Madras High Court
B.Mary Theresa vs Mr.Pradeep Yadhav on 8 April, 2022
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
B.Mary Theresa ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Mr.Pradeep Yadhav,
The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 9.
2.Mr.Karuppasamy,
The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 6.
3.Mrs.S.Vijayalakshmi,
The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli,
Now situated in Vallioor,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/22
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
4.Mr.Chandrasekaran,
The Additional Elementary Educational Officer,
Radhapuram,
Tirunelveli District. ... Contemnors/Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act,
1971, to punish the respondent for wilfully disobeying and not complying with
the order of this Court, dated 21.01.2015, in W.P.(MD)No.7596 of 2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar
For Respondents : Mr.V.Omprakash,
Government Advocate (Civil Side).
ORDER
This Contempt Petition has been filed alleging disobedience of the
order dated 21.01.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.7596 of 2013.
2. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.7596 of 2013 was filed to
quash the impugned order dated 26.10.2006 insofar as it relates to the approval of
the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 26.05.2005 as Secondary Grade
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
Teacher instead of 02.06.2003 and the consequential order of the fourth
respondent dated 22.04.2013 and consequently direct the respondents herein to
approve the appointment of the petitioner herein as Secondary Grade Teacher
with effect from 02.06.2003 and pay salary from 02.06.2003 to 25.05.2005 with
all attendant benefits and privileges.
3. This Court has allowed the Writ Petition stating that the impugned
order is set aside to the extent that it restricted the payment of salary from
09.03.2005 and denied all pensionary benefits. This Court has allowed the Writ
Petition and directed the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner
with effect from 02.06.2003 and pay salary from 02.06.2003 to 25.05.2005 with
all attendant benefits within a period of twelve (12) weeks.
4. It is seen from the records that the respondents has preferred Writ
Appeal in W.A.(MD).No.1539 of 216 and the same was dismissed on 08.08.2017.
After the dismissal of the Writ Appeal, the petitioner approached the respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
to comply with the order dated 21.01.2015 in W.P.(MD)No.7596 of 2013. Since
the same was not complied, the writ petitioner again preferred Writ Petition in
W.P.(MD).No.1732 of 2019 prayed for Mandamus to implement the order passed
in W.P.(MD).No.7596 of 2013 dated 21.01.2015. However, the same was
dismissed vide order dated 30.01.2019 giving liberty to the petitioner to file
Contempt Petition. Hence the Contempt Petition is filed.
5. The Contemnors have filed a counter affidavit where it is stated
that the petitioner was working in Raja Primary School, Echadi, Tirunelveli
seeking to approve his appointment from 04.02.1998 as Secondary Grade
Teacher. The petitioner is having a qualification of B.A., B.Ed., and appointed as
Secondary Grade Teacher without obtaining prior permission from the
Government. The petitioner had completed the Child Psychology Training from
25.05.2005 to 24.06.2005 as per G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 22.03.2005. Then the salary
was given from 26.05.2005 after completion of Child Psychology Training. The
petitioner has challenged the present Writ Petition and prayed to grant salary from
02.06.2003 to 25.05.2005. After the Writ Petition was allowed, the respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
preferred Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD).No.1539 of 2016 and the same was dismissed
on 08.08.2017. Aggrieved over the same, the Department preferred Review
Application along with Condone Delay Petition in C.M.P.(MD).No.8879 of 2019
in Review Application SR.(MD). No. 59277 of 2019 and this Court has ordered
notice to the respondents on 14.08.2019 in Condone Delay Petition. The
respondents have already paid batta and obtained SR.No.17710 of 2020.
6. The claim of the petitioner is to grant salary from the year 2003 to
2005, without completing Child Psychology Training. It is against the order
passed in Pallivasal case reported in 2002 Writ Law Reporter 173 and 2004-2-
L.W. 591. Moreover, the claim of the petitioner is against the G.O.Ms.No.155
and hence the respondents have filed a Review Application. Therefore, the
respondents prayed to purge them from contempt proceedings until the disposal
of the Review Application.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
7. Heard Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.V.Omprakash, learned Government Advocate (Civil Side) for the respondents.
8. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a similar
case, this Court has granted the same relief in W.P.(MD).No.513 of 2012 dated
26.03.2013. The petitioner has relied on the order dated 08.08.2017 passed in
W.A. (MD) No. 1539 / 2016. The respondents have relied on the judgment passed
in Pallivasal case by the Division Bench.
9. The writ petitioner is B.T. Assistant but appointed in Secondary
Grade Teacher vacancies post i.e. the teachers did not possess requisite
qualification required for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. In other words,
the teachers were over qualified. The issue of appointing teacher with higher
qualification to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher has a long history and the
same is narrated hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
i. The Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 559 Education, Science and Tech-
nology Department dated 11.07.1995 and did not approve the appointment
of B.T Assistants / Tamil Pandit in the Secondary Grade post vacancies.
Thereafter the government has issued another G.O. Ms. No. 203 Education,
Science and Technology Department dated 19.03.1996 stating that such ap-
pointment should not be restored to after 11.07.1995, which is the date of
issue of G.O. 559. Challenging the said G.O. 559 several writ petitions
were filed and the litigation attained finality in Division Bench in Secretary
and Correspondent, Uswathun Hasana Oriental (Arabic) Girls Higher Sec-
ondary School, Pallapatti, 639 205 VS the State of Tamil Nadu and others
reported in 2002 Writ Law Reporter 173, wherein it has been held that the
G.O. 559 is valid, the B.Ed. teachers do not possess the requisite qualifica-
tion to be appointed in the vacancy of Secondary Grade Teacher post. Since
several persons were appointed and the teachers had put in service for more
than 10 years, the Government had taken a sympathetic view and submitted
before the Honourable Court that the Government would consider to give
practical training or even choose to individually examine each case on its
own merits.
ii. Based on the same the Government had issued G.O. Ms. 155 dated
03.10.2002. The said G.O. was challenged in several writ petitions and in
writ appeal W.A. No. 249 / 2002 batch the State of Tamil Nadu and others
VS Pallivasal Primary School reported in 2004-2-L.W. 591 and the issue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
had attained finality. The Honourable Court has upheld the G.O. 155 and
has held in paragraph 8 that “the Government has shown great concession
to them by allowing them to retain their position even without obtaining
the requisite diploma in child psychology and we see nothing wrong in the
government directing their approval / confirmation can only be on and
after the date they complete the training.” In Pallivasal case the only re-
lief granted to the teachers is that already paid salary would not be recov-
ered. The Clause No. 3 (vii) of G.O. 155 alone was set aside and the rest of
the G.O. was upheld.
iii. Thereafter again the teachers started fresh litigations by filing the fresh
petitions claiming special grade, selection grade, incentive increment for
higher studies, incentive increment, annual increments and other benefits.
Again, several writ petitions and writ appeal were filed and conflicting
judgments were rendered. Thereafter the issue was settled in W.A. (MD)
No. 74 / 2015 batch wherein it has been held that the teachers are not enti-
tled to salary, selection grade / special grade, increments and other benefits
for the period rendered prior to child psychology training. In other words
the teachers are entitled salary, selection grade / special grade, increments
and other benefits only after completion of child psychology training.
iv. The benefits of G.O. Ms. No. 155 School Education (D2) Department,
dated 03.10.2002 was extended to teachers who were appointed from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
11.07.1995 to 19.05.1998. The G.O. Ms. No. 150 Education Department
(B1) Department dated 02.07.2007 was extended to 22 teachers who were
appointed from 20.05.1998 to 29.06.2001 (being the date of judgment in
Uswathun Hasana case).
v. In Pallivasal case the Honourable Court has held that the past service
can be calculated only for the pensionary benefits. However, there is no dis-
cussion on the issue and it is only a passing remarks. Thereafter the govern-
ment has taken the same into consideration and has issued G.O.No.413 is-
sued by the Finance (PGC) Department, dated 04.11.2010 granting pen-
sionary benefits by taking the past service into consideration.
vi. The issue of paying the benefits after completion of child psychology
was considered before Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.
