Madras High Court
The Chief Educational Officer vs M.S.Sreedhar on 23 August, 2023
W.A.(MD) No.1367 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.(MD) No.1367 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.10555 of 2023
1.The Chief Educational Officer,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Thuckalay,
Kanyakumari District. : Appellants/Respondents 1 & 2
-vs-
1.M.S.Sreedhar,
Physical Education Teacher,
V.K.P.Higher Secondary School,
Colachel, Kanyakumari District. : 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2.The Correspondent,
V.K.P.Higher Secondary School,
Colachel, Kanyakumari District. : 2nd Respondent/3rd Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set
aside the order, dated 20.09.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.11297 of 2022 on the
file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja
Additional Government Pleader
For R1 : Mrs.A.Amala
____________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1367 of 2023
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.]
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
Judge, dated 20.09.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.11297 of 2022. The learned
Single Judge had allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent.
2. In the said writ petition, the first respondent had prayed to call for
the records relating to the impugned order dated 16.12.2021 inasmuch as it
refused to approve his appointment and consequently to approve his
appointment and disburse the grant-in-aid towards the salary and other
allowances with effect from 01.06.2018. The said writ petition was allowed by
the learned Single Judge, aggrieved by which, the respondents have come on
appeal before this Court.
3. The first respondent herein was appointed as the second Physical
Education Teacher in the second respondent school with effect from
01.06.2018. Since the approval was not given, earlier writ petition in W.P.
(MD)No.12675 of 2020 was filed in which a direction was given to pass orders
on merits in accordance with law in respect of the proposal submitted by the
second respondent's school. Upon such direction, an order was passed
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1367 of 2023
rejecting the grant of approval on the ground that in the entire District, there
were 48 surplus physical education teachers. When the said order was again
challenged, ultimately in W.A(MD)No.76 of 2019, this Court had directed to
take the school as an unit while considering the necessity for appointment.
4. Thereafter, once again the first respondent considered the issue and
by the order impugned in the writ petition dated 16.12.2021 held that as on
date of the consideration for approval there were only 381 students in the
school and as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.525, if only the
students strength is 550 and above, a second Physical Education Teacher can
be appointed. Challenging the same, the writ petition was filed.
5. The learned Single Judge after considering the reasons mentioned in
the impugned order, held that the student strength has to be taken as on the
date of appointment ie., August 2018 and the subsequent fall in the strength
can never be criteria to deny approval and allowed the writ petition. The
learned Single Judge also held that the students studying in English Medium
section shall also be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the
strength in respect of Physical Education Teacher. Thus finding that the
students strength was 699 in August 2018, the learned Single Judge allowed
the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1367 of 2023
6. Heard Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mrs.A.Amala, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the first respondent.
7. It is agreed by both sides learned counsels that both the issues that
the strength of the students as on date of the appointment and not on the date
of consideration of approval should be taken into account and that the English
Medium students shall also be taken into account for the purpose of
appointment of Physical Education Teacher have since been settled by the
several orders of this Court. The learned Additional Government Pleader
could not deny the said proposition and would fairly admit the said legal
position.
8. In view thereof, this Writ Appeal is without any merits and is
accordingly dismissed. No costs. The appellants and the second respondent
shall comply with the directions of the learned Single Judge within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [D.B.C., J.]
23.08.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sji
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1367 of 2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1367 of 2023
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
sji
W.A.(MD) No.1367 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.10555 of 2023
23.08.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
