Madras High Court
R.Venkateswaran vs The Director Of School Education on 17 February, 2021
W.P.No.3220 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 17.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.3220 of 2021 and
W.M.P. No.3651 of 2021
R.Venkateswaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai 600 006.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Nagapattinam Educational District,
Nagapattinam.
4. The Secretary,
Kasthurba Gandhi Kanya Gurukulam
Girls Higher Secondary School,
Vedharanyam, Nagapattinam District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records
pertaining to the orders in O.Mu.No.9225/A2/2019 dated -10.2020 (signed
on 13.10.2020) on the file of the second respondent, quash the same and to
direct the second respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner in
Page No.1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.3220 of 2021
pursuant to the order in Na.Ka.No.048 dated 15.05.2018 issued by the fourth
respondent and to grant such other consequential order(s).
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Selvakumar
For Respondents : Mr.P.Raja,
Government Advocate
ORDER
By consent, final orders are passed in the writ petition at the admission
stage itself. Mr.P.Raja, learned Government Advocate takes notice for
respondents.
2.The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition challenging the
impugned proceedings issued by the second Respondent vide proceedings in
O.Mu.No.9225/A2/2019 dated -10.2020 (signed on 13.10.2020) and for a
consequential direction to the second respondent to approve his appointment
in pursuance of the order in Na.Ka.No.048 dated 15.05.2018 issued by the
fourth respondent.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, it was represented by
the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents that, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.3220 of 2021
issue in question is covered by a judgment dated 07.01.2021 rendered by the
First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1022 of 2020 and in view of the same,
Petitioner will not be entitled to the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.238, dated
13.11.2018. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus:
“9. In the present case, the order impugned
cannot be faulted, since there was no mechanism of either
kind as referred to above. It is irrelevant that, the
vacancy arose in 2014 and the attempt to fill the vacancy
was undertaken in 2018. Since there was no Rule to seek
prior permission from the District Educational Officer
before the appointment procedure was undertaken, the
School cannot be blamed. The appointment cannot be
denied merely because there was surplus staff which the
School was not made aware of before the School
undertook the appointment procedure.
10. For the reasons above, the judgment and
order impugned are not interfered with. ...”
4. In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner drew the
attention of this Court to the common order dated 07.10.2020 passed by this
Court in W.P.Nos.11574 and 11586 of 2020 and submitted that, the
Respondents therein were directed to grant approval to the appointment of
the Petitioners therein with effect from the date of their initial appointment
with all consequential benefits of arrears of salary and allowances admissible
to the Petitioners. For better appreciation, relevant portion of the said order,
reads thus:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.3220 of 2021
“7. This Court considered the objections, but
as far as the present claim on hand is concerned,
admittedly, the appointments of the Petitioners had
been made against the vacancies which existed prior to
the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.238, dated 13.11.2018.
These Petitioners had also been admittedly appointed
earlier to the date of the said G.O. Therefore, this
Court finds that the reliance placed on the order passed
by the learned Single Judge in the above mentioned
matter (W.P.(MD) No.20527 of 2019) would clinch the
issue in favour of the Petitioners herein. For due
appreciation of the claims of the Petitioners herein, the
relevant portions of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge in paragraphs 2 to 7 are extracted
hereunder:
“2. The learned counsel for the
Petitioner would submit that the Government
Order itself cannot be sustained and since the
Petitioner was appointed in the post
sanctioned in the year 1996 itself in regular
vacancy on retirement and promotion, the
reliance on the subsequent G.O. Passed on
13.11.2018, is improper. Insofar as, the
sanctity of G.O.(Ms) No.238, dated
13.11.2018 is concerned, the same is a subject
matter of batch of writ petitions, which are
said to be pending and therefore, I do not
intend to go into the merits of the grounds
raised questioning the validity of G.O.(Ms)
No.238. Neverthless, the fact remains that the
proposal seeking for approval has now been
rejected based on the reliance placed by the
Respondents on G.O.(Ms) No.238, dated
13.11.2018.
3. It is not in dispute that the
appointment of these two posts of Record
Clerk and Office Assistant were based on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.3220 of 2021
sanction granted on 28.12.1996 in G.O.(Ms)
No.1731, Education Department. While that
being so, relying on the subsequent G.O.(Ms)
No.238 for the purpose of rejection of the
approval is illegal, since G.O.(Ms) No.238
can only have a prospective effect. In view of
the same, the consequential order passed by
the Respondent dated 10.06.2019 is also
unsustainable. On this short ground, the
Petitioner herein would be entitled to
succeed.” ”
5. In view of the above and considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the order impugned in this writ petition is
interfered with, and the Respondents are directed to consider the case of the
Petitioner without reference to G.O.Ms.No.238, dated 13.11.2018, and pass
appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after
affording him an opportunity of hearing.
6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, W.M.P.No.3651 of 2021 is closed.
17.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
vum
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.3220 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
vum
To:
1. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai 600 006.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Nagapattinam Educational District,
Nagapattinam.
W.P.No.3220 of 2021 and
W.M.P. No.3651 of 2021
17.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
