Madras High Court
The Director Of School Education vs R.Padmavathy on 8 June, 2021
W.A.(MD).No.1678 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.06.2021
CORAM:
The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
The Hon'ble Mrs.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD).No.1678 of 2018
1.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai-600 006.
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai-600 006.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Palani Road,
Dindigul, Dindigul District. ...Appellants
Vs.
1.R.Padmavathy,
Music Teacher,
H.N.U.P.R.Girls Higher Secondary School,
Nilakottai,
Dindigul District.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).No.1678 of 2018
2.The Secretary,
H.N.U.P.R.Girls Higher Secondary School,
Nilakottai,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set
aside the order dated 18.01.2018 in W.P(MD).No.4249 of 2015 on the
file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.A.K.Manickam
Government Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.K.K.Kannan for R1
Mr.A.Chandrakumar for R2
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.]
This appeal by the Director of School Education and two others is
directed against the order dated 18.01.2018 in W.P.(MD).No.4249 of
2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).No.1678 of 2018
2. Heard, Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Government counsel
appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.K.Kannan, learned counsel
appearing for the first respondent, Mr.A.Chandrakumar, learned counsel
appearing for the second respondent.
3. The said writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein
praying for issuance of writ of Certiroarified Mandamus to quash the
proceedings of the third appellant dated 03.12.2012 and for a
consequential direction to the second respondent/Management to
sanction incentive increments for acquiring higher educational
qualification and to direct the third appellant to accord approval to the
incentive increments sanctioned by the second respondent/Management
and to pay all monetary benefits accruing thereon within a stipulated
time.
4. The reason assigned by the third respondent for not sanctioning
incentive increments was on the ground that the first respondent/writ
petitioner has not obtained prior permission from the Department before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).No.1678 of 2018
acquiring Higher Educational Qualification. The correctness of the order
passed by the third appellant was tested by the learned Writ Court and it
was found that the first respondent/writ petitioner had acquired the
Higher Educational Qualification in the years 2007, 2009 and 2011. But
the first respondent was faulted for having approached the Court
belatedly, that is only in the year 2014. The Court also took into
consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the first
respondent/writ petitioner that the Higher Educational Qualification was
entered in the Service Register and endorsed by the Officials of the
Department. In any event, the Court observed that the first
respondent/writ petitioner will be entitled to the actual benefits only from
the date of filing the writ petition (i.e.,) 01.08.2014 and will be entitled
for the notional benefits from the respective dates on which date, she
acquired the higher qualification.
5. Mr.K.K.Kannan, the learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the fact of endorsing the
Service Register of the writ petitioner by the officials of the Department
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).No.1678 of 2018
would lead to the conclusion that the Department was aware of the
acquisition of the Higher Educational qualification. It may be true that
while recording the Higher Educational qualification in the Service
Register, the Authorities might have endorsed the Service Register. But
the moot question would be whether the first respondent/writ petitioner
obtained prior permission for acquiring higher qualification. We need not
labour much to find a solution to this problem on account of the
submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent stating that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.116,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 15.10.2020,
wherein the Government has directed regularization of the acquisition of
higher educational qualification by the teachers by fixing a cut-off date.
However, the copy of the said Government order is not ready available
before this Court. Nevertheless, it is submitted that the first
respondent/writ petitioner would come within the cut-off date. Therefore,
the prayer has been made that the Department may be directed to take a
decision based on G.O.Ms.No.116 dated 15.10.2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).No.1678 of 2018
6. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed with the following
directions and the order is set aside, the matter is remanded back to the
Chief Educational Officer, Dindigul, who shall examine the first
respondent/writ petitioner's contentions in the light of G.O.Ms.No.116
dated 15.10.2020 and submit appropriate proposal to the second
appellant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment. The second appellant, on receiving the proposal from
the Chief Educational Officer, Dindigul, shall pass orders in the light of
G.O.Ms.No.116 dated 15.10.2020, within a period of eight weeks
thereafter.
(T.S.S.,J.) (S.A.I.,J.)
08.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ssb/tta
Note :
i. The copy of the Judgment be
marked to the Chief Educational
Officer, Dindigul.
ii. In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).No.1678 of 2018
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.A.(MD).No.1678 of 2018
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
ssb/tta
Order made in
W.A.(MD).No.1678 of 2018
Dated:
08.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
