Madras High Court
Tmt.J.Vimilarani Deevakirubai vs The Director Of School Education on 1 December, 2023
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Writ Petition No.20817 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Writ Petition No.20817 of 2019
Tmt.J.Vimilarani Deevakirubai
W/o.Charles Thalapathy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Director of School Education
D.P.I. Campus, College Road
Chennai-6.
2. The Chief Educational Officer
Tiruvallur
Tiruvallur District.
3. The Headmaster
T.E.L.C Kabis Higher Secondary School
Pandur
Tiruvallur District. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire
records connected with the impugned order of the 2nd respondent passed in
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.20817 of 2019
Na.Ka.No.6007/A4/2019 dated 20.06.2019, quash the same and directing
the respondents to give annual increment, selection grade and special grade
by counting from the date of initial appointment i.e., 25.09.1996 of the
petitioner and consequently, give promotion as B.T. Assistant and including
monetary benefits with all consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganesan
For Respondents : Mr.K.H.Ravikumar
Government Advocate for 1 & 2
Dr.P.Vasudevan, for R3
*****
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order
dated 20.06.2019 of the 2nd respondent bearing reference
Na.Ka.No.6007/A4/2019, direct the respondents to give annual increments,
selection grade and special grade by counting her service from the date of
initial appointment i.e., 25.09.1996 and consequently, give promotion as
B.T. Assistant including monetary benefits with all consequential benefits.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.20817 of 2019
2.1. The petitioner has completed B.A. (Geography) in 1988 and
B.Ed., in 1994. She was selected and appointed to the post of Secondary
Grade Assistant in the third respondent school on 25.09.1996. While being
so, the Government issued orders to fill up vacancies with BT qualified
persons as Secondary Grade teachers. However, the petitioner did not
possesses Secondary Grade qualification but she was appointed as
Secondary Grade teacher with B.Ed., qualification. Thereafter, the
Government issued G.O.Ms.No.559, Education, Science and Technology
Department dated 11.07.1995 directing the educational authorities to not to
approve the appointment of B.Ed., teachers in the Secondary Grade teacher
vacancies. While so, a batch of writ petitions were filed by the various
aided schools questioning G.O.Ms.No.559 and the same came to be
dismissed on 19.05.1998. Aggrieved against the order dated 19.05.1998,
writ appeal Nos.991 to 998 of 1998 were filed and the same were rejected
by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on 29.06.2001, however,
protected the services of B.Ed teachers, who were appointed in the
Secondary Grade vacancies before 19.05.1998.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.20817 of 2019
2.2. In this regard, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.155, School
Education (D-2) Department dated 03.10.2002 stating that the B.Ed
teachers, who were appointed in the Secondary Grade teacher vacancies to
undergo child psychology training for one month and on completion of such
training, their services would be approved. The said G.O.Ms.No.155 was
challenged and the Hon'ble Division Bench vide 2004 (2) Law Weekly 591
has also upheld the above order, however, with a direction to take the past
service rendered by the teachers for pensionary benefits.
2.3. As per the above order, the petitioner has completed the child
psychology training for one month from 02.05.2003 to 31.05.2003, her
appointment was approved from 31.05.2003. If the petitioner's service was
approved from 25.09.1996, she would get selection grade from 26.09.2006
and special grade in the cadre of secondary grade assistant from 27.09.2016.
Hence, the petitioner made a representation on 16.12.2017 to the
respondents requesting to give selection grade and special grade by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.20817 of 2019
counting her service from the date of initial appoint i.e., 25.09.1996. Since
the said representation has not been considered by the respondents, the
petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.4195 of 2018 seeking to give
selection grade and special grade by counting her service from the date of
initial appoint i.e., 25.09.1996 and the same came to be disposed of with a
direction to the respondents therein to consider the representation of the
petitioner. The second respondent has passed the impugned order rejecting
the request of the petitioner and hence, the petitioner is before this Court
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned
order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the second respondent has
rejected the claim of the petitioner citing the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in SLP (C) D.No.1327 of 2019 [Director of Elementary Education
and others vs. Rajathi] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has permitted
the petitioner therein to approach the High Court by filing a review
application with regard to the ground in the memo of appeal and even if the
respondent was to be approved then she could be approved only from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.20817 of 2019
date of completion of psychology training and the payment of all benefits of
service ought to have been given with effect from the date on which the
respondent completed the training. It is stated by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the petitioner has retired from service on 31.05.2022.
4. The learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 & 2 submits
that G.O.Ms.No.559 and G.O.Ms.No.155 have been upheld by this Hon'ble
High Court and the only concession given by this Court is to count their
service for pension, who were appointed prior to 19.05.1998 and the same
was also accepted at the relevant point of time. Since the petitioner had
completed child psychology training on 31.05.2003, on the very next day
itself, i.e., from 01.06.2003, her service was approved in the secondary
grade teacher. In the meanwhile, the Government has filed SLP against the
order passed in W.A.No.956 of 2018 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court
permitted the petitioner therein to approach the Hon'ble High Court by
filing review with regard to the grounds raised in the appeal. Therefore, the
service of the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 03.10.2002 has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.20817 of 2019
approved and now, the grievance of the petitioner with regard to selection
grade and special grade by counting from the date of initial appointment i.e.,
25.09.1996 is not acceptable. Since the petitioner's service was approved
from 01.06.2003 onwards, i.e., the period on which the child psychology
was completed, she was given with all the benefits from the date of approval
of her service and therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner is not
acceptable since the service of the petitioner was approved as per
G.O.Ms.No.155, which was also upheld by this Hon'ble High Court. Hence,
the prayer sought for the petitioner is not acceptable and writ petition is
liable to be dismissed.
5. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in the case of the State
of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Education Department,
Chennai and others Vs. Pallivasal Primary School, passed in W.A.No.249
of 2002 dated 02.04.2004, has already dealt with this aspect and had held
that such regularization can only be on and after the date, when the teacher
completes the Child Psychology training. However, their past services shall
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.20817 of 2019
count for the purpose of pension. The relevant portion of the order reads as
follows:
8. Their right to be regarded as persons eligible for
confirmation / approval can be said to arise only after they
acquired, after their training, a minimum prescribed
qualification. The Government here has shown great
concession to them by allowing them to retain their position
even without obtaining the requisite diploma or certificate in
child psychology by giving to them training in child
psychology. We see nothing wrong in the Government
directing that their approval / confirmation can only be on
and after the date they complete the training. Their past
service however shall counter for pension.
6. Following the decision in Pallivasal Primary School's case, orders
came to be passed by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of
the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai and others Vs.
Sundaravel Raj in W.A.(MD).Nos.74 of 2015 and 957 of 2016 dated
21.03.2018 in the following manner:
'9.The management of various Schools, which had appointed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.20817 of 2019
Teachers like the respondents had challenged the validity of
G.O.Ms.No155 dated 03.10.2002 and the matter travelled upto the
Division Bench and the Division Bench in the case of The State of
Tamil Nadu and others v. Pallivasal Primary School reported in
2004-2-L.W. 591 upheld G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 03.10.2002. The only
relief granted to the Teachers, who were appointed in Secondary
Grade vacancies, is the grant of salaries, whereby restraining the
department from effecting any recovery. Therefore, paragraph
No.3(7) of G.O.Ms.No.155 alone was set aside and rest of the
Government Order was upheld in the said decision. It was
subsequently ordered that approval/confirmation of the appointment
can be only after the date of completion of the child psychology
training. Further the Division Bench observed that the past service
I.e prior service child psychology training shall count. After the
decision rendered in the case of Pallivasal has attained finality, the
respondent/writ petitioners seek for salary for the earlier period as
well as for other monetary benefits such as increment, selection
grade and special grade, etc. We have given our careful
consideration. We find in paragraph No.7 of its judgment, the
Hon'ble Division Bench has noted the various condition in
G.O.Ms.No.155 and held that the respondent therein would be
entitled to relief as granted to similarly placed teachers. If that is so,
the ultimate conclusion would have been to grant benefit from the
date of completion of the child psychology training. However in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.20817 of 2019
penaltimate portion of the order her salary has also been included.
In our considered view, the direction to pay salary does not
corroborate with the observation made by the Division Bench, in the
decision in the case Suganthi Victoria. The Government had
admitted that at best it can be taken as a decision pertaining to the
said case on its factual matrix and that cannot be taken as a
precedent. In the case of Government of Tamil Nadu v. Sri Rao
Bahadur AKD Dharmaraja Girls Higher Secondary School in
W.A.(MD)No.3442 of 2002 dated 08.09.2006, the Division Bench,
relying on the decision of the case reported in 2002 Writ L.R. 173,
held that the salary can be paid only after completion of the child
psychology training and accordingly, allowed the Government
appeal.'
10.The learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners
relied on certain other orders passed by various single Benches
including one of us (TSSJ) and on perusal of the same, we find that
in none of those decisions, the full effect of G.O.Ms.No.155 and the
conditions therein have been thoroughly examined. Apart from that,
the decision in the case of Pallivasal Primary School has not been
specifically noted. Therefore, we are of the considered view, that
those decisions cannot be referred to advance the case of the
respondents/writ petitioners, though some of them have attained
finality. Needless to state that if there has been a wrong decision, it
cannot be treated as precedent.'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.20817 of 2019
7. On a perusal of the aforesaid decisions made by this Court, this
Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to claim regularization
only from the date when she completes the Child Psychology Training and
that for the purpose of calculating her pension alone, her past services can
be taken into account. Hence, in view of the various decisions of this Court,
this Court is of the view that the claim made by the petitioner regarding the
other benefits can be decided only by the Government, if she is otherwise
eligible.
With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
01.12.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order:Yes/No
Neutral citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.20817 of 2019
mk
To
1. The Director of School Education
D.P.I. Campus, College Road
Chennai-6.
2. The Chief Educational Officer
Tiruvallur
Tiruvallur District.
3. The Headmaster
T.E.L.C Kabis Higher Secondary School
Pandur
Tiruvallur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.20817 of 2019
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN., J
mk
Writ Petition No.20817 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.20817 of 2019
01.12.2023
(2/3)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
