Madras High Court
R. Mary Arul Selvi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 January, 2022
W.P(MD) No.19383 of 2014
THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SRIMATHY
W.P(MD) No.19383 of 2014 and
M.P(MD).No.1 of 2014
R. Mary Arul Selvi :Petitioner
..vs..
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By its Secretary
Department of School Education
Fort. St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 000.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Alwarthirunagari at Thenthiruperi,
Tuticorin District.
5.The Correspondent,
St. Aloysius Primary School,
Pirandarkulam,
Tuticorin District. : Respondents
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.19383 of 2014
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of to
issue a Writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for
the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd
respondent DEEO vide Na.Ka.No.1052/A5/20145, dated .09.2014
(signed on 20.09.2014) quash the same and further direct the respondents 2
to 4 herein to revise the date of petitioner's upgradation as primary school
Headmistress in the 5th respondent school w.e.f. 01.06.1992 with salary and
other attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.J. Shabu Jose
For R1 to R4 : Mr.N. Ramesh Arumugam
Government Advoate (Civil Side)
For R5 : Fr. V. John Kennedy
for Mr. Xavier Associate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned
proceeding issued by the 3rd respondent DEEO vide Na.Ka. No.
1052/A5/20145, dated 20.09.2014 and further direct the respondents 2 to 4
herein to revise the date of petitioner's upgradation as Primary School
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.19383 of 2014
Headmistress in the 5th respondent school w.e.f. 01.06.1992 with salary and
other attendant benefits.
2. The petitioner is working as Headmistress in the 5th
respondent's school and is possessing Diploma in Teacher Educational
D.T.Ed., B.Lit., (Tamil), B.Ed., (Tamil) and M.A., (Tamil). The 5th
respondent school is having standards from 1 to 5. The school was
granted recognition with effect from 01.06.1987 vide proceedings dated
18.07.1989 without grant-in-aid. The petitioner is appointed as Secondary
Grade Teacher with effect from 01.06.1987. The Government sanctioned
grant-in-aid for 26 schools throughout the State including the 5th
respondent school vide G.O.Ms.No.591 Education (B2) Department, dated
02.07.1992. The 5th respondent school was sanctioned with two
Secondary Grade posts with effect from 01.06.1991. The Secondary Grade
Teacher with 5 years teaching experience will become eligible to be a
Primary School Headmistress. The contention of the petitioner is that, in
the 5th respondent school, even after completion of five years of service as
Secondary Grade Teacher / in-charge Headmistress, her post was not
upgraded into that of Primary School Headmistress. The school submitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.19383 of 2014
a proposal dated 27.06.1997 requesting to upgrade one post of Secondary
Grade Teacher as Primary School Headmistress post w.e.f. 01.06.1992 and
to promote the petitioner as Primary School Headmistress. The District
Elementary Educational Officer forwarded the proposal to the Director
with his recommendations vide proceedings dated 28.07.1999. The
Government Vide G.O.Ms. 5, School Education (B2), Department, dated
09.01.2001 conferred the power upon the 2nd respondent Director
conversion of post. Thereafter, the second respondent Director issued
proceedings, dated 09.01.2001, converting one Secondary Grade Teacher
post in the school into that of Primary School Headmistress. Since the
petitioner being the senior most Secondary Grade Teacher in the school
was promoted as Primary School Headmistress w.e.f. 09.01.2001. The
contention of the petitioner that with respect to one another school under
the same Management viz., St. Thomas R.C Primary School,
Kanthankudiyiruppu, Tuticorin District was upgraded as Primary School
Headmistress with effect from 01.06.1992. Since the senior most teacher
in that school viz., S. Gracia, who had completed five years of service was
promptly promoted as Primary School Headmistress w.e.f. 01.06.1992 vide
proceeding of the third respondent dated 13.06.1995. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.19383 of 2014
petitioner seeking to confer her the Primary School HM post from the 1992
onwards.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents did
not upgrade the post with effect from the date of completion of five years
of service as Secondary Grade Teacher on 01.06.1992. Hence, the
petitioner submitted a representation to the 5th respondent school dated
31.10.2001 requesting to take necessary action to get approval for the
upgradation as Headmistress w.e.f. 01.06.1992. Thereafter, the school
submitted a proposal to the first respondent Government through proper
channel on 19.11.2001 requesting to upgrade the Primary School
Headmistress w.e.f. 01.06.1992 and the respondents sought additional
details and returned the proposal vide proceedings dated 06.09.2002.
