Madras High Court
The Director vs G.L.Gracy on 22 September, 2021
Writ Appeal No.966 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.09.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
Writ Appeal No.966 of 2021
1. The Director,
State Council of Educational and Research Training,
Tamil Nadu, (TNSERT)
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai 600 006.
2. The Joint Director,
State Council of Educational and Research Training,
Tamil Nadu, (TNSERT)
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai 600 006.
3. The Principal,
District Institute of Education and Training (DIET),
Kaliyampoondi,
Kanchipuram District 603 402. ...
Appellants
vs.
1. G.L.Gracy
2. The Correspondent,
Gnananodhya Teacher Training Institute,
No.1/60, Polwells Road, St Thomas Mount,
Page No.1 of 6
http://www.judis.nic.in
Writ Appeal No.966 of 2021
Chennai 600 016. ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 28.10.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.11017 of 2020.
For Appellants : Mr.K.V.Sajeevkumar,
Government Advocate
For 1st Respondent : Mr.L.Chandrakumar
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court delivered by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.)
The present Appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated
28.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11017 of 2020.
2. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Appellants
contended that, the Writ Petitioner, who is the 1 st Respondent herein, was
only a Librarian and that, she did not discharge her work as a Junior
Assistant. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that, there was a ban with
regard to recruitment from the year 2001 till 2006 and that, the Writ
Petitioner has discharged her work as a Junior Assistant from 01.06.2006.
Secondly, it has been contended by the learned Government Advocate that,
there is an enormous delay on the part of the Writ Petitioner in approaching
this Court and on that score, the Writ Petition ought to have been dismissed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Writ Appeal No.966 of 2021
3. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent contended that,
as per the appointment order issued to the 1 st Respondent/Writ Petitioner, she
was discharging her duty as a Junior Assistant from 04.01.1999 and there
have been repeated representations to the Government from the Management
with regard to approval of her appointment in the post of Junior Assistant and
the same has been approved only on 14.03.2013, just 45 days prior to the
date of her retirement on 30.04.2013. He went on to state that, the ban on
recruitment, as contended by the Appellants, may not be applicable to the
facts of this case, as the Writ Petitioner was appointed much prior to the ban,
in the year 2001. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the Writ Petition
was rightly allowed by the learned Single Judge, and the same need not be
disturbed.
4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material
documents available on record.
5. Admittedly, the Writ Petitioner was appointed on 04.01.1999 as a
Junior Assistant in the 2nd Respondent/School, which is a minority Institution.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Writ Appeal No.966 of 2021
No Executive Order can deprive the benefits due to the staff employed in
minority Institutions, where the Statutory Regulation does not provide for
such requirement or stipulation. That apart, the Writ Petitioner was initially
appointed on 04.01.1999 and it was not during the period of ban and that, the
ban on recruitment has nothing to do with the approval that was granted to
the Writ Petitioner. The Writ Petitioner was appointed in the regular vacancy
and the learned Single Judge, after going through the supportive materials
including the records that were furnished before him, came to the conclusion
that, the Writ Petitioner's appointment need to be approved without any
restriction, with effect from 04.01.1999.
6. Hence, we find that, the order of the learned Single Judge setting
aside the impugned order dated 20.05.2020, insofar as it restricts the benefit
of approval only from 14.03.2013 till the date of retirement on 30.04.2013,
need not be interfered with.
7. Though, there is much force in the contention of the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the Appellants that, there is delay on the
part of the Writ Petitioner in approaching this Court, we make it clear that,
for the terminal benefits that may be granted to the 1 st Respondent/Writ
http://www.judis.nic.in
Writ Appeal No.966 of 2021
Petitioner, interest need not be paid.
8. Time granted by the learned Single Judge to the official
Respondents therein, is extended by three months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment.
In fine, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected C.M.P.No.5987 of 2021 is closed.
[S.V.N.,J.] [A.A.N.,J.]
22.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
(vm/aeb)
http://www.judis.nic.in
Writ Appeal No.966 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
A.A.NAKKIRAN,J.
(aeb)
Judgment in
W.A.No.966 of 2021
22.09.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
