Madras High Court
V.Geetha vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 August, 2023
2023/MHC/3845
W.P.(MD).No.9765 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.P.(MD)No.9765 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.8599 & 8600 of 2023
V.Geetha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Thoothukudi,
Thoothukudi District.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Tiruchendur – 628 215,
Thoothukudi District.
5.The Secretary,
Hindu Higher Secondary School,
Alwarthirunagari – 628 612,
Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.9765 of 2023
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the fourth
respondent/District Educational Officer in O.Mu.No.4823/Aa2/2022
dated 23.02.2023, quash the same and further direct the third
respondent/Chief Educational Officer to approve forthwith the
promotion of V.Geetha as P.G Assistant (Tamil) in the fifth respondent
School with effect from 25.06.2018 with salary and all attendant
benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Prakash
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The prayer of the Writ Petition is as follows:-
The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned
proceedings issued by the fourth respondent/District
Educational Officer, dated 23.02.2023 and further direct the
third respondent/Chief Educational Officer to approve
forthwith the promotion of V.Geetha as P.G Assistant (Tamil)
in the fifth respondent School with effect from 25.06.2018
with salary and all attendant benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.9765 of 2023
2.Heard Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam, learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the
materials available on record.
3.The petitioner is working as a PG Assistant (Tamil) in the
fifth respondent School and the fifth respondent School is a recognized
aided non-minority Educational Institution. The petitioner was initially
appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the fifth respondent School
on 08.08.1990 as against the sanctioned vacancy. After joining the
post of Secondary Grade Teacher, the petitioner passed B.Ed in the
year 1992 and M.A (Tamil) in the year 1995, with prior permission of
the fifth respondent School respectively. The Department sanctioned
incentive increments for the petitioner's B.Ed Degree with effect from
19.08.1992. While so, the petitioner was promoted to the post of B.T
Assistant (Tamil) in the fifth respondent School, which fell vacant on
04.06.1996 due to the promotion of the then incumbent A.Thothadri.
Only after considering B.Ed qualification of the petitioner, she was
promoted to the post of B.T Assistant (Tamil). The fourth
respondent/District Educational Officer approved the appointment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.9765 of 2023
the petitioner as B.T Assistant (Tamil) vide proceedings, dated
11.10.1996. Thereafter, in the year 2018, a P.G Assistant (Tamil) post
in the fifth respondent School fell vacant on 01.06.2018 due to the
retirement of the then incumbent V.Elizabeth. The fifth respondent
School promoted the petitioner as P.G Assistant (Tamil) with effect
from 25.06.2018 and thereafter, the petitioner is continuing service in
the said School. Immediately, after her promotion as P.G Assistant
(Tamil), the fifth respondent School submitted the necessary proposal
to the second respondent/District Educational Officer on 27.05.2019
seeking to approve the petitioner's promotion as P.G Assistant (Tamil).
However, the same was returned by the impugned order, dated
23.02.2023. Assailing the same, this Writ Petition came to be filed.
4.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents categorically submitted that the petitioner acquired B.Ed
Degree in the year 1992 and M.A (Tamil) Degree in the year 1995
without prior permission from the Education Department. The post of
P.G Assistant (Tamil) is sanctioned only to the fifth respondent School
and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the impugned
order and it is only the fifth respondent, who is the competent
authority, to challenge the said order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.9765 of 2023
5.A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the
proposal of the fifth respondent School has been returned vide
impugned order not only for two grounds raised by the learned
Government Advocate, but also for the purpose of enclosing the
complaint dated 10.06.2019 made by one T.Venkadachari and the copy
of the withdrawal of the said complaint by the said T.Venkadachari.
6.As far as the first limb of argument putforth by the
learned Government Advocate as to the petitioner not getting prior
permission for obtaining additional qualification, the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court has dealt with a similar issue in the case of
W.A(MD)No.1124 of 2023, dated 24.07.2023 [The Joint
Director of School Education and others Vs. S.Vasugi and
another], wherein a favourable order has been passed to the
petitioner therein and the relevant portion of which is extracted as
follows:-
“3.This Court find that the issue is no-more res
integra in view of the several judgments on this issue
holding that the claim of teachers for incentive
increment cannot be rejected on the ground that the
concerned teacher had not obtained prior permission of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.9765 of 2023
the authorities for undergoing higher education. Since
the issue has been settled by precedents, this Court is
unable to countenance the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellants. It is true that there
are several Government Order which have insisted the
requirement of permission of the educational authorities
for a teacher to undergo higher education. It is to be
noted that the payment of incentive increment for
acquiring higher qualification is to encourage the
teachers to acquire higher qualification so that the
quality of education will be higher. It may be true that
the teacher while in service will have to obtain prior
permission as per the Government Orders . Further it is
to be noted that acquiring higher qualification while in
service is not prohibited and it is only regulated. In such
circumstances, acquiring higher qualification while in
service without the permission is only an irregularity and
that will not entitle the respondents to reject the benefit
to the teachers.
