Madras High Court
P.Rani vs The Director Of School Education on 7 December, 2023
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
Writ Appeal No.1678 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 07.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
Writ Appeal No.1678 of 2019
P.Rani ....Appellant
Vs.
1. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
2. The District Educational Officer,
Chennai North, Chennai.
3. The Correspondent,
Singaram Pillay Higher Secondary School,
Villivakkam,
Chennai – 600 049. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set
aside the order dated 30.10.2017 made in W.P.No.22670 of 2014.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Jayapalan
for Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan
For Respondent : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar
Special Government Pleader [R1
and R2
No appearance - R3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/12
Writ Appeal No.1678 of 2019
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR,J.)
This intra court appeal has been filed against the order passed by
the Writ Court dated 30.10.2017 made in W.P.No.22670 of 2014.
2. The appellant joined in the third respondent school as B.T.
Assistant on 16.07.1997. According to the appellant, the third respondent
school was an aided school and the post in which she was appointed is a
sanctioned post. When that being so, such an appointment should have
been approved by the competent authorities i.e., the Director of School
Education or the District Educational Officer as the case may be.
However, since they have not come forward to approve such
appointment, the appellant was constrained to approach this Court and
file a writ petition in W.P.No.33700 of 2003 seeking for a writ of
mandamus.
3. The said writ petition was considered and disposed by the order
of the learned Judge on 21.11.2003, whereby a direction was given by
the learned Judge to the competent authority i.e., first and second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondents to consider the request of the petitioner dated 19.09.2003 in
accordance with law and take a decision thereon and communicate the
same to the petitioner in any event not later than 31.01.2004.
4. Though such an order has been passed giving direction to the
respondents 1 and 2 to consider the request of the petitioner/appellant
with regard to the plea of her to approve the appointment and
communicate that order to the petitioner on or before 31.01.2004, despite
this order has been passed, the first and second respondents did not come
forward to consider the same and no orders have been passed or
communicated.
5. But still the petitioner/appellant has been continuously working
at the third respondent school till 12.09.2010, as at that time since she
was selected and appointed in a Government school, she joined in the
Government school, therefore the period she worked in the third
respondent school i.e., between 16.07.1997 and 12.09.2010 is concerned,
such period shall be approved as an employment period, as she has
rendered the service at the third respondent school in a B.T. Assistant
post, which was a sanctioned post in a recognized school with an aid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Since the order already passed in the year 2003 has not been
implemented and no orders have been passed, even after joining in the
Government service, in order to get an approval of the service period
between 16.07.1997 and 12.09.2010 at the third respondent school, once
again the petitioner had made a request to the respondents 1 and 2 and
such a request since has not been considered, therefore the
petitioner/appellant once again approached this Court by filing writ
petition in W.P.No.22670 of 2014 seeking a writ of mandamus almost
with the similar prayer.
7. This of the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner having
been considered was rejected by the learned Judge through the impugned
order dated 30.10.2017. In the said impugned order, the learned Judge
has take the view that even though the appellant joined service in the
third respondent school in the year 1997, she had chosen to file a writ
petition only in the year 2003 i.e., after 7 years and after getting orders
that was not persuaded further by the appellant/petitioner and she joined
in a Government school in the year 2010 and thereafter, filed a writ
petition in the year 2014, therefore after four years period only the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
present writ petition has been filed. Hence, the petitioner/appellant can
be treated as a person, who slept over her right, therefore, she cannot
wake up one fine morning and knock at the doors of this Court for
redressal of her grievance and therefore, for such reasons, the learned
Judge was inclined to reject the said writ petition and accordingly, the
order impugned was passed.
8. Heard Mr.J.Jayapalan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar, learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.
9. Learned Special Government Pleader would contend that with
regard to the genuineness of the claim that has been made by the
appellant is concerned, that she had been appointed in a sanctioned post
at the third respondent school and she was fully qualified to hold the said
post of B.T. Assistant and proper selection had been made by the third
respondent school are all the matters to be gone into by the authorities
and without establishing the right to that effect by the
appellant/petitioner, mere representation since had been given that
would not confer any right on her to seek for approval of appointment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. Even though a direction was given in the year 2003,
subsequently, since the appellant has not persuaded the matter, probably
she joined in the Government service in the year 2010, the issue was
closed at that stage, therefore, the closed issue cannot be revived after
several years as the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2014,
whereas the alleged appointment claimed to have been made in the third
respondent school of the petitioner/appellant was in the year 1997.
