Madras High Court
X.Arun vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 September, 2023
2023/MHC/4379
W.P.(MD) No.2323 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.(MD) No.2323 of 2019
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.1808 of 2019
X.Arun ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai-600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Theni, Theni District.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Uthamapalayam, Theni District.
5.The Manager/Correspondent,
S.U.M Higher Secondary School,
Royappanpatty,
Theni District-625 526. ...
Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 3 and 4 to approve
the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Assistant in the fifth respondent
school, viz., SUM Higher Secondary School w.e.f., the original date of
appointment ie., 30.03.2005 and with all salary and attendant benefits for the
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.2323 of 2019
period between 30.03.2005 to 29.07.2007.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabhu
For Respondents : Mr.J.John Rajadurai
Government Advocate for R1 to R4
No Appearance for R5
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus directing the respondents 3
and 4 to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the fifth respondent
school as Junior Assistant with effect from the original date of appointment
ie., w.e.f., 30.03.2005 instead of 29.07.2007 and grant the petitioner all the
service and monetary benefits.
2. The brief facts are one Rajarathinam who was working as Junior
Assistant at Savariyappa Udayar Memorial Higher Secondary School,
Savarimuthu Lourdhu Nagar, Rayappanpatti retired from service w.e.f.,
30.06.2004. In the resultant vacancy, the writ petitioner was appointed as
Junior Assistant w.e.f., 30.03.2005 and the proposal was submitted to the
respondents for approval. By an order dated 03.05.2005, the proposal was
returned with an endorsement that since there is a ban order dated
29.11.2001 for filling up of the non-teaching post, the appointment cannot be
approved. Thereafter, the ban which was imposed vide G.O.Ms.No.212 was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.2323 of 2019
subsequently lifted vide G.O.Ms.No.14 in the year 2006. Thereafter, once again
a fresh proposal was sent by the fifth respondent school as if the petitioner is
appointed w.e.f., 30.07.2007 and the said proposal was approved by the
respondents and the petitioner is granted all the benefits with effect from the
said date. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner prays that the approval
ought to have been granted to the petitioner with effect from his original date
of appointment ie., w.e.f., 29.03.2005.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions
would also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Deva Asir Vs. The
Secretary to Government, School Education Department1, more
specifically relying upon paragraph 37 to contend that a perusal of the said
judgment it would be clear that inspite of the ban, if any appointment has
been made, Courts have held that the ban order by itself cannot come in the
way of approval of the appointment with effect from the original date of
appointment. Therefore, the learned counsel prays that in this case also the
petitioner's appointment w.e.f., 29.03.2005 is denied only on the ground of the
ban order and therefore, prays that similar benefit be extended to him.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of
the respondents 1 to 4 pointing out to the counter affidavit filed in the matter
1 (2016) 3 LW 152
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.2323 of 2019
would submit that fresh proposal was sent by the fifth respondent's school
itself and as such the approval was duly granted from the date of appointment
as per the fresh proposal. He would also submit that after the ban order was
lifted in the year 2006, the fifth respondent school authorities sought
permission from the respondents 1 to 4 and after grant of permission, the
second proposal has been submitted and therefore, the same has been
approved.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the material records of the case.
6. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court in
the judgment reported in (2016) 3 LW 152 has held that even if the
appointment is made during the ban period, the appointments have to be
taken as approved from the original date. But however I am afraid that the
said proposition cannot be applied to the facts of the instant case, as the
petitioner as well as the fifth respondent school did not stick to the original
date of appointment. After realizing that there was a ban order, and when the
ban order was lifted in the year 2006, they sent a fresh proposal in the year
2007 as if the petitioner was appointed only w.e.f., 30.07.2007 and
accordingly, the proposal has been approved by the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.2323 of 2019
7. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner cannot be
countenanced. Therefore, finding no merits, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
However, it will be open for the writ petitioner to claim the said arrears of the
salary for the said period from the fifth respondent Management. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.09.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sji
To
1.The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai-600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Theni, Theni District.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Uthamapalayam, Theni District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.2323 of 2019
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
sji
W.P.(MD) No.2323 of 2019
05.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
