Madras High Court
K.Rathna vs The Director Of Elementary ... on 8 June, 2022
W.P.No.25304 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.25304 of 2021
and WMP.Nos.26707 & 26708 of 2021
K.Rathna .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai-600006.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.
3.The Block Educational Officer,
Kattumannarkoil -608301,
Cuddalore District.
4.The Secretary,
Aided Elementary School,
Keezhapazhanjanallur,
Kattumannarkoil,
Cuddalore District-608 301. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for
the records relating to the impugned order issued by the second respondent
in O.Mu.No.1371/A5/2019 dated 17.11.2021 and quash the same and direct
the second respondent to approve the petitioner's appointment in the post of
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25304 of 2021
Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 12.06.2017 and grant all
consequential benefits including monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Mohanraj
For Responents : Mr.T.Chezhiyan,
Additional Government Pleader
*****
ORDER
The petitioner, who is a working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in
the fourth respondent School, has filed the present writ petition challenging
the impugned order of the second respondent dated 17.11.2021 rejecting the
request for approval of the appointment to the post of Secondary Grade
Teacher, on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.165, School Education Department
dated 17.09.2019.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the Government has passed G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 based on
the interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Madurai in
W.A.(MD) No.76 of 2019 etc. cases (Batch), dated 9.4.2019 and thereafter,
in the said batch of cases in W.A.(MD) No.76 of 2019 the Division Bench
of this Court by judgment, dated 31.3.2021 issued comprehensive directions
to the respondent department and also this Court observed that till the rules
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25304 of 2021
are framed, directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the
aforesaid order shall be strictly followed by both the State Government and
the Educational Institutions. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would further submit that G.O.Ms.No.165 has been passed by the
Government on 17.9.2019 and subsequently, the subject matter of the
G.O.Ms.No.165 challenged in the Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD) No.76 of
2019, etc. batch cases and judgment also passed in the aforesaid Batch
cases. However, instant writ petition is not covered under the
G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 or the final order passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in the aforesaid Batch cases for the reason that in the
instant writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade
Teacher appointed prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also drew the attention of
this Court to the Clause (t) of paragraph 95 of the aforesaid judgment
wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held as under:
(t) This exercise shall be completed on or
before 31st July, 2021, so that the identification of
excess staff and follow up action as indicated in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25304 of 2021
the compendium of schedule hereinabove can be
undertaken and be followed strictly''.
3. Heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the
materials available on record.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 as well as the judgment passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in a Batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD)
No.76 of 2019 are prospective in nature. In the present case, the
appointment was made prior to G.O.Ms.No.165 issued by School Education
Department, dated 17.9.2019 and therefore, there is no legal impediment for
approving the appointment made by the School Management to the
aforesaid post in the light of the existing Rules thereunder.
5.The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents
1 to 3 submitted that as against the judgment passed by the Division Bench
of this Court W.A.(MD) No.76 of 2019, etc. batch, the State Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25304 of 2021
has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave
to Appeal (C) No.15702 of 2021. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court stayed the judgment only in respect of Clause (i) of
paragraph 95 of the said judgment. Further, it is also brought to the notice of
this Court that the Division Bench in paragraph 6 of the said judgment, has
observed that, ''no fresh appointment even in the sanctioned vacancy shall
be made by any school which are managed by the Corporate Management.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that in the instant case, the appointment was made prior to the issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 and the proposal was also sent to the
educational authorities prior to G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019. Thus,
G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 and the Division Bench judgment will not
bind over the appointment made by the School Management in the instant
writ petition. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
seeks to quash the impugned order and consequently, direct the educational
authorities to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner to the post
of Secondary Grade Teacher.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25304 of 2021
7. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, 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 insofar 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 Government Pleader that
the writ petitioner was appointed prior to the G.O.Ms.No.165 dated
17.9.2019 and therefore, it can be considered and an appropriate order may
be passed.
8. On perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
in the aforesaid batch of cases and also 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 appointment made by the
School Management in the instant writ petition is prior to the issuance of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25304 of 2021
G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 and proposal 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 impediment
for the respondents to accord approval to the appointment made by the
School Management in the instant writ petition.
9. Having regard to the rival submissions of the parties, taking
note of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.(MD) No.76 of 2019, etc. batch, 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 petition, since the proposal for approval of appointment
made by the School Management was 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 that G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 in proper perspective, has
passed the impugned order rejecting the proposal submitted by the School
Management. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25304 of 2021
respondent dated 17.11.2021 is liable to be quashed.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the second
respondent in Proceedings in O.Mu.No.1371/A5/2019 dated 17.11.2021 is
quashed and remitted to the Chief Educational Officers/District Educational
Officer, Chidambaram / second respondent to consider and pass an order of
approval of the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher,
made by the fourth respondent School management, provided the said
proposal satisfies all the norms prescribed for such appointment and as per
the Rules, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of twelve
(12) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
11. With the above direction, the writ petition stands allowed. No
costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
08.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Jvm
To
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai-600006.
2.The District Educational Officer,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25304 of 2021
Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.
3.The Block Educational Officer,
Kattumannarkoil -608301,
Cuddalore District.
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
Jvm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25304 of 2021
W.P.No.25304 of 2021
08.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
