Madras High Court
S.Thamizhirumporai vs The Director Of School Education on 30 March, 2022
W.A(MD)Nos.1275 & 1276 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.A(MD)Nos.1275 & 1276 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 1 of 2011
W.A(MD)No.1275 of 2011
S.Thamizhirumporai ... Appellant /petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
2. The Joint Director of School Education,
(Higher Secondary) & Appellate Authority,
Department of School Education,
Chennai-600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Tiruchirapalli,
Tiruchirapalli District.
4. The District Educational Officer,
Musiri,
Tiruchirapalli District.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.1275 & 1276 of 2011
5. The Secretary,
Nehru Higher Secondary School,
Puthanampatti,
Thiruchirapalli District.
6. The Head Master,
Nehru Higher Secondary School,
Puthanampatti,
Thiruchirapalli District.
7. The Sub Treasury Officer,
Thuraiyur,
Thiruchirapalli District.
8. P.Kavitha,
P.G Assistant (History),
Nehru Higher Secondary School,
Puthanampatti,
Thiruchirapalli District. ...Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
praying this Court to set aside the order, dated 19.08.2011 in
W.P.(MD)No.1662 of 2011.
For Appellant : Mr.Dr.D.Gnanasekaran
For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan - RR1 to 4
Special Government Pleader
: No Appearance R5 to R8
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.1275 & 1276 of 2011
W.A(MD)Nos.1276 of 2011
S.Thamizhirumporai ... Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Director of School Education,
(Higher Secondary) & Appellate Authority,
Department of School Education,
Chennai-600 006.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Thiruchirapalli,
Thiruchirapalli District.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Musiri,
Thiruchirapalli District.
4. Nehru Higher Secondary School,
represented by its Secretary,
Puthanampatti,
Thiruchirapalli District.
5. P.Kavitha,
P.G Assistant (History) (Unapproved),
Nehru Higher Secondary School,
Puthanampatti,
Thiruchirapalli District. ...Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
praying this Court to set aside the Order, dated 19.08.2011 in
W.P(MD)No.10989 of 2009.
3/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.1275 & 1276 of 2011
For Appellant : Mr.Dr.D.Gnanasekaran
For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan - RR1 to 3
Special Government Pleader
: No Appearance - R4
COMMON JUDGMENT
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
The challenge in these Writ Appeals is to the common order
of the Writ Court made in W.P(MD) Nos.10989 of 2009 and 1662 of
2011.
2. W.P.(MD) No.10989 of 2009 was filed for a writ of
Mandamus forbearing the fourth respondent from permitting the fifth
respondent to work as an unapproved teacher in the post of PG Assistant
(History) that fell vacant on 01.06.2006 in the fourth respondent school
and further, directing the fourth respondent to appoint the petitioner to
the said post by way of promotion w.e.f. 02.01.2007 and further,
directing the respondents to give service and other monetary benefits
from 02.01.2007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.1275 & 1276 of 2011
3. Pending the said writ petition, the appointment of the fifth
respondent was approved by the authority on 31.01.2011. This act of the
authority in approving the appointment of the fifth respondent in the writ
petition, led to the second writ petition being filed in W.P.(MD)
No.1662 of 2011, challenging the grant of approval.
4. The brief facts that lead to filing of the writ petitions are
as follows :
The petitioner joined duty as a Drawing Master on
03.06.1987 with the fourth respondent School. He was promoted to the
post of BT Assistant on 15.02.1997. He was a BT Assistant in Science
having acquired a qualification of B.Sc., Chemistry. Thereafter, the
appellant/petitioner in the writ petitions acquired post graduate
qualification in History on 22.09.2006. Thus, he became fully qualified
for being appointed as a PG Teacher in History on 22.09.2006. The
incumbent PG Assistant in History one Laurence Joseph retired on
31.05.2006 on attaining superannuation. The fifth respondent issued an
advertisement on 23.11.2006, inviting applications for the post of PG
Assistant in History. The petitioner made an objection to the
advertisement by his representation, dated 30.11.2006, claiming that he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.1275 & 1276 of 2011
being a Teacher, working in the School, is entitled to have preference or
priortiy in terms of Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools
Regulation Rules. However, the fourth respondent School appointed the
fifth respondent as PG Teacher in History. This led to flurry of writ
petitions by the petitioner and sixth respondent Kavitha, who was
appointed as PG Teacher in the School. Various orders were passed by
this Court. The authorities also on their part, passed various orders
giving directions to the School to consider the case of the appellant for
appointment. One such order is dated 06.04.2009 wherein, the Joint
Director of School Education directed the School to consider the claim of
the appellant for promotion. The educational agency by a resolution,
dated 22.05.2009, considered the claim of the petitioner and rejected it.
