Madras High Court
The District Elementary ... vs Rajakani ..1St on 31 July, 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 31.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.(MD)Nos.1242 & 1243 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.2 & 2 of 2014
The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Virudhunagar ...Appellant in both appeals
/Vs./
N.Parameswari (died)
1.Rajakani ..1st Respondent in W.A.(MD)No.1242/2014
1.S.N.Subbulakshmi ..1st Respondent in W.A.(MD)No.1243/2014
2.The Secretary and Correspondent of
Sri Rao Bahadur A.K.D.Dharmaraja Middle School,
Rajapalayam.
...2nd Respondent in both petitions
COMMON PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause 15 of Letters
Patent Act, to set aside the order dated 26.02.2013 passed in W.P.
(MD)Nos.10116 and 10120 of 2006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In both appeals:
For Appellants : Mr.V.Om Prakash
Government Advocate
For R1 : Mr.D.Srinivasa Raghavan
For R2 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
The writ petitioners/first respondent in both Writ Appeals, had
approached this Court seeking mandamus directing the District
Educational Officer and Secretary and Correspondence of Sri Rao
Bahadur A.K.D.Dharmaraja Middle School, Rajapalayam (in short
‘School’) to pay salary for the period from 19.07.2000 to 04.08.2004 and
11.02.2002 to 14.09.2004, respectively, on approving their appointments
as Secondary Grade Teacher in the School with all attendant and
monetary benefits.
2.Writ Petitions came to be allowed on 26.02.2013. Pending
Writ Petition, the first petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.10116 of 2006 had
passed away and her legal heir was brought on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The School had been refused approval for appointment of the
petitioners on the ground that the School had not obtained declaration as
minority institution. Sans declaration of minority status, the school was
required to obtain prior permission for appointments in the department,
which had not been done and consequently, the writ petitioners were held
not entitled to their appointments.
4.The school had filed O.S.No.544 of 1984 on the file of the
Additional District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur, seeking a declaration as
a linguistic minority institution. The suit came to be decreed by
judgment and decree dated 16.02.1989.
5.The State preferred First Appeal in A.S.No.83 of 1991 on the
file of the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur challenging decree dated 16.02.1989.
Pending First Appeal, there was no interim stay suspending the decree
passed by the trial Court. The First Appeal came to be allowed on
03.03.1999 and as a result, the school lost minority status.
6.To be noted, another candidate by name Anuradha had been
appointed on 03.09.1996, during the pendency of the First Appeal. That
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appointment came to be approved by the State, evidently for the reason
that decree dated 16.02.1989 was in subsistence at that time as there was
no interim order pending first appeal.
7.The case of Anuradha has been relied on by the first
respondent/writ petitioners before us. However, in light of the
distinction as noted above, that Anuradha’s appointment was on
03.09.1996 during the subsistence of decree dated 16.06.1989, writ
petitioners cannot take benefit of that appointment as that appointment is
distinguishable in law.
8.The judgment in the First Appeal was challenged by the
School by way of second appeal in S.A.No.807 of 1999. Pending
second appeal, an application had been filed in C.M.P.No.8203 of 1999
seeking stay of judgment and decree in A.S.No.83 of 1991 dated
03.03.1999. That Civil Miscellaneous Petition was ordered and interim
protection granted for a limited period. The interim protection was
continued until further orders by order dated 15.06.1999.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9.The appointment of the petitioners were made during the
tenure of the interim protection granted in the second appeal. Approvals
had been sought by the School on 30.08.2000 (in the case of
Parameswari) and 05.06.2003 (in the case of Subbulakshmi). Those
applications came to be returned by the State citing pendency of the
Second Appeal.
10.Thus, the School had gone ahead to appoint Subbulakshmi
on 11.02.2002 and Parameswari on 19.07.2000 without awaiting
approval from the State on the strength of the interim order, which was in
force till 03.09.2003, when it came to be vacated.
11.The legal issue that has arisen in the matter is as to whether
grant of interim protection would result in resumption of minority status
that was granted to the School on 16.02.1989. The State would canvass
the view that with the allowing of the first appeal on 03.03.1999, the
school had lost minority status and the interim protection granted earlier
can, in no way be understood to mean resumption of the minority status
decreed on 16.02.1989 as that decree had merged with judgment and
decree dated 03.03.1999 passed in the first appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12.This matter has been adjourned on few occasions to enable
the parties to advance submission on this legal issue. However, there
have been no effective arguments advanced on this point by either side.
13.Learned single Judge has allowed the writ petitions noticing
the position that the petitioners were appointed in sanctioned posts in
vacancies caused by retirements and hence, the petitioners would be
entitled, in equity, to the relief sought for on the unique facts of their
cases. The writ petitions had been disposed directing the respondents to
consider the proposal for payment of salary for the period between
19.07.2000 to 04.08.2004 and 11.02.2002 to 14.09.2004 being periods
when the two petitioners served in the school and release financial
benefits in their favour. A time frame of three months was fixed for that
purpose. Pending present writ appeal, a limited stay has been granted,
which has not been extended further.
14.The factum of the writ petitioners having worked during
19.07.2000 to 04.08.2004 (in the case of Parameswari) and 11.02.2002 to
14.09.2004 (in the case of Subbulakshmi) is undisputed. It is also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
undisputed that the approvals sought by the School on 30.08.2000 and
05.06.2003 were only returned by the State. Had the State rejected the
applications for approvals on the ground of want of minority status, the
legal position as to whether the School was right in assuming that the
grant of interim protection resurrected the minority status, would perhaps
have been clarified. However, this aspect of the matter did not weigh
with the State at that juncture.
15.Having noted the aforesaid facts and circumstances that
arise for consideration, we find ourselves in agreement with the
conclusion of the writ Court. The petitioners must be granted the
benefits they seek having admittedly been appointed in (i)sanctioned
posts (ii) in retirement vacancies and (iii) having discharged their
services.
16.To clarify, Subbulakshmi will be entitled to salary and
benefits for the period 11.02.2002 to 03.09.2003 and Parameswari for the
period between 19.07.2000 to 03.09.2003, the latter in both cases being
the date of vacating of interim stay. The legal question as to the effect of
interim protection pending second appeal is left open.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17.The State will pass necessary orders granting approval as
well as disburse the requisite grants within a period of eight weeks from
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
18.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners
would point out that there are periods, both anterior and post the period
for which they have been found entitled to salary and benefits under this
order, when the petitioners have rendered services to the School. As this
Court is concerned only with grant-in-aid for the period for which this
order has been passed, any other benefit sought by the writ petitioners
would have to be addressed to the School. Such request, if made, will be
considered by the School expeditiously, in accordance with law. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]
31.07.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
ta
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
ta
Order made in
W.A.(MD)Nos.1242 & 1243 of 2014
Dated:
31.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
