.A.(MD) No.2221 of 2021
21.12.2021
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