Thereafter, the school furnished the details on 11.10.2002 and the Assistant
Elementary Education Officer returned the proposals directing the school
to resubmit along with a copy of the proceedings of the Director, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.19383 of 2014
03.05.1995. The claim of the petitioner that under the said proceedings the
Headmistress post was sanctioned w.e.f. 01.06.1992 to another school
namely St. Thomas R.C Primary School, Kanthankudiuruppu. The
petitioner contention that despite the efforts, the 5th respondent school
could not get the above proceedings of the Director dated 03.05.1995.
However, on 29.09.2003 the school re-submitted the proposal along with a
copy of the proceedings of the third respondent dated 13.08.1995 which
had been issued pursuant to the above said proceedings of the Director and
requested to grant upgradation to the petitioner with effect from
01.06.1992. Again the fourth respondent returned the same vide
proceeding dated 10.10.2003 with instructions to resubmit the proposal
with the proceedings of the Director, dated 03.05.1995. The school
resubmitted a representation to the 4th respondent stating that the copy of
the proceeding of the Director dated 03.05.1995 had not been
communicated to the 5th respondent school and requesting to upgrade the
post w.e.f. 01.06.1992. The fourth respondent school forwarded the
proposal to the third respondent along with his recommendation dated
25.11.2003. Thereafter, several representations were submitted to the
respondents 2 and 3 dated 02.11.2005, 12.12.2007, 06.07.2009,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.19383 of 2014
08.06.2010, 14.03.2011 and 31.07.2012. The 3rd respondent returned the
representation and instructed to submit the same through proper channel
i.e. through 4th respondent. The petitioner submitted her representation to
the third respondent District Elementary Education Officer through proper
channel i.e., 4th respondent Assistant Elementary Education Officer dated
06.09.2012. The petitioner submitted an application under Right to
Information Act requesting a copy of the proceeding of the Director dated
03.05.1995 and the respondents 2 and 3 stated that the such proceedings
are not in their office. Hence, the petitioner made an appeal dated
11.03.2013 to the State Information Commission and in spite direction of
the Commission to serve the copy still the proceeding is not served to the
petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P(MD).No.3302 of 2014 seeking
a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to pass orders on the proposal
submitted by the 5th respondent dated 19.1.2001 along with the petitioner's
final representation dated 06.09.2012 seeking to revise the date of her
upgradation as primary school Headmistress with effect from 01.06.1992
and this Court vide order dated 26.02.2014 directed the second respondent
to consider and pass orders. Thereafter, the District Elementary Education
Officer vide proceeding dated Nil. 09.2014 stating that the Headmaster
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.19383 of 2014
post had been sanctioned to the school only w.e.f. 09.01.2001. Hence, the
request for approval with effect from 01.06.1992 is not feasible.
Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ
Petition.
5. The third respondent has filed a counter. The Chief
Educational Officer has granted recognition vide proceeding dated
18.07.1989 for the period from 01.06.1987 to 31.03.1989. The
Government in G.O.Ms. No.591 Education (B2) Department, dated
02.07.1992 has sanctioned two posts of Secondary Grade Teachers to St.
Aloysius R.C.Primary School, Pirandankulam from 01.06.1991. There is
no automatic upgradation of the post of Secondary Grade Teacher as
Headmaster of Primary School. The Government also took a decision and
issued G.O.Ms.No.5, School Education (B2), Department, dated
09.01.2001 sanctioning upgradation of the Secondary Grade Teacher post
into Headmaster post to various schools in the State including 5th
respondent school with effect from 09.01.2001. The respondents have
specifically stated in the counter that the District Elementary Educational
Officer, Tuticorin, in respect of St. Thomas R.C. Primary School,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.19383 of 2014
Kandankudieruppu is not in order. The reference in that order dated
03.05.1995 is not at all available. Moreover, the District Elementary
Educational Officer has no power to sanction upgradation of Secondary
Grade Teacher post as Primary School Headmaster as the said power is
vested with the Government. For the first time the Government has issued
G.O.Ms.No.5, dated 09.01.2001 delegated the power of upgradation to the
Director of Elementary Education, Chennai. Therefore, the reference stated
in that order dated 03.05.1995 is false and a bogus proceedings. As a
matter of right the petitioner cannot demand upgradation of Secondary
Grade post on completion of five years of service with effect from
01.06.1992. One of condition while granting recognition is the
Management should run the school from its own funds and no Court
proceedings should be resorted to seeking sanction of posts of teachers.
