Madras High Court
The Director Of School Education vs Joy Selvakumari on 19 July, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1166 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD) No.1166 of 2021
and C.M.P.(MD) No.4994 of 2021
1.The Director of School Education,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Chief Educational Office,
Collectorate Campus,
Karur. ... Appellants/Respondent Nos.1 & 2
Vs
Joy Selvakumari ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner
PRAYER: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order
dated 23.10.2019, passed in W.P(MD)No.4103 of 2013.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Standing Counsel for Government
For Respondent : Ms.M.Padmavathi
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1166 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.]
Heard Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Standing Counsel for Government,
appearing for the appellants and Ms.M.Padmavathi, learned counsel for the
respondent.
2.This Writ Appeal is directed against the order and direction issued
by the learned Single Judge dated 23.10.2019, in W.P.(MD) No.4103 of
2013. The said Writ Petition was filed by the respondent, seeking to quash
the order passed by the second appellant dated 12.04.2012, and for a
consequential direction to pay incentive increments on the basis of the
petitioner acquiring higher qualification in the field of Physical Education
(M.Phil), in the light of G.O.Ms.No.1170, Education, Science and
Technology Department, dated 20.12.1993, G.O.Ms.No.324, Education,
Science and Technology Department, dated 25.04.1995 and G.O.Ms.No.
194, School Education, (E2) Department, dated 10.10.2006. The learned
Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition. Challenging the same, the
Department is before us with this Writ Appeal.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1166 of 2021
3.The only ground on which the appellants seek to challege the
correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, is
that in the Government Orders, which were relied on by the learned counsel
for the petitioner and referred to in the impugned order, there is no mention
about the Physical Directors Grade – I and Government orders are
exclusively meant for Post Graduate Assisants. In the regard, learned
Standing Counsel for Government has drawn our attention to G.O.Ms.No.
324, School Education Department, dated 25.04.1995, and submitted that in
respect of teachers in physical education, they are eligible for incentive
increments for higher qualification only in physical education.
4.The correctness of the said submission has to be decised in this
appeal. We have elaboratey heard the learned counsel on either side to find
out the answer to this issue.
5.The Government enacted Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Higher
Secondary Educational Service vide G.O.Ms.No.720, Education, dated
28.04.1981. Tamil Nadu Higher Educational Services is under three clauses,
which are as follows:
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1166 of 2021
“Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary
Educational Service.
(G.O.Ms.No.720, Education, dated 28th April 1981.)
SECTION – 37
The Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service.
1.Constitution. - The service shall consist of the
following classes and categories of officers, namely:-
Class. Category
(1) (2)
I Headmasters and Headmistresses in Higher
Secondary Schools.
II 1.Teachers in Academic subjects.
2.Teacher in Language.
III Physical Directors and Physical Directresses
in Higher Secondary Schools.”
6.Thus, in terms of the Special Rules Physical Directors and Physical
Directresses in Higher Secondary Schools fall in Class III Category (2) of
category of officers in the Higher Secondary Educational Service. There is
no dispute to the fact that the respondent has secured M.Phil. qualification
and that has been recorded in the Service Register. However, the
Government issued orders for revision of norms for assessment of grant for
Teaching Posts in G.O.Ms.No.525 School Education (D1) Department,
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1166 of 2021
dated 29.12.1997. In para IV of the said order, the Government has stated
that in the XI and XII Standards for the schools with a strength of over 400,
one post of Physical Director will be given by upgradation of existing post
of Physical Education Teacher. Apart from that all new recruitment of
Teaching Posts is being done by the Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) and
by way of illustration one of the notification dated 11.02.2021, has been
placed for consideration, from which we find that it is a common
notification for direct recruitment for the post of Post Graduate
Assistants/Physical Education Directors Grade – I in School Education and
other departments. Thus, the Educational Department is consistently treating
the Physical Director and Physical Directress as teaching posts.
7.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.S.Ramamaohana Rao v.
A.P.Agricultureal Univeristy and another [(1997) 8 SCC 350], the
question which arises in the said case was whether Physical Director in A.P.
Agricultural University is a teacher and entitled to retire only at 60 years
and the said issue was answered in the following terms:
“19.We are unable to agree. It may be that the Physical
Director gives his guidance or teaching to the students only in
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1166 of 2021
the evenings after the regular classes are over. It may also be
that the University has not prescribed in writing any theoritical
and practical classes for the students so far as physical
education is concerned. But as pointed by us earlier, among
various duties of the Physical Director, expressly or otherwise,
are included the duty to teach the skills of various games as
well as their rules and practices. The said duties bring him
clearly within the main part of the definition as a “teacher”. We
therefore, do not accept the contention raised in the additional
counter-affidavit of the University.”
8.All the above reasons would go to show that the respondent would
be entitled for incentive increments. Thus, we find no ground to interfere
with the order passed in the Writ Petition. For all what we have stated above
as well as what has been noted by the learned Writ Court, the Writ Appeal
fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs.
(T.S.S.,J.) (S.A.I.,J.)
19.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
sj
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1166 of 2021
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.
To
1.The Director of School Education,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Chief Educational Office,
Collectorate Campus,
Karur.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1166 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
sj
W.A.(MD) No.1166 of 2021
19.07.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
