Madras High Court
Angeline Beraca Chirstobell vs The Secretary To Government on 27 July, 2023
W.P.(MD).No.283 of 2021
vBEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.P.(MD)No.283 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.221 & 222 of 2021
Angeline Beraca Chirstobell ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Department of School Education,
Tamil Nadu Secretariat,
St. George Fort,
Chennai.
2.The Director of School Education,
Department of School Education,
DPI Compound,
Chennai.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli Educational District,
Tirunelveli.
5.The Correspondent,
Schaffter Higher Secondary School,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.283 of 2021
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records in respect of the order passed by the fourth respondent in
Na.Ka.No.3398/A1/2020, dated 10.08.2020 and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to approve the
appointment of the petitioner as Tamil Pandit in the fifth respondent
School from the date of appointment ie., from 12.08.2008 and confer
all service and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Chellapandian
For RR 1 to 4 : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam
Government Advocate
For R – 5 : Mr.Vinoharan
for G.Prabhu Rajadurai
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by the
fourth respondent, dated 10.08.2020 and consequently to direct the
respondents 3 and 4 to approve the appointment of the petitioner as
Tamil Pandit in the fifth respondent School from the date of
appointment ie., from 12.08.2008 and confer all service and monetary
benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.283 of 2021
2.Heard Mr.S.Chellapandian, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam, learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.Vinoharan, learned
counsel for Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the
fifth respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3.The petitioner was appointed as a BT Assistant (Tamil) in
the fifth respondent school in a sanctioned vacancy on 12.08.2008 in
the place of one Dharmaraj Daniel, who had retired from his service on
31.05.2008.
4.The fifth respondent school is managed by a corporate
minority Management namely CSI Diocese, Tirunelveli. On the
retirement of Dharmaraj Daniel on 31.05.2008, even before the
petitioner was appointed, another candidate namely Suganthi
Selvakumari was appointed by an incompetent authority to the said
post. In view of the said two appointments, the official respondents
withheld the grant in aid for the said B.T Assistant post in the year
2009. As a result of which, the petitioner is still working in the said
post without aided salary. The petitioner's proposal was forwarded to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.283 of 2021
the third respondent vide letter dated 23.04.2009 and the same was
returned by the fourth respondent. In the meantime, the said Suganthi
Selvakumari, who was appointed by the incompetent authority, was
ousted from the post by the competent management vide proceedings
dated 01.09.2008. Challenging the said order of ousting, she filed a
Writ Petition before this Court in W.P(MD)No.8121 of 2008, in which,
this Court upheld the ousting order and dismissed the Writ Petition on
28.05.2009. Under such circumstances, the petitioner's proposal was
once again forwarded on 18.07.2009 to the fourth respondent for
approval. However, the same was returned by the fourth respondent
vide proceedings, dated 12.08.2009, directing to verify whether any
appeal has been preferred by Suganthi Selvakumari as against the writ
order, dated 28.05.2009. In the meanwhile, Suganthi Selvakumari filed
a writ appeal in W.A(MD)No.375 of 2009, in which, the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court, by Judgment, dated 26.03.2010 set aside the
order of the learned Single Judge as well as ousting order passed by
the fifth respondent. Challenging the same, a Special Leave Petition
was preferred by the fifth respondent before the Hon'ble Apex Court as
against the order passed in the Writ Appeal, in which, the Hon'ble Apex
Court granted an order of status quo on 14.07.2010. In view of the
same, the petitioner continued in the said post without getting any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.283 of 2021
grant in aid salary. During the pendency of the said Special Leave
Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the incumbent Dharmaraj
Daniel's retirement proposal was approved and he was relieved from
service with all service and monetary benefits. The said Suganthi
Selvakumari did not reclaim her position in the School as well. Under
such circumstances, once again the fifth respondent School forwarded
the proposal before the fourth respondent for consideration, which was
also returned citing the pendency of the Special Leave Petition before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, by Judgment, dated 11.12.2017 set aside the impugned
Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench and remanded the
matter to the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court once again granting
leave to the respondents therein including Suganthi Selvakumari to
challenge the order, dated 04.12.2017 passed by the fourth
respondent. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court finally dismissed
the Writ Appeal filed by Suganthi Selvakumari on 27.07.2018 making
the following observations:-
“26. We cannot however stop with this. The five
appellants before us are admittedly qualified
candidates with substantial teaching experience. They
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.283 of 2021
have, unfortunately, been caught in the cross-fire
between the election disputes of the two warring
factions. While refraining from commenting upon the
adequacy or otherwise of such qualifications, we note,
as a matter of fact, that all five appellants were
engaged for several years with different schools under
the TDTA - CSI umbrella. Moreover, out of a total 35
writ petitioners who had approached this Court initially
in 2008, only five pursue the litigation today.
