Madras High Court
P.Mariammal vs The Director Of School Education on 2 September, 2021
W.P.(MD).No.10573 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
W.P.(MD).No.10573 of 2013
P.Mariammal .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director of School Education
D.P.I Campus,
College Road, Chennai.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The secretary
Devangar Hr.Sec School
Neeravi, Kamudhi Taluk
Ramanthapuram District. ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for Entire records relating
to the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in his proceedings in
Na.Ka.No. 20251/V1/E3, dated .06.2013 and quash the same as illegal and
consequentially to directing herein to regularize the services of the petitioners
as full time vocational instructor on par with her juniors, by upgrading the
petitioner scale pay from consolidated pay to that of vocational instructors
Grade-II i.e. Secondary grade teacher scale of pay and then to that of full time
scale of pay ie., to vocational instructors Grade-I i.e. B.T. Assistant scale of pay.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/10
W.P.(MD).No.10573 of 2013
For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Shunmugathan
For R1 & R2 : Mr. M.Linga Durai
Government Advocate
For R3 : M/S.S.Xavier Rajini
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated
5.6.2013 and consequently to direct the respondents to regularize the services
of the petitioner as full time Vocational Instructor on par with her juniors, by
upgrading the petitioner pay scale from consolidated pay to that of vocational
instructors Grade-II ie., secondary grade teacher scale of pay and then to that of
Vocational instructor Grade-I ie., B.T Assistant.
2.The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition
are as follows.
(i)The petitioner was appointed as Vocational instructor in
Accountancy and Auditing in the third respondent school, on 25.09.1997. The
appointment was with effect from 26.09.1997 on consolidated pay of Rs.500/-.
The petitioner's appointment was approved by the second respondent, by
proceedings dated 4.6.2002 with effect from 26.9.1997. It is stated that the
order of the second respondent was, on the basis of the Government Order vide
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.10573 of 2013
G.O.Ms.No.991 Education Department, dated 16.07.1990 and another order
vide G.O.Ms.No. 680, dated 20.09.1996, regularizing the services of seven
teachers.
(ii)The Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.217 dated 13.05.1997 decided
to release and grant with effect from 01.06.1995 to certain approved private
schools enlisted therein. The third respondent school is found in Serial No.9. It
is seen that five posts of P.G Assistants and one part time Vocational instructor
post was sanctioned to the third respondent school by this G.O. It is the case of
the petitioner that the part time Vocational instructors, who were engaged on
consolidate pay basis, were regularized with time scale and that more than 361
persons were regularised as full time Vocational instructors. It is also the
specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner's junior by name V.Arthi was
benefited by G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 10.06.2002 to get regularization and time
scale. It is contended by the petitioner that the said V.Arthi was appointed on
31.05.2000 at Hairathal Jalalia Hr. school, Keelakarai, Ramanathapuram
District. Following G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 10.06.2002, the said teacher was given
scale of pay equal to selection grade teacher/Vocational Instructor Grade II.
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner also pointed out
that seven persons, who were on consolidated pay in the post of Vocational
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.10573 of 2013
instructors, were regularized by granting regular time scale with retrospective
effect based on Government orders. The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition in
W.P.(MD)No.14910 of 2011 for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the
respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner as full time Vocational
instructor on par with her juniors, by upgrading the petitioner's scale of pay
from consolidated pay to that of regular time scale for Vocational instructor
Grade-II.
4.This court, by ordered dated 4.2.2013, directed the petitioner to
submit a fresh representation to the first respondent, namely the Chief
Educational Officer Ramanathapuram and to direct the first respondent to
consider the representation taking note of the facts and circumstances stated by
the petitioner and to forward the proposal on merits and in accordance with law
to the second respondent for further orders. A direction was also issued to the
first respondent to do the exercise within a period of eight weeks.
5.The petitioner's further representation was unfortunately rejected by
the impugned order. By relying upon the Government Letter No.245 School
Education Department, dated 08.12.2008 the impugned order dated 5.6.2013
came to be passed by stating that the third respondent school was given
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.10573 of 2013
permission to start Vocational course subject to specific condition that no
Government aid or post will be sanctioned to the institution and that therefore
the petitioner's request cannot be considered. Challenging the said order, the
above writ petition is filed.
6.A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent by
stating that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1997-1998 as a part time
teacher purely on consolidated basis and that the remuneration payable to the
petitioner, cannot be more that was assured to them, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.