Therefore, there was 17 years in between them. Hence, such a plea
belatedly taken by the appellant/petitioner cannot be considered by the
respondents 1 and 2. This was considered by the learned Judge and he
has come to a conclusion to that effect of-course rightly and accordingly,
he rejected the plea raised by the petitioner/appellant. Hence, the
judgment impugned does not warrant any interference from this Court.
11. We have considered the said submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. Insofar as the appointment that has been made in respect of the
appellant at the third respondent school as B.T. Assistant in the year
1997 is concerned, that has never been questioned by the respondents 1
and 2. Once the appointment is made in any aided school, the school
Management would forward the same to the competent authority for
approval, once such proposal is received from the school concerned, it is
the duty of the competent authority to go into the claim made by the
school with regard to the approval of the appointment and accordingly,
orders to be passed either accepting or rejecting the said appointment for
the purpose of approval.
13. Here, even though appointment was made in the year 1997, no
such approval had been given till 2003, therefore, the appellant was
constrained to approach this Court and filed a writ petition in the year
2003. The said writ petition in fact was ordered by giving a direction to
the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the request of the petitioner/appellant
within a time frame and communicate the decision to the
petitioner/appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. Had any decision been taken by the respondents 1 and 2 within
a time frame fixed by this Court in the earlier order, even if any negative
order had been passed for any genuine reasons and communicated to the
petitioner/appellant, certainly the petitioner/appellant would have been in
a position to challenge the same in the manner known to law. No such
orders have been passed and direction that too time bound direction
given by this Court has not been complied with for several years.
Therefore, once again the petitioner/appellant was constrained to
approach this Court by filing the second round of litigation, hence it
cannot be stated that the petitioner/appellant has slept over her right
instead, the first and second respondents have not acted upon on the
request of the school as well as the teacher with regard to the approval of
the appointment and also not complied with the orders passed by this
court on 21.11.2003 in the first round of litigation.
15. These aspects have not been considered by the learned Judge
in the order impugned. The period between 1997 and 2003 i.e., 7 years
have been taken by the learned Judge as a delayed action on part of the
appellant, but the fact remains that writ petition filed in the year 2003
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was entertained and direction was given, which has not been complied
with by the respondents 1 and 2.
16. Moreover, it is a continuous cause of action as every month,
the petitioner/appellant is entitled to get the salary if her appointment is
approved by the competent authority, therefore, it cannot be stated that
the petitioner/appellant has not perusaded the matter.
17. In fact the petitioner/appellant diligently approached this Court
at the earlier point of time and got an order in her favour by way of
direction to the official respondents to consider the request of the
petitioner/appellant with regard to the approval of her appointment,but
that order has not been complied with by the official respondents.
Therefore, for such an inaction on the part of the respondents 1 and 2, the
appellant/petitioner cannot be blamed.
18. Therefore, the reasoning given by the learned Judge in the
order impugned is not in consonance with the factual matrix of the case
and hence, we are inclined to interfere with the said decision.
Accordingly, the following orders are passed in this appeal:
That the impugned order is set aside. As a sequel, there shall be a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the plea of the
appellant for approval of her appointment as B.T. Assistant at the
third respondent school with effect from 16.07.1997 till
12.09.2010, where she claimed to have worked in the third
respondent school as B.T. Assistant, thereafter, she joined in
Government service and accordingly, after verifying the records or
documents pertaining to such appointment as well as the
qualification of the appellant, the first and second respondents
shall pass necessary orders with regard to the approval of the
appointment of the appellant in the third respondent school as a
B.T. Assistant with effect from 16.07.1997 and as a sequel if the
appointment is approved by the first and second respondents, the
appellant would be entitled to get the service benefits including the
monetary benefits.
The aforesaid compliance shall be made by the first and second
respondents within a period of two(2) months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
With these directions, this writ appeal is allowed to the direction
indicated above. No costs.
(R.S.K.,J.) (G.A.M., J.)
07.12.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mp
To
1. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
2. The District Educational Officer,
Chennai North, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
mp
07.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
