Madras High Court
K.Sathish Kumar vs The Commissioner Of School ... on 7 November, 2023
W.P.(MD).No.22775 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.22775 of 2022
and
W.M.P(MD) Nos.16919, 16920 of 2022 and 22524 of 2023
K.Sathish Kumar,
Office Assistant,
RM.P.S.Ramaiah Nadar Higher Secondary School,
Athipatti Post,
Peraiyur Taluk,
Madurai District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner of School Education,
Office of the Commissioner of School Education,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Office of the Chief Educational Office,
Madurai, Madurai District.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Office of the District Educational Office,
Usilampatti, Madurai District.
4. The District Educational Officer,
Office of the District Educational Office,
Madurai, Madurai District.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22775 of 2022
5. The Secretary,
RM. P.S.Ramaiah Nadar,
Higher Secondary School,
Athipatti Post, Peraiyur Taluk,
Madurai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4719/A3/2021, dated
21.09.2022 passed by the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and
consequentially to direct the fourth respondent to approve the appointment of
the petitioner in the post of Office Assistant with effect from 01.11.2021
within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.V.Om Prakash
Government Advocate
for R1 to R4
: No appearance – for R5
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed by an Office Assistant
appointed in the fifth respondent's School which is the Non-Minority Aided
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22775 of 2022
School, challenging the order passed by the third respondent, wherein, his
appointment was not approved.
2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner,
the writ petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant on 01.11.2021 and the
School Management has forwarded the said appointment order for proposal to
the third respondent herein. The third respondent by his impugned order,
dated 21.09.2022 has rejected the said proposal on the following three
grounds:
1. The School Management has not obtained prior
approval from the District Educational Officer as
contemplated under Rule 15(4) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu
Recognized Private Schools (Regulations Rules) 1974;
2. The School Management has not obtained prior
permission from the Chief Educational Officer before
appointing the writ petitioner, in view of the G.O(Ms)No.
101, School Education Department, dated 18.05.2018; and
3. In view of G.O(Ms)No.165, School Education,
Primary Education (2) (1), Department, dated 17.09.2019,
before completion of redeployment, no new appointment
should be effected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22775 of 2022
3. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed by
the writ petitioner.
4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, as
far as the appointment of non-teaching staff are concerned, no prior
permission is required to be obtained from any one of the educational
authorities, in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Division Bench of our
High Court reported in 2021 (6) CTC 594 (the Director of School
Education, DPI Campus and two others Vs. S.Murugan and other). He
further contended that G.O.(Ms)No.165, School Education Department, dated
17.09.2019 is applicable only to the teaching faculty and in the present case,
the appointment of the petitioner being an Office Assistant, the said
Government Order is not applicable to him. That apart, even as per
G.O(Ms)No.238, School Education Department, dated 13.11.2018, they are
eligible to appoint one Office Assistant, even if the students strength is less
than 250. However, in the fifth respondent School, the present students
strength is 1220. Therefore, they are eligible for appointment of an Office
Assistant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22775 of 2022
5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 1 to 4 had contended that Rule 15(4) (ii) of Tamil Nadu
Recognized Private School (Regulations Rules) 1974 specifically pointed out
that they have to obtain prior permission. He further relied upon the G.O.
(Ms)No.101, School Education (Budget-1) Department, dated 18.05.2018,
wherein, the Chief Educational Officer of the particular District is the
competent authority to accord prior permission for filling up of Teaching and
Non-Teaching posts in Aided High and Higher Secondary Schools and to
accord approval for the said posts. Hence, he prayed that the order impugned
in the writ petition may be sustained.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel on either side and perused the material on records.
7. The Hon'ble First Bench judgment of our High Court reported in
2021 (6) CTC 594 (the Director of School Education, DPI Campus and two
others Vs.S.Murugan and other) has clearly indicated that as far as the
Government Aided Schools are concerned, there are no Rules required in
respect of Non-Teaching post to seek prior permission from the educational
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22775 of 2022
authorities. Once appointment process is undertaken, and suitable person is
identified, the Department cannot refuse appointment citing surplus staffs.
8. In the present case, even as per G.O(Ms)No.238, School Education
Department, the school would be entitled to one Office Assistant even if the
students strength is less than 250. Therefore, the appointment of the writ
petitioner as an Office Assistant in the present School can never consider as
surplus.
9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, G.O(Ms)No.165, School Education Department, dated 17.09.2019,
relates to the teaching staff and the said Government Order is not applicable
to the present writ petitioner. That apart, as per G.O(Ms)No.238, School
Education Department, dated 13.11.2018, the School is entitled to appoint
one Office Assistant. The petitioner's School is admittedly a stand alone
School and not a Corporate Management. Therefore, the question of re-
deployment would not arise in the present case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22775 of 2022
10. In view of the above said deliberations, the order impugned in the
writ petition is set aside and the third respondent is directed to approve the
appointment of the writ petitioner as Office Assistant in the fifth respondent
School from the date of initial appointment with all attendant monetary
benefits. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. Accordingly, this Writ Petitions stands allowed to the extent as
stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
07.11.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22775 of 2022
To
1. The Commissioner of School Education,
Office of the Commissioner of School Education,
DPI Compound,
College Road, Chennai.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Office of the Chief Educational Office,
Madurai, Madurai District.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Office of the District Educational Office,
Usilampatti, Madurai District.
4. The District Educational Officer,
Office of the District Educational Office,
Madurai, Madurai District.
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22775 of 2022
ebsi
W.P(MD)No.22775 of 2022
07.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