27. Thus, and without it becoming a case
of precedence, we direct the Manager TDTA, to
identify appropriate placement in the schools run by
the TDTA Management of course, based on the
qualifications and experience of the candidates, and
appoint them within a period for four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. We make it
abundantly clear that we have not, in making the
aforesaid direction, adverted to the eligibility or
qualification of the candidates, which is to be decided
by the competent authorities.”
5.On receipt of the said order passed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court, the fifth respondent forwarded the
petitioner's proposal to the fourth respondent on 06.08.2018. The
fourth respondent, on considering all the facts, forwarded the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.283 of 2021
petitioner's proposal to the third respondent by proceedings, dated
12.10.2018. The fourth respondent after a period of two years, on
10.08.2020 returned the said proposal on seven grounds. Challenging
the same, this Writ Petition came to be filed.
6.The reasons for returning the proposal is as follows:-
“i) Report to the effect that surplus
teachers in the school in questions and other schools
run by the Management have been redeployed in the
needy schools of the management and if not there are
no vacant post available to be filled up has not been
enclosed an sent letter for redeployment of surplus
teachers has not be enclosed.
ii) In one post two teachers were
appointed. It may be stated whether the teacher
whose services were terminated has been paid salary
and if so details thereof.
iii) The recommendation of the present
manager of the corporate schools for approving the
appointment of the petitioner and also certifying that
there are no surplus teachers in the corporate
management.
iv) As per the existing Rules, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.283 of 2021
particulars of details of posts fix sanctioned to the
school before 1991-1992 have to be furnished.
v) The order of the Administrator for filling
up the post has not been enclosed.
vi) As ordered in WA(MD)No.375 of 2009
dated 27.07.2018, of the High Court bench at Madurai,
the details of Job provided to the displaced teachers in
respect of whom the Manager of the TDTA Schools by
this letter dated 28.08.2018 undertook to provide
employment to them, may be furnished.
vii) Further as per the Government letter
No. 32601/EB2(1)/2019 dated 04.12.2019 until the
surplus teachers are redeployment in aided schools no
approval for any new appointment shall be made.”
7.The crux of all seven grounds would reveal that the
fourth respondent has returned the proposal only on two grounds. One
is to ascertain the details of jobs provided to the displaced Teachers
especially Suganthi Selvakumari and also a report as to the surplus
Teachers in the School in question and other Schools run by corporate
Management and also the information as to the redeployment in the
needy Schools of the surplus Teachers in the management.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.283 of 2021
8.This Court is inclined to observe that the question of
surplus in this case cannot be racked up because the vacancy arose as
early as in the year 2008 and at that point of time, there was no
question of surplus. Hence, on this ground, this Court is inclined to
quash the impugned order, dated 10.08.2020 passed by the fourth
respondent.
9.Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 10.08.2020
passed by the fourth respondent is quashed. The respondents 3 and 4
are directed not to return the proposal any more and the reasons
stated in the impugned order with respect to redeployment and surplus
Teachers will not hold good. As far as other queries raised in the
impugned order, the fifth respondent is directed to rectify the queries
and re-submit the proposal before the fourth respondent and the
fourth respondent, who in turn will forward the same to the third
respondent and the third respondent is directed to approve the
proposal of appointing the petitioner in the post of B.T Assistant in a
vacancy which occurred as early as in the year 2008, within a period of
twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.283 of 2021
10.With the above observation, this Writ Petition is allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
27.07.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.283 of 2021
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Department of School Education,
Tamil Nadu Secretariat,
St. George Fort,
Chennai.
2.The Director of School Education,
Department of School Education,
DPI Compound,
Chennai.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli Educational District,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.283 of 2021
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
ps
W.P.(MD)No.283 of 2021
27.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