217 School Education Department, dated 13.5.1997. The second respondent
stated further that as per Government Letter No.245 School Education
Department, dated 08.12.2008, the teachers appointed after the crucial date viz.,
01.04.1992 are not entitled to such appointment in regular post. Sum and
substance it was highlighted as per section 14(A) of the Tamil Nadu
Recognized Private School (Regulation Act) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to
as the “Act” for short), no grant is payable to the new private Schools, new
class and course of instruction. It is contended that no private School
established subsequent to the date of commencement of the academic year
1991-1992, is eligible to get additional posts with Government aid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.10573 of 2013
7.The third respondent filed counter affidavit supporting the stand
taken by the petitioner stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ
petition. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
appointment of the petitioner was approved and that therefore, it cannot be
contended that the petitioner was not appointed as against the sanctioned post.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgement of
this court in the case of the V.Arthi -vs- Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District and 3 others, dated 05.09.2001 and submitted that
the direction of this court was complied with by approving the appointment of
the teachers and by extending the grant-in-aid and other consequential service
benefits. The learned Counsel also relied upon the judgment of this court in the
case Susila -vs- the Director of School Education Department and two others,
dated 15.3.2013 in W.P.(MD)No.13507 of 2013. It is stated by the learned
Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.13507
of 2013 was also appointed as Vocational instructor in Dhiraviyam Girls Higher
Secondary School, Kamalapuram, Mettur Gate Via, Dindugal District. It is
pointed out further that the said Dhiraviyam Girls Higher Secondary School
was also one of the Schools which is found in the list of annexure, to
G.O.Ms.No.217 dated 13.5.1997. Since the third respondent school is also one
of the Schools in respect of which the post of Vocational instructor was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.10573 of 2013
sanctioned, the learned Counsel submitted that there is an order in similar
circumstances that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief that was granted
to the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No. 13507 of 2013. This Court is unable to reject
the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
8.In the present case, the request of the petitioner for regularization
was rejected only by referring to the Section 14-A of the Act, which states that
no grant is payable to new private schools or new class or course of
instructions, which are commenced on or after the academic year 1991-1992. It
is demonstrated before this court that the Government has clarified the position
that the petitioner who was appointed as Vocational teacher is also entitled to
Government grant and Section 14-A of Act does not stand in the way of
extending the benefit to the petitioner who was holding the post that was
sanctioned. In view of the clarifications, vide Letter No.245 dated 18/12/2008,
the petitioner should be taken as appointed in the sanctioned post. It is also to
be noted that the petitioner was appointed in a post that was an existing post
and hence, it is not possible to appreciate the contention of the learned
Government Advocate that the the petitioner is not entitled to regularization by
virtue of Section 14-A of the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.10573 of 2013
9.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that
the Government has accepted the position in several cases as pointed out by the
learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent by order dated
26.11.2002 approved the appointment of one V.Arthi, despite the fact that the
said Arthi was appointed only on consolidated basis. It is also stated that the
order passed in the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No. 13507 of 2013, the services of
the petitioner in the said writ petition was regularised on par with other
Vocational instructors.
10.The learned Counsel for the third respondent referred to the
proceedings of the Joint Director, dated 31.5.2007. By this proceeding, the
teacher by name V.Arthi was upgraded as Vocational instructor Grade-I. It is
stated by the said communication that the said teacher is entitled to get
monetary benefits with effect from 08.07.2004. The learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner also stated that the petitioner is also entitled to upgradation as
Vocational instructor Grade-I and entitled to monetary benefits with effect from
08.07.2004.
11.Having accepted the position in tune with the judgment of this
Court in respect of other individuals, this Court is unable to appreciate the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.10573 of 2013
stand taken by the second respondent in the counter affidavit filed in the
present writ petition. This Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to
the relief and hence, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by
the first respondent in Na.Ka.No. 20251/V1/E3, dated Nil.06.2013 is quashed.
The first respondent is directed to regularize the service of the petitioner as full
time Vocational instructor on par with her juniors, by upgrading the petitioner's
pay scale from consolidated pay to that of pay applicable to the vocational
instructor Grade-II i.e. Secondary grade teacher. The respondents are also
directed to disburse the monetary benefits as expeditiously as possible
preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. The petitioner is also entitled to the next level of pay as applicable to
the Vocational instructor Grade-I as it was given to others who are similarly
placed. No costs.
02.09.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: yes / No
Sn/Ns
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.10573 of 2013
S.S. SUNDAR, J.,
Ns
To
1.The Director of School Education
D.P.I Campus,
College Road, Chennai
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The secretary
Devangar Hr.Sec School
Neeravi, Kamudhi Taluk
Ramanthapuram District.
W.P.(MD).No.10573 of 2013
02.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