1327 of 2019 filed against W.A. No. 956 / 2018 dated 04.07.2018 in Direc-
tor of Elementary Education & Others Vs S. Rajathi & Another, wherein it
has been held that, “We however permit the petitioners to approach the
High Court by filing a review application with regard to ground in the
memo of appeal that even if respondent was to be approved then she could
be approved only from the date of completion of psychology training which
was completed on 05.10.2016 and the payment of all benefits of served
ought to have been with effect from 05.10.2016 on which date the respon-
dent completed the training. We further grant liberty to the appellants to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
come again in event the order is passed against them. With the aforesaid
liberty, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.”
10. There are several orders passed in several writ petitions granting the
relief, but the issue was settled subsequently in W.A.(MD) No. 74 of 2016 and the
Division Bench has taken note of the several orders and has held as under:
“10. The learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners retired on
certain other orders passed by various single Benches including one of us
(TSSJ) and on perusal of the same. We find that in none of those
directions, the full effect of G.O.Ms.No.155 and the conditions therein
have been thoroughly examined. Apart from that, the decision in the case
of Pallivasal Primary School has not been specifically noted. Therefore,
we are of the considered view, that those decisions cannot be referred to
advance the case of the respondents/writ petitioners, though some of them
have attained finality. Needless to state that if there has been a wrong
decision, it cannot be treated as precedent.”
11. The earlier Division Bench order rendered in W.A.(MD)No.74 of
2015, the Court has elaborately dealt with G.O.Ms.No.155, dated 03.10.2002,
where it has been held as under:
“3. The entire background in which the Government Order
came to be issued is set out in that Government Order. By
G.O.Ms.No.559 dated 11.07.1995 it was directed that B.Ed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
Teachers shall not be appointed in Secondary Grade vacancies.
Despite that order, appointment of persons like the
appellants/petitioners before us were made in contravention of that
Government Order. The validity of that G.O. was also challenged
unsuccessfully. In the Writ Appeals preferred against the judgment
dismissing the writ petitions, the Division Bench upheld
G.O.Ms.No.559. The natural consequence of that could have been
the throwing out of employment persons like the
appellants/petitioners who had been employed in violation of that
G.O.”
…
“7. Pursuant to which, G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 03.10.2002 was
issued. The said Government Order provided for imparting one
month child psychology training for all those Teachers, who
possessed B.Ed. qualification and appointed in Secondary Grade
vacancies, which appointment was held to be not sustainable by the
Division Bench. As the Teachers does not possess the requisite
qualification, the Government, while granting such concession
imposed a condition, which appears to have been unequivocally
accepted by the Teachers. Otherwise, they would have lost the
chance of getting absorbed into service. The question would be as
to whether the Teachers would be entitled to get salary from the
date of first appointment, i.e., the order of irregular appointment
and as to whether they would be entitled for salary in the Secondary
Grade scale from the date of completion of child psychology
training. There can be no controversy on the aspect as the
Government order clearly stipulates as to from what date the
Secondary Grade scale of pay is liable to be paid to those Teachers
including the respondents. This is contained in Clause 3(iii) of
G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 03.10.2002, which reads as follows:
“(iii)Nkw;fz;l epakdq;fs; murhizf;Fg; Gwk;ghf
nra;ag;gl;Ls;sjhYk;> ,e;epakdjhuh;fshy; njhlug;gl;l hpl;
kDf;fs; kw;Wk; mjid vjph;j;J js;Sgb
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
nra;ag;gl;Ls;sjhYk; Nkw;fz;l epakdq;fSf;F epakd Kjy;
xg;Gjy; toq;fp, me;ehs; Kjy; Cjpak; toq;f ,ayhJ.
vdNt> Nkw;fz;l gapw;rpia Kbj;j ehspypUe;J ,th;fSf;F
Kiwahd ,ilepiy Mrphpah;fshf epakd xg;Gjy; mspj;J>
me;j ehspypUe;J kl;LNk ,ilepiy Mrphpah; Cjpak; toq;f
Ntz;Lk; vd;W Mizaplg;gLfpwJ.”
