Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government vs S.Anurebecca ... 1St on 22 December, 2021
W.A(MD)No.2136 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.A(MD)No.2136 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.9991 of 2021
1.The Secretary to Government,
Department of School Education,
St. George Fort,
Chennai.
2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Compound,
College Road,
Chennai.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Tenkasi,
Tirunelveli District. ... Appellants / Respondents 1 to 4
Vs.
1.S.Anurebecca ... 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2.The Secretary,
Rukmani High School,
Mangalapuram,
Tirunelveli District. ... 2nd Respondent/5th Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set
aside the order made in W.P(MD)No.13361 of 2018 dated 23.07.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.A(MD)No.2136 of 2021
For Appellants : Mr.M.Siddharthan,
Additional Government Pleader
For R-1 : Mr.S.Chellapandian
JUDGMENT
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
The writ appeal is filed by the Government against the order dated
23.07.2021 passed in W.P(MD)No.13361 of 2018.
2. The first respondent/writ petitioner is one Anurebecca a
physically challenged woman with hearing and speech impaired with 90%
disability. As earlier incumbent had attained superannuation, a vacancy
arose for the Post of Sewing Teacher. The second respondent school is a
recognised non-minority aided school receiving grant-in-aid from the
Government. The writ petitioner was appointed on 15.06.2011 after
following the procedure. The second respondent school has also submitted
a proposal to the fourth appellant for approval of the appointment. The
said proposal was returned asking the second respondent school to
produce the G.O., which enabled them to appoint a physically challenged
person. Accordingly, the school had also re-submitted the proposal in the
year 2014. In spite of the proposal being submitted in the year 2014,
there was no response from the authorities and several requests have
been made by the school. Finally, the authorities received the proposal
only on 05.03.2018 and on 02.05.2018, the proposal was once again
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.2136 of 2021
rejected on the ground that the Post is surplus and there was a delay in
resubmitting the proposal. Challenging the said rejection order dated
02.05.2018, the writ petitioner had filed the writ petition. The writ petition
was allowed in part. Challenging the said order, the present writ present
writ appeal has been filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
4. G.O.Ms.No.619 Education (M2) Department dated 23.06.1993
provides for appointment of a physically challenged person as a Sewing
Teacher and the first respondent/writ petitioner is eligible for the said
post. To be noted is that the said post of Sewing Teacher is a sanctioned
post and it will not lapse on the retirement or promotion of an incumbent.
Even if the students strength had fallen short of the prescribed number,
when there is a sanctioned post, the same cannot be taken away. The
Sewing Teacher or Craft Teacher are said to be sanctioned post only for
the purpose of developing the vocational skills of the students, particularly
the girl students. The job of the Sewing Teacher is to impart training with
respect to tailoring as it better suits the school students to enhance the
employment capabilities in the later part of their life.
5. The yet another point raised by the learned Additional
Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Pleader appearing for the appellants, is that there was a
W.A(MD)No.2136 of 2021
delay in resubmitting the proposal after five years. The said reason cannot
be accepted as the writ petitioner was appointed as a Sewing Teacher in
the vacancy meant for physically challenged person. Immediately, a
proposal was sent by the school and the same was returned on
01.03.2013 directing the school authorities to produce relevant G.O., for
appointing a physically challenged person like the writ petitioner. Though
the Government had alleged that there are surplus Teachers in the school,
the same is not proved as there are no surplus Teachers in the school and
the post of Sewing Teacher is a sanctioned post. As stated earlier, merely
because the incumbent retired from service, the post became vacant.
There is only one sanctioned post of a Sewing Teacher in the school.
Therefore, the same cannot be said to be a surplus. As stated supra, the
post of Sewing Teacher is necessary for the benefit of girl students, who
learn tailoring and other embroidery work etc., which can be taken up as
an avocation in the later years.
6. In such circumstances, merely mentioning the Sewing Teacher as
a surplus one and quoting the delay in sending the proposal, the
appellants cannot refuse to approve the appointment of the respondents.
Though the learned Single Judge has mentioned that there is no evidence
produced by the School Authorities for resubmitting the proposal in the
year 2014 itself, the delay has been condoned by the learned Single
Judge, which we do not propose to interfere.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.2136 of 2021
7. The two reasons for rejecting the approval namely the post is a
surplus one and the proposal was sent belatedly, are unacceptable and
liable to be set aside. Even before the learned Single Judge, the writ
petitioner had submitted that she will not claim the monetary benefits
from the date of appointment till re-submission of the proposal dated
05.03.2018. Even before us also, the same submission was made and the
same is recorded.
8. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with
the order of the learned Single Judge and the same is confirmed and the
writ appeal is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
9. The appellant is directed to approve the proposal and the second
respondent school will be entitled to receive the grant-in-aid for the post
only from 05.03.2018 when the proposal was re-submitted. As corollary,
the first respondent/writ petitioner also will be entitled for the monetary
benefits only from 05.03.2018.
[P.S.N.,J] [P.V.,J.]
22.12.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
pm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.2136 of 2021
Copy to:
1.The Secretary to Government,
Department of School Education,
St. George Fort,
Chennai.
2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Compound,
College Road,
Chennai.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Tenkasi,
Tirunelveli District.
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.2136 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.
and
P.VELMURUGAN,J.
pm
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)No.2136 of 2021
22.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