The order of sanction granted to St. Aloysius R.C. Primary School,
Pirandankulam, is a wrong order and therefore, the petitioner cannot quote
based on the wrong order. The petitioner is seeking to upgrade the post of
Secondary Grade Teacher as Headmaster that too after the laps of 22 years
cannot be entertained. The Management was granted recognition with a
condition that the management shall not claim any such post, then the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.19383 of 2014
individual petitioner has no right to claim upgradation. The petitioner
preferred Writ Petition to consider his claim in W.P. (MD). No.3302 of
2014 and based on the direction of this Court, the District Elementary
Educational Officer vide its proceeding dated 19.09.2014 stated that since
the post of Headmaster of Primary School was created only from
09.01.2001 as per G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 09.01.2001 and the proceedings of
the Director of Elementary School Education dated 19.01.2001, the request
for approval of the petitioner as Headmistress from 01.06.1992 cannot be
granted. As the sanctioned posts of Primary School Headmaster was
granted only from 09.01.2001, now the petitioner cannot seek to sanction
the post prior to that date and also regularize the post from 1992 onwards
is illegal. Since the 5th respondent school is a minority school and the
school has every right to open any school without the permission of the
Department under the minority right. However, under Rule 6 of the Tamil
Nadu Minority Schools (Recognitions and payment of Grant) Rules, 1977
specifically lays down that payment of Grant to Minority Schools is
subject to the orders and instructions issued by the Government from time
to time. Hence, the petitioner is not having any right to seek approval from
the date of prior to 09.01.2001, since the Government has granted order on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.19383 of 2014
09.01.2001 and therefore, the petitioner cannot seek any relief prior to
2001.
6. It is seen that the claim of the petitioner is that he was
joined in the service on 01.06.1987 and was serving as Headmaster-In-
charge from 1987 to 1992, even though the petitioner is appointed as
Secondary Grade Teacher, the petitioner has gained five years of
experience on 01.06.1992 and therefore, she is eligible to be promoted as
Primary School Headmaster. However, the respondent’s contention is that
the school was not sanctioned the post of Headmaster until 2001. In fact
several school submitted representation to sanction the post, thereafter the
Government after careful consideration of the representations from various
school has issued G.O.Ms.No.5 School Education (B2) Department, dated
09.01.2001 creating for the first time the post of “Primary School
Headmaster” for various schools. Infact the Headmaster post was
sanctioned only through G.O.Ms.No.5 to the school. The respondents
contention is that when there is no sanctioned post, the petitioner cannot
claim to upgrade her post from the Secondary Grade to Primary School
Headmaster prior to 2001. The petitioner relied on the Judgment rendered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.19383 of 2014
in W.A.No.1969 of 2010 in the case of V. Pauldurai Vs. the Director of
Elementary Education, Chennai – 6 and others. In the said Judgment the
school was upgraded from Primary School to Middle School. In the
present case the school was not given any sanctioned post for Primary
School HM at all. Even though there is a reference of G.O.Ms.No.5, in the
said writ appeal the issue is totally different in that Writ Appeal and the
same is not applicable for the present case. In the present case the school
was not granted any sanctioned post of Primary School Headmaster post at
all. When the school was sanctioned it was sanctioned by “two Secondary
Grade Post” and there was no sanction of “Primary School Headmaster”
post. Infact in the entire state of Tamil Nadu there was no Primary School
Headmaster post sanctioned at all, until the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.5,
dated 09.01.2001. When there is no post at all, more so when there is no
sanctioned post for the school in the category of “Primary School
Headmaster” post then there is no right to grant upgradation from 1992
onwards as claimed by the petitioner. Infact the petitioner was serving as
Secondary Grade Teacher alone even though she may be senior in that
school. The Government has sanctioned only two Secondary Grade post.
After issuance of G.O.Ms.No.5, the school has submitted a proposal for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.19383 of 2014
upgrading one post of Secondary Grade Teacher to Primary School
Headmaster. Therefore, from the date of G.O.Ms.No.5 alone the petitioner
has right for upgradation. Therefore, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the petitioner can claim upgradation only from 09.01.2001
since there was no sanctioned post for Headmaster prior to that.
7. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
07.01.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
trp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.19383 of 2014
To
1. The Secretary
Department of School Education
Fort. St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 000.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Alwarthirunagari at Thenthiruperi,
Tuticorin District.
5.The Correspondent,
St. Aloysius Primary School,
Pirandarkulam,
Tuticorin District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.19383 of 2014
S. SRIMATHY, J.,
trp
W.P(MD) No.19383 of 2014 and
M.P(MD).No.1 of 2014
07.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