Another condition, which would be relevant for the present
case is clause 3(viii) of G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 03.10.2002, which
reads as follows:
' (iii) Nkw;fz;l egh;fs; epakd xg;Gjypd;wp gzpGhpe;j
fhyj;ij mq;fPfhpf;fg;gl;l jdpahh; gs;spfspy; gjtp
cah;Tf;Nfh Cjpa eph;zaj;jpw;Nfh, Xa;T+jpag; gad;fs;
toq;Ftjw;Nfh fzf;fpy; nfhs;sf; $lhJ vd;Wk;
njhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.”
,ilepiy Mrphpah; gzpaplj;jpy; epakpf;fg;gLk;
gl;ljhhp/jkpohrphpah; jFjp ngw;w egh;fSf;F ,ilepiy
Mrphpah;fSf;fhd Cjpa tpfpjk;jhd; toq;fg;gLk; vd;Wk;>
Ntnwe;j rpwg;Gr; rYifAk; mspf;fg;glkhl;lhJ vd;Wk;.
mth;fs; ,ilepiy Mrphpauhf gzpahw;Wk; fhyj;jpy; cah;
fy;tpj; jFjpf;fhd rpwg;G Cjpa cah;T toq;Fk;
jpl;lk; ,th;fSf;Fg; nghUe;jhJ vd;Wk; ,jw;fhd
cWjpnkhopr; rhd;W rk;ge;jg;gl;l egh;fsplkpUe;J ngwg;gl
Ntz;Lnkd;Wk; njhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.
9.The management of various Schools, which had appointed
Teachers like the respondents had challenged the validity of
G.O.Ms.No155 dated 03.10.2002 and the matter travelled upto the
Division Bench and the Division Bench in the case of The State of
Tamil Nadu and others v. Pallivasal Primary School reported in
2004-2-L.W. 591 upheld G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 03.10.2002. The
only relief granted to the Teachers, who were appointed in
Secondary Grade vacancies, is the grant of salaries, whereby
restraining the department from effecting any recovery. Therefore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
paragraph No.3(7) of G.O.Ms.No.155 alone was set aside and rest
of the Government Order was upheld in the said decision. It was
subsequently ordered that approval/confirmation of the appointment
can be only after the date of completion of the child psychology
training. Further the Division Bench observed that the past service
i.e. prior service child psychology training shall count. After the
decision rendered in the case of Pallivasal has attained finality, the
respondent/writ petitioners seek for salary for the earlier period as
well as for other monetary benefits such as increment, selection
grade and special grade, etc. We have given our careful
consideration. We find in paragraph No.7 of its judgment, the
Hon'ble Division Bench has noted the various condition in
G.O.Ms.No.155 and held that the respondent therein would be
entitled to relief as granted to similarly placed teachers. If that is
so, the ultimate conclusion would have been to grant benefit from
the date of completion of the child psychology training. However in
the penultimate portion of the order her salary has also been
included. In our considered view, the direction to pay salary does
not corroborate with the observation made by the Division Bench,
in the decision in the case Suganthi Victoria. The Government had
admitted that at best it can be taken as a decision pertaining to the
said case on its factual matrix and that cannot be taken as a
precedent. In the case of Government of Tamil Nadu v. Sri Rao
Bahadur AKD Dharmaraja Girls Higher Secondary School in W.A.
(MD)No.3442 of 2002 dated 08.09.2006, the Division Bench,
relying on the decision of the case reported in 2002 Writ L.R. 173,
held that the salary can be paid only after completion of the child
psychology training and accordingly, allowed the Government
appeal
“10. The learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners
retired on certain other orders passed by various single Benches
including one of us (TSSJ) and on perusal of the same. We find that
in none of those directions, the full effect of G.O.Ms.No.155 and the
conditions therein have been thoroughly examined. Apart from that,
the decision in the case of Pallivasal Primary School has not been
specifically noted. Therefore, we are of the considered view, that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
those decisions cannot be referred to advance the case of the
respondents/writ petitioners, though some of them have attained
finality. Needless to state that if there has been a wrong decision, it
cannot be treated as precedent.
11. In the light of the above reasoning, we are of the considered
view that the order passed by the Writ Court directing disbursement
of salary from the date of original appointment, cannot be
sustained, in the light of explicit condition imposed in G.O.Ms. No.
155, which was upheld by the Division Bench in a Public Interest
Litigation. Thus, for the above reasons, the writ appeals filed by the
department has be to allowed.”
