Madras High Court
R.Anandan vs The Principal Secretary on 11 April, 2022
W.P.No.24798 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.04.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.24798 of 2010
R.Anandan .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Principal Secretary,
School Education (V.E.) Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
D.P.I. Campus,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015. .. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining
to the issue of the order, dated Nil October, 2010 in proceedings bearing
Na.Ka.No.5386/A4/2010 and the consequent issue of the revised order,
dated 13.10.2010 bearing Na.Ka.No.5386/A4/2010 by the Chief
Educational Officer, Saidapet, Chennai – 15, the third respondent herein and
quash the same and direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner's
services as Vocational Instructor, Government Higher Secondary School,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.No.24798 of 2010
MGR Nagar, Chennai – 600 078 and thus, permit the petitioner to serve in
the General Machinist Course or in the alternative in any of the other
Government Schools as the Government may decide from time to time.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Ashok Kumar
For Respondents : Mrs.E.Ranganayaki,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the
proceedings, bearing Na.Ka.No.5386/A4/2010 and the consequent issue of
the revised order, dated 13.10.2010, bearing Na.Ka.No.5386/A4/2010 by
the Chief Educational Officer, Saidapet, Chennai – 15, the third respondent
herein.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined the service as
Vocational Instructor on 13.10.2010 having possessed of the relevant
qualification and he was paid a consolidated salary by the Parent-Teacher
Association. Subsequently, he was disengaged from the service in the
month of April, 2010. Thereafter, by the proceedings of the second
respondent, dated 08.07.2010, the cases of the teachers, who have joined
service between 02.06.2000 to 31.03.2007, were considered and their
services were regularised. The petitioner was left out just because he was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24798 of 2010
disengaged from the service only four months prior to the said order.
Therefore, he would submit that the case of the petitioner should also be
considered as similarly situated teachers who were being regularised.
3. Per contra, Mrs.E.Ranganayaki, learned Additional Government
Pleader would submit that this Court in exercise of power under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, cannot order any regularisation unless it is
provided for by the scheme of the Government, in view of the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi 1 case.
As far as the scheme of the Government is concerned, when the cases were
considered in the month of July, 2010, the services of the employees
whoever there in the service were regularised, unfortunately, depending on
the strength of the students and the subject involved, some of the teachers,
who were earlier served as Vocational Instructors were discharged from
duty for want of necessity and the petitioner is one such person and
therefore, since he was not in service as on the date of the scheme of the
Government, he could not be regularised in service.
1 (2006) 4 SCC 1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24798 of 2010
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
respondents cannot take such a narrow stand especially having decided to
confer the benefit of similarly situated individuals.
5. However, I am unable to accept the said contention of the learned
Counsel for the petitioner because a Division Bench of this Court, in its
judgment in W.A.No.995 of 2020, dated 01.12.2020, has considered the
very same issue and had held that Vocational Instructors, who were in
service as on the date of the Government Order, can be considered and any
such interpretation enlarging scope of the Government Order is
impermissible. Therefore, since the petitioner was not in service, when the
Government undertook the exercise of conferring regularisation, he was not
granted regularisation of service.
6. Therefore, this Court is unable to interfere with the action of the
respondents and the present Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 are closed.
11.04.2022
Index : yes/no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24798 of 2010
Speaking/Non-speaking order
grs
To
1. The Principal Secretary,
School Education (V.E.) Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
D.P.I. Campus,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24798 of 2010
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
grs
W.P.No.24798 of 2010
11.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