4.Considering the overall policy of the
Government,there is no reason to take a different view
as expressed by the learned Single Judge. The decision
relied upon by the learned Single Judge in the subject-
matter in issue has been subsequently affirmed by the
learned Division Bench of this Court. Hence this Court
finds no merit in the Writ Appeal and the same is liable
to be dismissed.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.9765 of 2023
7.I am fully in acceptance to the aforesaid Division Bench
Judgment and hereby observe that the fourth respondent ought not to
have returned the proposal of the fifth respondent School on the
ground that the Teacher had not obtained prior permission from the
authorities for undergoing higher qualification.
8.It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner was
qualified in B.Ed Degree as early as in the year 1992 after being
appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher and only on the basis of the
said qualification, she was promoted to the post of B.T Assistant
(Tamil) on 04.06.1996. However, this kind of objection was not raised
by the fourth respondent at the time of her promotion to the post of
B.T Assistant and hence, raising an objection that the petitioner did not
obtain prior permission to obtain an additional qualification in her later
period of time when the fifth respondent School has submitted a
proposal to approve the promotion of the petitioner as P.G Assistant is
not sustainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.9765 of 2023
9.The second limb of objection raised by the learned
Government Advocate is that it is only the fifth respondent School,
who is the competent authority, to file a Writ Petition and the petitioner
is not entitled to file a Writ Petition. This issue is also no more res
integra and this Court in a similar case of W.P(MD)Nos.21334 to
21343 of 2018, dated 27.01.2022 [A.Arul Dhason Vs. the
Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George,
Chennai and others] has passed a favourable order to the petitioner
therein and the relevant portion of which is extracted as follows:-
“11.The objection on maintainability advanced
by the State is also misconceived. They would argue that
the petitioners have no locus standi to seek the benefits
that they do now, and it is only the school that could have
sought enforcement of the orders. This is also rejected as
I am of the categoric view that there could none more
interested in service benefits than the concerned
employee himself or herself. Thus, it is certainly open to
the concerned employee to move this Court for
appropriate relief.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.9765 of 2023
10.Adopting the said order, I categorically reject the
contention which has been raised by the learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondents.
11.As far as the third point which has been raised in the
impugned order itself is with respect to the direction made by the
fourth respondent to the fifth respondent School to enclose the
complaint dated 10.06.2019 and withdrawal of the complaint made by
one T.Venkadachari as against the petitioner. I am of the view that the
complaint made by the said T.Venkadachari and his withdrawal of
complaint is no way connected with the proposal of approving the
promotion of the petitioner to the post of P.G Assistant and moreover,
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to
the communication dated 06.07.2023 made by the fourth respondent
to the third respondent, in which reference Nos.3 and 4 will make it
clear that the complaint made by one T.Venkadachari dated
10.06.2019 and his withdrawal letter, dated 05.07.2019 are very well
available in the office of the fourth respondent. Having a copy of both
documents in the office of the fourth respondent, the fourth
respondent is not justified in raising a query to enclose the copy of
those documents with the proposal of the petitioner's promotion to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.9765 of 2023
post of P.G Assistant. In all three grounds, the case of the respondents
miserably fails and this Court hereby quashes the impugned returned
order dated 23.02.2023 passed by the fourth respondent and
consequently, directs the fifth respondent School to resubmit the
proposal before the fourth respondent within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the
same, the fourth respondent is directed to forward the same to the
third respondent and the third respondent is directed to approve the
promotion of the petitioner to the post of P.G Assistant (Tamil) in the
fifth respondent School within a period of eight weeks thereafter.
12.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed.
18.08.2023
NCC : Yes
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.9765 of 2023
To
1.The Secretary,
Represented by the State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Thoothukudi,
Thoothukudi District.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Tiruchendur – 628 215,
Thoothukudi District.
5.The Secretary,
Hindu Higher Secondary School,
Alwarthirunagari – 628 612,
Thoothukudi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.9765 of 2023
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
ps
W.P.(MD)No.9765 of 2023
18.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