12. The order passed in Pallivasal case was also not brought to the
knowledge of any Courts. In Pallivasal case, the affected employees had raised a
plea regarding salary and also other benefits. The Division Bench has clearly
rendered that the employees are not entitled to any claim and only relief granted is
that the salary already paid need not be recovered. The issue of sending the
teachers belatedly to the training was also considered by the Division Bench in
Pallivasal case. The relevant portion of the Pallivasal case is extracted hereunder:
“3. The entire background in which the Government Order came to be
issued is set out in that Government Order. By G.O. Ms. No: 559 dated
11.07.1995 it was directed that B.Ed. Teachers shall not be appointed in
Secondary Grade vacancies. Despite that order, appointment of persons
like the appellants / petitioners before us were made in contravention of
that Government Order. The validity of that G.O. was also challenged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
unsuccessfully. In the Writ Appeals preferred against the judgment
dismissing the writ petitions, the Division Bench upheld G.O. Ms. No: 559.
The natural consequence of that could have been the throwing out of
employment persons like the appellants / petitioners who had been
employed in violation of that G.O.
4. With a view to mitigate their hardships, the Court, after recording a
submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General that efforts
would be made to save the employment of these persons, left it open to the
Government to frame an appropriate scheme in that regard.
5. The Government thereafter provided training in child psychology to the
persons who had been appointed in contravention of the G.O. 559 prior to
the date of dismissal of the writ petition on 12.09.1997. Those persons
were to be confirmed in their places after completion of training and with
effect from the date they complete the training.
6. The Government Order No: 155 directs recovery of salary paid to the
appellants/ petitioners on the ground that prior to their completing the
training, they could not have held the posts that were held by them. There
is no dispute about the fact that these persons had actually worked. Salary
paid to persons who had actually rendered service cannot be regarded as
amount paid as gratis. More over the Division Bench had noticed the fact
that these persons had been working and had indicated that it would be
equitable to allow them to remain in employment. It was left to the
Government to device a scheme by which these persons could acquire
qualifications which were essential for holding the post to which they had
been appointed at a time when they did not possess the qualification. The
salary that had been paid to them during that period when they were
actually teaching, even though without the requisite qualifications, in our
view, is not an amount which they should be called upon to repay. It has
been noticed by the Division Bench which upheld the G.O. Ms. No: 559
that most of these teachers came from a poor background, that it was after
a great deal of effort before that they could equip themselves to a limited
extent and thereafter had been working in the schools for meager salaries.
Directing such persons to repay huge amounts, huge amounts because the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
entire salary paid over a period of nearly nine years would amount to
inasmuch as over five lakhs of rupees per person, would cause untold
hardship to such teachers. We, therefore, set aside that part of the
Government Order namely sub-para (vii) of Para 3 which directs recovery
from these teachers.
7. So far as the approvals / confirmation is concerned, Government was
not under any duty to approve or confirm the appointment of appellants /
petitioners who did not possess the qualifications prescribed when, they
were improperly appointed to the posts. Their position cannot be equated
to that of those who possess the qualification and had been duly appointed.
Their remaining in their post was only by reason of a sympathetic view
taken by the Division Bench which had upheld the Government Order
which had directed that persons with B.Ed. Qualification are not to be
appointed in Secondary Grade vacancies.
8. Their right to be regarded as persons eligible for confirmation /
approval can be said to arise only after they acquired, after their training,
a minimum prescribed qualification. The Government here has shown
great concession to them by allowing them to retain their position even
without obtaining the requisite diploma or certificate in child psychology
by giving to them training in child psychology. We see nothing wrong in
the Government directing that their approval / confirmation can only be
on and after the date they complete the training. Their past service
however shall count for pension.
9. It was submitted by some of the counsel for the appellants / petitioners
that there was delay in providing training. Complaint of this nature
cannot be made by such of these persons. Even according to them over
1000 persons have been appointed contrary to the G.O. Ms. No: 559. The
fact that Government took some time to formulate a scheme and provide
training to them in batches cannot be a matter for complaint especially
as the continued functioning of these persons as teachers was not
disturbed on account of the time required by the Government for
providing training.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
10. A submission was also made for some of those among the appellants /
petitioners that they have not been paid salary by the State. The State was
not under any obligation to pay salary to persons who were not qualified
and who have been appointed contrary to Government Order. Such persons
must have been paid some amount by the management who employed them.
