Madras High Court
S.Anurebecca vs The Secretary To The Government on 23 July, 2021
W.P(MD)No.13361 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P(MD)No.13361 of 2018
S.Anurebecca ... 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
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.13361 of 2018
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating
to the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent in 858/A3/2018,
dated 02.05.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the fourth
respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner with all other
consequential service and monetary benefits with effect from 15.06.2011.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Chellapandian
For RR 1 to 4 : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, to quash the
impugned order passed by the fourth respondent, dated 02.05.2018 and to
direct the fourth respondent to approve her appointment with all other
consequential service and monetary benefits with effect from 15.06.2011.
2.According to the petitioner, she is a physically challenged woman
with ailment of deaf and dumb with 90% disability and she is qualified to be
appointed as Sewing teacher. A vacancy arose in the fifth respondent School
as the earlier incumbent has attained the age of superannuation. The fifth
respondent School is a recognized non-minority aided School and receiving
grant-in-aid from the Government. The fifth respondent School, after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.13361 of 2018
following the procedure, on 15.06.2011 appointed the petitioner as Sewing
teacher. The fifth respondent School, after appointment, submitted the
proposal to the fourth respondent for approval of appointment of the
petitioner. The fourth respondent returned the proposal for production of
G.O, which enable the fifth respondent School to appoint physically
challenged person. The fifth respondent School re-submitted the proposal in
the year 2014 itself. The fourth respondent, for obvious reasons, did not
receive the proposal. Finally, on repeated requests of the petitioner, the
fourth respondent received the proposal on 05.03.2018. The fifth
respondent, by the impugned order, dated 02.05.2018, again rejected the
proposal on the ground that the post is surplus and there was a delay in
re-submitting the proposal. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come
out the present Writ Petition.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is fully qualified to be appointed as Sewing teacher and as per
G.O.Ms.No.619, Education (M2) Department, dated 23.06.1993, a physically
challenged person, like the petitioner is eligible to be appointed as Sewing
teacher in the fifth respondent School. The reasons given by the fourth
respondent were that the post of Sewing teacher was declared as surplus
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.13361 of 2018
and the proposal was re-submitted after delay are not valid. The post of
Sewing teacher is a sanctioned post and it will not lapse on retirement of
incumbent.
4.In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner relied on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A(MD)No.1207 of 2016, dated 23.08.2016 [The Secretary to
Government, School Education Department Vs. S.Renganayagi],
wherein it has been held as follows:-
“11.Therefore, we have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever
to dismiss the Writ Appeal. We may take this opportunity to add
one other reason. Admittedly, there are large number of girl
students pursuing various courses in the School concerned. My be
their strength my have fallen short of the number of 250
prescribed, as necessary for sanction of a post. But however, the
State, as a wise policy, has sanctioned such posts to the Schools,
so that, the vocational skills can be imparted to the girl students.
In the instant case, the vocation training sought to be imparted
related to tailoring an avocation which better suits the girl students
to enhance their employment capabilities in the later part of life.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.13361 of 2018
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted
that the petitioner will forego the monetary benefits from the date of
appointment till re-submission of the proposal, dated 05.03.2018 and
prayed for allowing the Writ Petition.
6.The respondents 1 to 4 filed counter-affidavit.
7.Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the post of Sewing teacher has become
surplus in the year 2010-11 and therefore, the appointment of the
petitioner is not valid. The staff strength was fixed, as per the students
strength and therefore, the impugned order passed by the fourth
respondent is valid and legal. The learned Government Advocate further
submitted that the proposal sent by the fifth respondent School was
returned on 01.03.2013. The fifth respondent School re-submitted the
proposal only on 05.03.2018, after the delay of 5 years and prayed for
dismissal of the Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.13361 of 2018
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and
perused the entire materials available on record.
9.On a perusal of the entire materials available on record, it is seen
that the petitioner was appointed as Sewing teacher in the fifth respondent
School on 15.06.2011. The proposal sent by the fifth respondent School was
returned on 01.03.2013, directing the fifth respondent School to furnish the
Government Order, which enables the fifth respondent School to appoint
physically challenged person, like the petitioner and also stated that the
post of Sewing teacher is shown as surplus in the staff strength fixed for the
year 2010-2011 and the certificate of the Correspondent of the fifth
respondent School shows that there is no surplus teacher is contrary to the
staff fixation. It is not in dispute that the post of Sewing teacher was
sanctioned to the fifth respondent School.
10.According to the fourth respondent, the said post has become
surplus on the staff strength as the incumbent retired from service. The
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are number
of girl students in the fifth respondent School and Sewing teacher is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.13361 of 2018
necessary for the benefit of girl students. The sanctioned post is a single
post and therefore, the appointment of the petitioner is valid, has
considerable force and it is acceptable.
11.As per the ratio in the Judgment referred to above in
W.A(MD)No.1207 of 2016, dated 23.08.2016 [The Secretary to
Government, School Education Department Vs. S.Renganayagi],
when there are number of girl students, a Sewing teacher is necessary for
the benefit of girl students.
12.The petitioner has stated that she has taught girl students
embroidery work and the students, who learnt embroidery work, are now
Tailors by profession in their locality and are earning considerable amounts
by doing their embroidery work.
13.Considering the above facts, the reason given by the fourth
respondent that the post is surplus is not a valid reason. Accordingly, the
impugned order, dated 02.05.2018, passed by the fourth respondent is
liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The fifth respondent School is
directed to re-submit the proposal within a period of four weeks from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.13361 of 2018
date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the proposal, the
respondents 1 to 4 are directed to consider the proposal submitted by the
fifth respondent School and grant approval for the appointment of the
petitioner, if she is otherwise eligible, within a period of four weeks
thereafter.
14.Further, it is the case of the petitioner that the fifth respondent
School re-submitted the proposal in the year 2014 itself, but the fourth
respondent did not accept the same. In the counter-affidavit, the
respondents 1 to 4 have stated the fifth respondent School re-submitted the
proposal only on 05.03.2018.
15.From the materials available on record, it is seen that the fifth
respondent School has not taken any steps to send the proposal by
registered post with acknowledgement due or approached this Court for a
direction to the fourth respondent to receive the proposal. Further, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that
the petitioner will not claim any monetary benefits from the date of her
appointment till the date of re-submission of the proposal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.13361 of 2018
16.In view of the same, as and when the fourth respondent approved
the proposal, the fifth respondent School will be entitled to receive
grant-in-aid only from 05.03.2018, when the proposal was re-submitted.
17.With the above directions, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. No
costs.
23.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
ps
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.13361 of 2018
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
ps
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.13361 of 2018
23.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
