Madras High Court
The Chief Educational Officer vs S.Anandakumar on 9 August, 2023
W.A.No.2615 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 09.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No.2615 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.20756 of 2022
1.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District. .. Appellants
Vs.
1.S.Anandakumar
2.The Headmaster,
T.E.L.C. Kabis Higher Secondary School,
Pandur – 631 203,
Tiruvallur Taluk and District. .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the
order dated 22.03.2022 passed by this court in W.P.No.25760 of 2018.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2615 of 2022
For Appellants : Mr.Silambannan,
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mrs.Mythreye Chandru
Special Government Pleader
For R1 : Mr.P.Ganesan
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.]
Challenging the order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the learned Judge
in W.P.No.25760 of 2018, the present appeal has been filed by the
appellants / Chief Educational Officer and the District Educational Officer of
Tiruvallur District.
2. The necessary facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that
the first respondent herein was appointed as Physical Education Teacher in
the second respondent school on 05.03.2004 and subsequently, he was
promoted to the post of B.T. Assistant (Science) on 01.02.2013 in the place
of one T.Arputha Mary, secondary grade teacher. Thereafter, seeking
approval of promotion of the first respondent from Physical Education
Teacher to B.T. Assistant (Science), the second respondent submitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2615 of 2022
proposal to the second appellant, however, the same got returned for various
reasons. While so, the Chief Educational Officer Thiruvallur issued staff
fixation order on 21.11.2017, as per which, two secondary grade posts were
found surplus and the first respondent was promoted in the surplus
secondary grade teacher post as B.T Assistant (Science). Feeling aggrieved,
the first respondent filed W.P.No.4333 of 2018 for approving his
appointment as B.T. Assistant (Science) in the second respondent school.
This Court by order dated 27.02.2018, disposed of the said writ petition, by
directing the second appellant to consider the pending proposal and pass
appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of that order. In furtherance thereto, the second appellant vide order
dated 04.07.2018 stated that approval for the promotion of the first
respondent as B.T. Assistant (Science) could not be granted, since two
Secondary Grade Teacher posts were found surplus in the second respondent
school. Challenging the same, the first respondent again filed a writ petition
in W.P.No.25760 of 2018 and the same was disposed of by the learned
Judge on 22.03.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this
court with the present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2615 of 2022
3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
appellants submitted that the secondary grade teacher post is surplus in the
second respondent school and hence, there is no secondary grade teacher
post for upgradation by the Chief Educational Officer, Thiruvallur. He
further submitted that since the first respondent was promoted in the surplus
secondary grade teacher post as B.T. Assistant and hence, the same was not
approved by the authorities. Without considering these aspects, the learned
Judge erred in issuing positive direction to the authorities in the writ petition
to consider the claim of the first respondent seeking approval of his
promotion to the post of B.T (Assistant), by the order impugned herein,
which will have to be set aside by this court. It is also submitted that as
against the judgment passed in WA(MD) No.76 of 2019 etc. batch, dated
31.03.2021 passed by this court, the Government preferred SLP
(C)No.15702 of 2021 which is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and therefore, the same cannot be relied on by the learned
Judge, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the first respondent
herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2615 of 2022
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent
submitted that the learned Judge after analysing the facts and circumstances
of the case, has rightly passed the impugned order in the writ petition, which
does not require any interference.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Before the writ court, the first respondent herein has challenged
the order passed by the authorities rejecting his claim for approval of his
promotion to the post of BT Assistant, on the premise that he was promoted
in the surplus secondary grade teacher post in the second respondent school.
The learned Judge considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
also following the earlier judgment of this court in 31.03.2021 in WA (MD)
No.76 of 2019 etc, batch, has disposed of the writ petition, in the following
terms:
“4. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is
disposed on the following terms:-
(i) the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.4195/A5/2017 dated
04.07.2018 passed by the second respondent is set aside and
the Third Respondent shall re-submit the papers by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2615 of 2022
18.04.2022 satisfying all requirements prescribed for grant
of approval of appointment to the relevant post;
(ii) the concerned authority shall consider the matter afresh
in accordance with the directions issued by the Division
Bench of this court in Secretary to Government -vs- Iruthaya
Amali (Order dated 31.03.2021 in W.A. (MD) No. 76 of 2019
etc., batch) for approval of appointment of the Petitioner in
the school of the Third respondent for grant of aid for
payment of her salary, if she is otherwise eligible for it and
she had actually worked during the relevant period;
(iii) if it is found that any details or supporting documents
satisfying the eligibility criteria for the benefits claimed had
not been produced, the deficiencies in that regard shall be
informed in writing to the Petitioner and the Third
Respondent requiring the same to be furnished within a time
frame of not less than 15 clear working days;
(iv) in the event of the concerned authority not being
satisfied with the compliance of the requirements even
thereafter, an enquiry shall be immediately conducted
affording full opportunity of personal hearing to the
Petitioner and the Third Respondent to explain their position
in that regard and the concerned authority shall pass
reasoned orders dealing with each of the contentions raised
on merits and in accordance with law and communicate the
decision taken under written acknowledgement;
(v) if the Petitioner is entitled to the approval of
appointment, it shall be ensured that the eligible amount of
arrears of salary is paid within three months from the date of
passing of that order, apart from the monthly salary for
future months on the due dates;
... ”
7. This court is of the view that the above directions are self-
explanatory in nature. In this said order, the authorities concerned have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2615 of 2022
directed to consider the available number of vacancies as to whether the post
is a sanctioned post or a surplus one, etc. and thereafter, arrive at an
appropriate decision, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the
respondents. Therefore, such course adopted by the learned Judge does not
warrant any interference by this court. Though the learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the appellants made a specific plea that the
judgment dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Division Bench of this court in
WA (MD) No.76 of 2019 etc, batch, has been challenged by the Government
by filing SLP(C)No.15702 of 2021 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
the same is pending, the same cannot be countenanced by this court, as the
said judgment holds the field as of now.
8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the first respondent
submitted that pursuant to the retirement of the teachers in the second
respondent school, vacant sanctioned posts are available and hence, the
appellants may be directed to consider the claim of the first respondent on
the said aspect as well.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2615 of 2022
9. In such view of the matter, the appellants are directed to comply
with the order of the learned Judge, within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While so, the present vacancy
position of the sanctioned posts in the second respondent school shall also
be taken into consideration. With these direction and observation, the writ
appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
[R.M.D., J.] [M.S.Q., J.]
09.08.2023
Index: Yes / No
Speaking order/ Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
nsd
To
1.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2615 of 2022
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
nsd
W.A.No.2615 of 2022
09.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
