Madras High Court
J.V.Madhan Raj vs 4 Danish Mission Elementary ... on 16 June, 2022
W.P.No.2119 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.2119 of 2020
WMP.No.2477 of 2020
J.V.Madhan Raj .. Petitioner
Vs.
1 Chief Educational Officer,
Cuddalore.
2 District Educational Officer,
Vridhachalam.
3 Block Educational Officer,
Nallur,
Cuddalore District.
4 Danish Mission Elementary School,
rep. By its Central Manger
A.L.C. Campus,
Bharathi Road, Cuddalore. .. Respondents
Prayer:- The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the order of the 2nd Respondent made in his
proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 8342/ AA2/ 2019 dated 08.12.2019 and quash
the same and direct the 4th Respondent school and pay the arrears of
salary, emoluments and other benefits to the petitioner from the date of
appointment on 18.11.2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.No.2119 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr. K.J. Parthasarathy
For Respondents : Mr.T.Chezhiyan, AGP – R1 to R3
ORDER
The prayer in the writ petition is to call for the records relating
to the order of the 2nd Respondent made in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.
8342/ AA2/ 2019 dated 08.12.2019 and quash the same and direct the 4th
Respondent school and pay the arrears of salary, emoluments and other
benefits to the petitioner from the date of appointment on 18.11.2016.
2. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the writ petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher
in the fourth respondent School on 18.11.2016. The fourth respondent
submitted a proposal to the second respondent on 16.08.2018 for
approval of the appointment made by the fourth respondent School and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2119 of 2020
subsequently after complying the queires raised by the 2nd respondent, the
th 4th respondent school has resubmitted the application for aproval on
25.01.2019. The petitioner has made representation dated 23.09.2019 to
the 2nd respondent for approval of her appointment and also for the
payment of salary. Since no action was taken by the respondents, the
petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.No. 29463 of 2019 before this
Court. By order dated 08.12.2019, this Court directed the 2nd respondent
to consider the representation dated 14.08.2019 submitted by the
petitioner and dispose of the same within 12 weeks. The 2nd respondent
passed the impugned order dated 08.12.2019, rejected the proposal for
the approval of the appointment of the petitioner on the ground of surplus
teachers.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader on instructions
would submit that the said proposal was forwarded to the 4th
respondent/Management prior to G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019,
therefore the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits as claimed by her.
5. The relief sought for in the instant writ petition is squarely
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2119 of 2020
covered by the judgment of this Court dated 18.4.2022 in W.P.No.3194
of 2020, etc. Batch case [B.Kurinjimalaron vs. The State of Tamil
Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai-9] wherein this Court held as follows:
''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 appointments
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2119 of 2020
appointments made by the School Management in
the instant writ petitions since the proposals for
approval of appointments 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 appointments 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
Secondary Grade Teacher/B.T. Assistant/Middle
Grade Assistant prior to the issuance of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2119 of 2020
G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 and also, the
proposals for approval of such appointments were
also forwarded to the educational authorities prior
to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019
alone are entitled to the relief granted herein
above.”
7. In the light of the judgment cited supra, the respondent
cannot reject the claim made by the petitioner citing G.O.Ms.No.165
dated 17.9.2019. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the second
respondent is quashed and remitted to the second respondent to consider
and pass an order of approval of the appointment made by the fourth
respondent School, provided the said proposal satisfies all the norms
prescribed for such appointment and as per the Rules and he is otherwise
eligible, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of twelve
(12 ) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
8. With the above directions, the writ petition stands allowed.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
16.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2119 of 2020
Internet : Yes
Index:Yes/No
ak
To
1 The Chief Educational Officer,
Cuddalore.
2 The District Educational Officer,
Vridhachalam.
3 The Block Educational Officer,
Nallur,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2119 of 2020
D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.
ak
W.P.No.2119 of 2020
and
WMP.Nos.2477 of 2020
16.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
