Madras High Court
The Chief Educational Officer vs A.Thamaraiselvi on 12 December, 2022
W.A(MD)No.1479 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.12.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A(MD)No.1479 of 2022
and
CMP(MD)No.12103 of 2022
1. The Chief Educational Officer,
Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
2. The District Educational Officer,
Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District. ... Appellants
vs.
1. A.Thamaraiselvi
2.Rayagiri Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai
Thiru SI.BA.Sivanthiathithanar Higher Secondary School,
Represented by its Secretary,
Rayagiri, Sivagiri Taluk,
Tenkasi District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent,
against the order passed in W.P(MD)No.20402 of 2021 dated
30.06.2022.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1479 of 2022
For Appellants : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Additional Advocate General, assisted by
Mr.D.Sadiq Raja
Additional Government Pleader
For R1 : Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
The Writ Appeal is directed against the order made in
W.P(MD)No.20402 of 2021 dated 30.06.2022.
2. By consent of both parties, the writ appeal itself is taken up
for final disposal at the admission stage.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
appellants submitted that the 2nd respondent school is an aided non-
minority school, in which, one post of P.G. Assistant fell vacant on
02.07.2018 due to the promotion of the then incumbent as
Headmaster. The 2nd respondent school management sought for prior
permission to fill up the said post and the same was granted by the 1st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1479 of 2022
appellant vide proceedings dated 26.07.2019. Pursuant to the same,
the 2nd respondent school appointed the 1st respondent/writ petitioner
as P.G. Assistant(Chemistry) in the said vacancy with effect from
30.08.2019 and on the same day, the 2nd respondent school forwarded
a proposal to the appellants seeking approval of the said appointment.
The said proposal was initially returned by the 2nd appellant by raising
certain queries on 07.05.2021 and the same was represented by the
2nd respondent school on 06.07.2021 and after due consideration, the
1st appellant had returned the same to the 2nd appellant vide
proceedings dated 29.09.2021, stating that the proposal submitted by
the school management can be considered only after completion of
the deployment process carried out by the department as per the
directions issued by this Court in W.A(MD)No.76 of 2019 & etc, dated
31.03.2021 and the same was duly communicated by the 2 nd appellant
vide proceedings dated 27.10.2021 to the 2nd respondent school.
Challenging the same, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner filed
W.P(MD)No.20402 of 2021 and the same was allowed by this Court
vide order dated 30.06.2022 setting aside the orders impugned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1479 of 2022
therein, on the ground that the Hon'ble Apex Court has granted stay
only in respect of paragraph 148(i) of the order passed in W.A(MD)No.
76 of 2019 & etc and the said portion does not relate to the issue
involved in the writ petition. Challenging the said order, the Education
Department has come up with this appeal.
4. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the
direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the 1st appellant to
pass orders approving the 1st respondent's appointment as Post
Graduate Assistant is contrary to the Division Bench judgment in
W.A(MD)No.76 of 2019 & etc, dated 31.03.2021 and therefore, he
would pray for setting aside the order passed by the learned Single
Judge.
5. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the
learned Single Judge finding that the only condition touching upon a
ban, is on fresh appointments, which is in paragraph 148 sub para (u),
wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench was of the view that till the excess
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1479 of 2022
teaching staffs are identified, no recruitment shall be made by the
Government or the Education Department for the purpose of
appointment of teachers under various categories and apparently, the
Hon'ble Division Bench refers to fresh appointments only and does not
touch upon appointments that had already been made and where
approvals are required to be granted, rightly held that the reason
assigned in the impugned order that the conditions laid down by the
Hon'ble Division Bench in Iruthaya Amali's case has to be complied
with as a pre-requirement for the grant of approval of an appointment
already made, is baseless and un-sustainable and the learned Single
Judge further finding that the Apex Court declined to stay the
judgment made in W.A(MD)No.76 of 2019 & etc, dated 31.03.2021,
except paragraph 148(i) alone which portion does not relate to the
issue raised in the writ petition, held that there are no impediments
for the appellants to process the proposal sent by the 2nd respondent
school seeking approval of the 1st respondent's appointment and
accordingly set aside the impugned orders which is perfectly right.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1479 of 2022
6. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent further submitted
that the proposal seeking approval of the appointment of the 1st
respondent/writ petitioner was submitted even before the date of
G.O.Ms.No.165, dated 17.09.2019 which was the subject matter of
W.A(MD)No.76 of 2019 & etc, dated 31.03.2021. The said G.O is
having prospective effect only and therefore, there is no bar for
considering the proposal seeking approval of the 1st respondent's
appointment. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel
relied on an order passed in W.P(MD)No.3194 of 2020 etc., batch
dated 18.04.2022, wherein, it has been held as follows:-
''8. According to the learned Additional Advocate
General, the State Government has preferred an appeal
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to
Appeal (C) No.15702 of 2021 as against the judgment
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the Batch of
Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD) No.76 of 2019, etc. and obtained
stay in sofar as Clause (i) of paragraph 95 of the said
judgment. Except the aforesaid clause (i) of paragraph 95,
there was no stay in respect of remaining portion of the
judgment. It is agreed by the learned Additional Advocate
General that the writ petitioners were appointed prior to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1479 of 2022
the G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 and therefore, it can
be considered and an appropriate order may be passed.
