Madras High Court
State Of Tamil Nadu vs P.E.K.R.Murugadass on 20 January, 2021
W.A(MD)No.399 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A(MD)No.399 of 2014
and
M.P(MD)No.2 of 2014
01.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
Chief Secretariat, Chennai.
02.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai.
03.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tiruchirappalli.
04.The District Educational Officer,
Tiruchirappalli.
... Appellants/Respondents 1 to 4
Vs.
01.P.E.K.R.Murugadass
... 1st Respondent / Writ Petitioners
02.Secretary & Correspondent,
E.R. Higher Secondary School,
(Near) Anna Statue,
Chinthamani,
Tiruchirappalli – 620 002.
... 2nd respondent/5th Respondent
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 1/8
W.A(MD)No.399 of 2014
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order, dated 28.03.2012 passed in W.P(MD)No.14979 of 2010.
For Appellants : Mrs.S.Srimathy,
Special Government Pleader
For R-1 : Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj
For R-2 : Mr.V.Paneerselvam
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 28.03.2012
passed in W.P(MD)No.14979 of 2010, which was filed for a declaration
declaring that G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education (D1) Department, dated
29.12.1997, is unconstitutional insofar as the writ petitioner is concerned
as it imposes a ceiling limit of the sanctioned post of Physical Education
Teacher to a maximum of three.
2. The writ petition was contested based on the decision reported
in (2010) 2 MLJ 277 (Director of School Education, Chennai and
others vs. K.Uma). G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education (D1) Department,
dated 29.12.1997, has provided that for the schools with the strength of
over 400, one post of Physical Director will be given by upgradation of
the existing post of Physical Education Teacher.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 2/8
W.A(MD)No.399 of 2014
3. The writ petitioner's case is that he is employed in the second
respondent School from the year 2001 as a Waterman and he was
promoted as Junior Assistant in the year 2005. Thereafter, he had
qualified himself with the degree of Bachelor of Physical Education to
become a Physical Education Teacher. At the time of petitioner joining,
in the second respondent school, there were 2353 students studying.
The Director of School Education had sanctioned six posts of Physical
Education Teachers on 13.12.1968 and one post of Physical Director.
On the date of the writ petition, there were five Physical Education
Teachers, of which one person retired from service. The second
respondent school had appointed the writ petitioner in the retirement
vacancy on 12.11.2010. After such appointment, the second respondent
school had submitted a proposal before the District Educational Officer,
Tiruchirappalli, fourth appellant herein, for approval. However, the same
was returned stating that G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education (D1)
Department, dated 29.12.1997, stipulates upper ceiling limit of three
Physical Education Teachers and therefore, the appointment made in the
second respondent school cannot be approved and due to that reason,
the appointment of the writ petitioner was not approved.
4. As per G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education (D1) Department,
dated 29.12.1997, when the strength of the Classes VI to X in High
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 3/8
W.A(MD)No.399 of 2014
Schools exceeds 250, one post of Physical Education Teacher will be
sanctioned and for every additional strength of 300, one additional post
of Physical Education Teacher will be sanctioned subject to a maximum
of 3. Therefore, the petitioner contended that there cannot be a ceiling
for the number of appointments for the Physical Education Teachers as it
should be proportional to the number of students.
5. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in
(2010) 2 MLJ 277(cited supra), held that the above said
G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997,
needs to be given a liberal interpretation and granted liberty to the
Government to reconsider the matter and issue a reasonable, viable and
appropriate norms with the regard to the appointment of Physical
Education Teachers in the schools as per the strength of the students.
It would be useful to extract the relevant paragraphs of the said
judgment as hereunder:
“22.If physical education is appropriate, good
sportsmen and excellent athletes would be made. In
Mythology, Rama and Arjuna were able to marry Sita
and Drowpadi respectively and win in battles as they
were good in “Archery”. It was possible because of the
excellent physical education and training they underwent
in their “Gurukulam”. Nowadays gurukulam are
“Schools” and therefore physical education needs to be
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 4/8
W.A(MD)No.399 of 2014
given more attention in schools. Achievements of Sachin
(sic)Tendulkar, P.T.Usha, Abhinav Bindra are basically
because of good physical education and training. In
Schools alone, young talents could be identified and they
could be groomed in the specific sports and games in
appropriate way for future excellence.
23. As stated above, the normal understanding of
the above government order with regard to Physical
Education Teachers is that the High Schools would have
maximum number of three Physical Education Teachers
and Higher Secondary School would be added one more
Physical Education Director in the name of Physical
Education Director. However, there cannot be any ceiling
with regard to the strength of teachers as the same is
bound to vary/increase as per the strength of the
student's. When the student strength is increased, the
ceiling has to be removed and required more Physical
Education Teachers are to be appointed, otherwise the
students would suffer irreparably and the government
order would go against the very scheme of education.
24. Hence G.O.Ms.No.525 needs to be given a
liberal interpretation and the government is at liberty to
reconsider the matter and issue reasonable viable and
appropriate norms with regard to appointment of
physical education teachers in the schools as per the
strength of students, considering the observations made
by this Court expeditiously.”
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 5/8
W.A(MD)No.399 of 2014
6. Paragraph No.24 of the above judgment has specifically directed
the Government to reconsider the matter and give a liberal interpretation
with regard to the appointment of Physical Education Teachers in schools
proportional to the strength of the students. However, till today such
exercise has not been completed by the appellants.
7. As stated above, the second respondent school had more than
2000 students studying on the date of filing of the writ petition. By
applying the ratio in (2010) 2 MLJ 277(cited supra), as per
G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997,
without limiting the maximum number, appointment of the writ petitioner
ought to have been approved. In view of the same, the learned single
Judge had given a direction to the first appellant herein to consider the
approval of the appointment of the writ petitioner as Physical Education
Teacher with effect from 02.08.2010. However, the appellants have not
so far considered the same, but preferred the present writ appeal before
this Court.
8. Therefore, once again, the first appellant is directed to apply the
ratio in the said judgment of the Division Bench and pass appropriate
orders granting approval of the appointment of the writ petitioner, who is
appointed in the sanctioned post as Physical Education Teacher with
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 6/8
W.A(MD)No.399 of 2014
effect from 02.08.2010, within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
9. In the result, the order of the learned single Judge dated
28.03.2012 passed in W.P(MD)No.14979 of 2010, is hereby confirmed
and the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[P.S.N.,J] [S.K.,J.]
20.01.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
pm
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.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 7/8
W.A(MD)No.399 of 2014
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL,J.
pm
W.A(MD)No.399 of 2014
20.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 8/8