This rejection was not challenged. However, the appellant filed a writ
petition in W.P.(MD) No.10323 of 2009 seeking a writ of Mandamus for
implementation of the order, dated 06.04.2009. That writ petition came
to be disposed of on 12.06.2009, it is seen from the records that the fact
that the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the educational agency on
22.05.2009 was not brought to the notice of this Court. Therefore, this
Court directed to implementation of the order, dated 06.04.2009. The
appointee namely, the sixth respondent in W.A.(MD) No.1276 of 2011
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.1275 & 1276 of 2011
namely, Mrs.Kavitha filed a W.P.(MD) No.13158 of 2009, challenging
the order, dated 06.05.2009 the same was disposed of by this Court
observing that the order, dated 06.04.2009 does not affect the rights of
the petitioner therein, namely, the fifth respondent in W.A.(MD) No.1276
of 2011, since it only directs consideration of the case of the appellant
herein. Thereafter, the order made in W.P.(MD) No.10323 of 2009 was
challenged by the School authorities in W.A.(M) No.1091 of 2009. The
same was withdrawn on a representation that the school has already
considered the claim of the appellant to the post of PG Assistant in
History and rejected the same and therefore, the writ appeal does not
survive. The appellant was also a party to the said writ appeal. It is after
the disposal of the writ appeal by this Court, the impugned permission
was granted by the authorities. It is at this stage, the petitioner has come
up with these two writ petitions with the prayers as stated supra.
5. Admittedly, the vacancy for the post of PG Assistant in
History in the fourth respondent School arose on the retirement of
Lawrence Joseph on 31.05.2006. The permission to fill up the said post
was sought for by the School and the same was accorded by the
authorities on 31.08.2006. In order to be considered for appointment to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.1275 & 1276 of 2011
the substantive post, the applicant must be qualified as on the date when
the vacancy arose or on the date when the permission was granted.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner has acquired the PG
qualification only on 22.09.2006 from Annamalai University. This was
also without permission from the School authorities. Though the
appellant/petitioner claimed that he applied for permission in the year
2003, but he had not produced any scrap of paper to prove the same. The
School has firmly denied the receipt of any such application from the
appellant.
7. In the above factual back-drop, the Writ Court concluded
that the appellant was not qualified on the date when the post fell vacant
or on the date when permission was granted for filling up of the post for
direct recruitment. The fact that the petitioner has obtained M.A decree in
History without the permission of the employer or the Education
Department was also taken note of by the Writ Court and the Writ Court
concluded that the appointment of the fifth respondent in W.A(MD)
No.1276 of 2011, is justified. Upon the said conclusion, the Writ Court
dismissed the writ petitions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.1275 & 1276 of 2011
8. We have heard Dr.D.Gnanasekaran, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.
9. Dr.D.Gnanasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant would vehemently contend that in view of the order passed in
W.P.(MD) No.10323 of 2009, the management should have considered
his case and therefore, the authorities were not right in approving the
appointment of Kavitha.
10. As rightly pointed out by the Writ Court that the
petitioner was not qualified on the date of vacancy, he had also not
obtained the permission of the employer to take up Post graduation. His
case has been considered pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(MD)
No.10323 of 2009 and rejected on 22.05.2009. The said order of
rejection passed by the educational agency has not been challenged by
the appellant in any manner. The authorities have accorded approval for
the appointment of Kavitha. The fact that the educational agency has
rejected the claim of the petitioner on 22.05.2009 was made known to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.1275 & 1276 of 2011
appellant, since he was a party to the Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD)
No.1091 of 2009.
11. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the
order of the writ Court and the Writ Appeals fail and accordingly, the
same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
[R.S.M, J.] & [N.S.K., J.]
30.03.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
rm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.1275 & 1276 of 2011
To
1.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
2. The Joint Director of School Education,
(Higher Secondary) & Appellate Authority,
Department of School Education,
Chennai-600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Tiruchirapalli,
Tiruchirapalli District.
4. The District Educational Officer,
Musiri,
Tiruchirapalli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.1275 & 1276 of 2011
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
rm
COMMON JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN
W.A(MD)Nos.1275 & 1276 of 2011
30.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
