Madras High Court
Mathiaselvi vs The Secretary To The Government on 22 July, 2021
W.P(MD)No.22516 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P(MD)No.22516 of 2019
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.19298 of 2019
Mathiaselvi ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Secretary to the 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.
5.The Secretary,
Rukmani High School,
Mangalapuram,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.22516 of 2019
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in respect
of order passed by the 4th respondent in O.Mu.No.2216/m3/2019, dated
30.09.2019 and quash the same and consequently, direct the fourth respondent to
approve the appointment of the petitioner and disburse all the service and
monetary benefits from the date of the appointment (i.e., 01.04.2019).
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Chellapandian
For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan,
Government Advocate for R1 to R4.
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the fourth
respondent in O.Mu.No.2216/m3/2019, dated 30.09.2019 and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner
and disburse all the service and monetary benefits from the date of the
appointment i.e., 01.04.2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.22516 of 2019
2. The fifth respondent school is a non-minority school and functioning
from the year 1931. Earlier it was founded by an individual as Primary School
for classes 1 to 5. After that the school was upgraded in the year of 1952 as
Middle School with 12 teaching staff. Since the registration of educational
agency became mandatory, the fifth respondent school registered under the Tamil
Nadu Societies Registration Act. Now, the said society is acting as educational
agency of the fifth respondent school. Once in every three years, the educational
agency would appoint the correspondent/secretary of the school to discharge the
day-to-day affairs of the school. The fifth respondent school receives grant in aid
from the Government. In the fifth respondent school, one Saral worked as a
Tamil Pandit was promoted as Headmaster on 01.04.2019. Due to the same, the
fifth respondent school intended to fill the said vacancy with suitable candidate.
The petitioner applied for the said post and the fifth respondent school appointed
the petitioner as Tamil Pandit on 01.04.2019. The fifth respondent school sent a
proposal to the fourth respondent for approval of the petitioner's appointment on
01.04.2019. However, the fourth respondent without giving any opportunity,
rejected the proposal, by the impugned order dated 30.09.2019, stating that in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.22516 of 2019
W.A.(MD)Nos.76 of 2019 etc., batch, this Court by order dated 09.04.2019,
directed the respondents “unless surplus posts are deployed in needy school, do
not approve the appointment made in the corporate management till then” and the
same is pending for adjudication. Hence, the petitioner has come out with the
present Writ Petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that only one
post of Tamil Pandit was sanctioned to the fifth respondent School, hence, no
question of surplus teacher arises. He further submitted that the reason given in
the impugned order for rejecting the proposal for approval of appointment by
referring G.O(Ms)No.165, School Education Department, dated 17.09.2019 and
the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 09.04.2019, made in
W.A(MD)No.76 of 2019 etc., batch, is unsustainable, in view of the subsequent
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.76 of 2019, dated
31.03.2021. In the said order, this Court has held that G.O.Ms.No.165, School
Education Department, dated 17.09.2019, issued in compliance of the interim
order dated 09.04.2019, referred in the impugned order, as inoperative and
therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.22516 of 2019
4. The fourth respondent filed counter affidavit. Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan,
learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondents 1 to 4 submitted that
the fourth respondent has rejected the proposal of the fifth respondent school in
view of the fact that the Government has directed not to approve any fresh
appointment of teachers until the surplus teachers working in other schools under
single/corporate body are deployed. In view of the same, the impugned order of
rejection is valid and prayed for dismissal of this Writ Petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and perused the
materials available on record carefully.
6. A reading of the impugned order shows that the fourth respondent has
rejected the proposal of the fifth respondent school referring to the Government
Order in G.O(Ms)No.165, School Education Department, dated 17.09.2019 and
the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 09.04.2019, made in W.A.
(MD)No.76 of 2019, etc., batch. In compliance of the above said order, the
Government issued G.O.(Ms)No.165, School Education Department, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.22516 of 2019
17.09.2019, with regard to re-deployment of surplus teachers. A Division Bench
of this Court, vide interim order dated 20.09.2019, in W.A.(MD)Nos.76 of 2019,
etc., batch, suspended the operation of the said Government Order until further
orders. Subsequently, another Division Bench of this Court, vide Judgment dated
31.03.2021 made the said Government Order as inoperative, in the very same writ
appeals. The fourth respondent, without considering the above legal position and
subsequent order of this Court, dated 20.09.2019 and the judgment dated
31.03.2021, made in the very same writ appeals, erroneously returned the
proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner.
7. For the above reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and
accordingly, the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent, dated
30.09.2019, is hereby set aside. The respondents 1 to 4 are directed to approve
the appointment of the petitioner, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible and pass
orders, in the light of the guidelines issued by the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.(MD)No.76 of 2019, dated 31.03.2021 within a period of twelve (12) weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.22516 of 2019
8. This Writ Petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
am
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.P(MD)No.22516 of 2019
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
am
To
1.The Secretary to the 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.
W.P(MD)No.22516 of 2019
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.19298 of 2019
22.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