9. On perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court in the aforesaid Batch of cases and also the
G.O.Ms.No.165 issued by the School Education
Department, dated 17.9.2019, both the judgment as well
as G.O.Ms.No.165 are prospective in nature. The
appointments made by the School Management in the
instant writ petitions are prior to the issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 and proposals for the said
appointment were also forwarded to the educational
authorities prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.165 dated
17.9.2019. Therefore, there is no legal impediments for
the respondents to accord approval to the appointment
made by the School Management in the instant writ
petitions.
10. Having regard to the rival submissions of the
parties, taking note of the judgment passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in a Batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD)
No.76 of 2019, etc., G.O.Ms.No.165 issued by the School
Education department, dated 17.9.2019 will not prohibit
the educational authorities to approve the appointment
made by the School Management in the instant writ
petitions since the proposals for approval of appointment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1479 of 2022
made by the School Management were forwarded to the
educational authorities prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.
165 dated 17.9.2019. Therefore, this Court is of the view
that the respondent department without considering the
G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 in proper perspective and
passed the impugned order rejecting the proposals
submitted by the School Management. Therefore, the
impugned orders passed by the respondent department are
liable to be quashed.
11. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the
respondent department in the aforesaid writ petitions are
quashed and remitted to the Chief Educational
Officers/District Educational Officers concerned, to
consider and pass an order of approval of the appointment
made by the School management, provided the said
proposals satisfies all the norms prescribed for such
appointments and as per the Rules, as expeditiously as
possible preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of the order. It is made clear that
those who are appointed to the post of B.T. Assistant and
Secondary Grade Teacher prior to the issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 and also, the proposals for
approval of the such appointments were forwarded to the
educational authorities prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1479 of 2022
165 dated 17.9.2019 alone are entitled to the relief
granted hereinabove.''
7. At this juncture, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the appellants submitted that in the light of the
aforesaid order made in W.P(MD)No.3194 of 2020 etc., batch dated
18.04.2022, the order made in W.P(MD)No.20402 of 2021 dated
30.06.2022, requires modification as the learned Single Judge in
W.P(MD)No.20402 of 2021 dated 30.06.2022, has issued a positive
direction to approve the appointment of the 1st respondent/writ
petitioner.
8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and perused the materials available on record.
9. In the present case, there is no dispute that the proposal
seeking to approve the appointment of the 1st respondent was made
on 30.08.2019. Therefore, considering the aforesaid rival submissions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1479 of 2022
and in the light of the order made in W.P(MD)No.3194 of 2020 etc.,
batch dated 18.04.2022, the order of the learned Single Judge in
W.P(MD)No.20402 of 2021 dated 30.06.2022, directing the 1st
appellant to pass appropriate orders approving the 1 st respondent's
appointment as Post Graduate Assistant with effect from 30.08.2019,
is modified to the effect that the appellants shall consider on merits
and pass an order of approval of the appointment of the 1 st
respondent made by the 2nd respondent school management,
provided, the proposal dated 30.08.2019 satisfies all the norms
prescribed for such appointment and the Rules therefor. Such an
exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Except the above
modification, the order of the learned Single Judge remains intact.
10. With the above direction, the Writ Appeal is partly allowed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[D.K.K.,J.] & [R.V.,J.]
12.12.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1479 of 2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
To
1. The Chief Educational Officer,
Tenkasi,
Tenkasi District.
2. The District Educational Officer,
Sankarankovil,
Tenkasi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1479 of 2022
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
bala
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)No.1479 of 2022
DATED : 12.12.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