Government cannot be directed to shoulder that liability for payment to
such persons and in cases where payment had not been made. What has
been said by us in relation to the persons who had received salary and
recovery from whom has been held by us to be unwarranted, would apply
to the Government as well as any direction to it to pay salary to a large
number of such persons who did not, at the relevant time, possess the
prescribed qualification, would result in a huge burden being imposed on
the Government even when it had committed no wrong.
11. We, therefore, allow the writ appeals and writ petitions to the limited
extent of directing that no recovery be made from the persons to whom the
Government had already released grants and paid salaries. The writ
appeals / writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. Connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
13. The claim of the teachers is beyond the scope of G.O. 155 and
G.O. 150, since both the G.O. prescribes that the teacher would be considered
after the completion of one month Child Psychology course and the same is
affirmed in two Division Bench Judgments. The claim of the petitioner to
consider without completion of Child Psychology is going to the root of the issue
and it is against the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Pallivasal Case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
and besides the entire exercise of issuing G.O. 155, G.O. 150 are being nullified.
If the claim of the petitioner is considered, the issue will be again push to square
one situation. Admittedly from 2003 to 2005, the petitioner was not qualified to
hold the post without Child Psychology Training. There cannot be any deeming
provision which will be straight against to the judgment rendered in Pallivasal
case. The Division Bench has also held that petitioners cannot complaint “belated
training” since there are more than 1000 such teachers and it has also been held
that the one month Child Psychology course itself is a concession granted to such
appointments and the petitioner is seeking further concession is not permissible.
If the claim of the petitioner is granted, it is against the judgment passed by
Division Bench in Pallivasal case, wherein it has been specifically upheld the
validity of G.O. Ms. No. 155 and categorically held the appointment shall be
considered only after completion of one month Child Psychology course. The
G.O. 155 and the earlier Pallivasal case has not been taken into account in any of
the judgments cited by the petitioner. The comprehensive reading of all the three
Division Bench judgments namely W.A. No. 991 of 1998 (Uswathun Hasana
case), W.A. No. 242 of 2002 (Pallivasal case) and W.A.(MD)No.74 of 2015
(Sundarvel Raj case) would state,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
i.That the paid salary cannot be recovered.
ii. The teachers are not entitled to any secondary grade teacher salary for
the past period.
iii. The teachers are not entitled to any other monetary benefits such as
annual increment, incentive increment for higher qualification, selection
grade and special grade or any other benefits except pensionary benefits.
iv. The appointment shall be approved from the date of completion of
Child Psychology Training.
14. This Court with pain is recording that there is a trend followed by
the litigants. The issue was settled in Pallivasal case as earlier as 02.04.2004 and
the ratio decidendi of the judgment was not brought to the knowledge of the
Court while dealing with the subsequent writ petitions. By this trend, diagonally
opposite judgments are being rendered leading to inconsistence orders.
15. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgments
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
rendered in W.A. No. 991 of 1998 (Uswathun Hasana case), W.A. No. 242 of
2002 (Pallivasal case) and W.A.(MD)No.74 of 2015 (Sundarvel Raj case) has
held the correct preposition of law, where it has been clearly held that the
petitioner is not entitled to any benefits for the service rendered prior to Child
Psychology Training for any purpose except for pensionary benefits.
16. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no
willful disobedience. Since there are inconsistent orders, rightly the respondents
have preferred a Review Application. Until the issue settled in the Review
Application, the respondents cannot be held that they have committed any
contempt.
17. Hence the Contempt Petition is closed with liberty to the
petitioner to re-open after the disposal of the Review Application.
Index : Yes / No 08.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
Internet : Yes
Nsr
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.
To
1.The Secretary,
The Government of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 6.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli,
Now situated in Vallioor,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Additional Elementary Educational Officer,
Radhapuram,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
S.SRIMATHY, J
Nsr
Order made in
CONT P(MD)No.336 of 2019
08.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
