R.Priyadharshini vs The Director Of Elementary ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 12560 Mad

                                                                     WP.Nos.17909, 17913 & 17914 of 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 15.09.2023

                                                       CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

                                  WP.Nos.17909, 17913 & 17914 of 2023
                  and W.M.P.Nos.17042, 17044, 17046, 17048, 17054, 17056 & 17057 of 2023

                  R.Priyadharshini                         .. Petitioner in W.P.No.17909 of 2023
                  D.Ancy Praveena                          .. Petitioner in W.P.No.17913 of 2023
                  D.Kurinjimalaron                         .. Petitioner in W.P.No.17914 of 2023

                                                       Versus

                  1.The Director of Elementary Education
                  DPI Campus, College Road
                  Chennai – 600 006

                  2.The Chief Educational Officer
                  Kallakurichi District
                  Kallakurichi

                  3.The District Elementary Educational Officer
                  Kallakurichi District
                  Kallakurichi

                  4.The Block Educational Officer
                  Chinnasalem, Kallakurichi District

                  5.The Correspondent

Danish Mission Primary School Alathi, Kalvarayan Hills Kallakurichi District – 606 207 ... Respondents

Prayer in W.P.No.17909 of 2023: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP.Nos.17909, 17913 & 17914 of 2023

in proceeding Na.Ka.No.738/A1/2023 dated 25.05.2023 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the 5th respondent school from the date of appointment on 16.11.2016 with all consequential and attendant benefits including the payment of salary from the date of appointment along with interest.

Prayer in W.P.No.17913 of 2023: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in proceeding Na.Ka.No.915/A1/2020 dated 25.05.2023 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the 5th respondent school from the date of appointment on 17.04.2017 with all consequential and attendant benefits including the payment of salary from the date of appointment along with interest.

Prayer in W.P.No.17914 of 2023: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in proceeding Na.Ka.No.915/A1/2020 dated 25.05.2023 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the 5th respondent school from the date of appointment on 13.12.2018 with all consequential and attendant benefits including the payment of salary from the date of appointment along with interest.

                  In all cases
                  For Petitioners               : M/s.T.Dharani

                  For Respondents               : Mr.P.Baladhandayutham
                                                  Special Government Pleader

                                               COMMON ORDER

Challenging the order of the third respondent dated 25.05.2023,

rejecting the proposal submitted by the 5th respondent school seeking approval

of the appointment of the petitioners as secondary Grade Teacher and seeking https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP.Nos.17909, 17913 & 17914 of 2023

consequential reliefs, the present writ petitions have been filed.

2. The 5th respondent school is an aided minority School. The

petitioners were appointed on 16.11.2016, 17.04.2017 & 13.12.2018

respectively as Secondary Grade Assistant in the sanctioned permanent post.

Pursuant to the appointment of the petitioners, the 5th respondent school

submitted a proposal to the 3nd respondent through the 4 th respondent for

approval of appointment of the petitioners, however, no order was passed

thereon. Therefore, writ petitions in W.P.Nos.25143, 25417 & 25421 of 2019

came to be filed for mandamus and this court by order dated 25.09.2019,

disposed of the same with a direction to the 3nd respondent to consider the

proposal and pass appropriate orders thereon. Pursuant to the order of this

court dated 25.09.2019, the 3rd respondent by his proceedings dated

07.01.2020 rejected the proposal on the sole ground that there were many

surplus teaching staff. Challenging the above said rejection order of the 3 rd

respondent dated 07.01.2020, the petitioners filed W.P.Nos.3439 of 2020 etc

batch cases and by order dated 18.04.2022, this court while setting aside the

order of rejection, remitted the matter back to the 3 rd respondent for passing

appropriate orders afresh. In the order, it was made clear by this court that

approval could not be denied on the ground of existence of surplus teachers. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP.Nos.17909, 17913 & 17914 of 2023

However, the 3rd respondent by his proceedings dated 25.05.2023 rejected the

proposal on the ground that the petitioners were appointed in the surplus post

notwithstanding the fact that it remain to be a sanctioned post. Therefore,

challenging the rejection of approval, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Heard both sides and perused the records carefully.

4. This is admittedly third round of litigation.

5. The petitioner were appointed as Secondary Grade Assistant on

16.11.2016, 17.04.2017 & 13.12.2018 respectively. In the earlier round of

litigation, the approval was rejected by the 3rd respondent by his proceedings

dated 07.01.2020 on the account of existence of surplus teachers. When that

was put under challenge in W.P.Nos.3439 of 2020 etc batch cases, vide Order

dated 18.04.2022, this court was pleased to set aside the order of the 3 rd

respondent rejecting to grant approval of appointment of the petitioner as

Secondary Grade Teacher in the 5th respondent school, remitted the matter

back with a positive direction to the 3 rd respondent to pass orders afresh

granting approval of appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade

Teacher, provided the said proposal satisfies all the norms prescribed for such a

appointment and as per the rules.

6. It is relevant to note that while setting aside the order dated

07.01.2020 passed by the 3rd respondent rejecting the proposal seeking https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP.Nos.17909, 17913 & 17914 of 2023

approval of appointment of the petitioner, this court in W.P.No.3439 of 2020

dated 18.04.2022, in para 10 has held as under:-

“10. Having regard to the rival submissions of the parties, taking note of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in a Batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD) No.76 of 2019, etc., G.O.Ms.No.165 issued by the School Education department, dated 17.9.2019 will not prohibit the educational authorities to approve the appointment made by the School Management in the instant writ petitions since the proposals for approval of appointment made by the School Management were forwarded to the educational authorities prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondent department without considering the G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 in proper perspective and passed the impugned order rejecting the proposals submitted by the School Management. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondent department are liable to be quashed.”

7. In the earlier round of litigation, proposal was rejected citing that

G.O.(Ms).165 dated 17.09.2019 was operating in the field. It is to be noted

that this court in its order has clearly held that G.O.(Ms) No.165 dated

17.09.2019 would not be a bar to the case of the petitioner and it would not be

applicable to the teachers who were appointed prior to the Government Order

in G.O.(Ms) No.165 dated 17.09.2019. Still the impugned order came to be

passed on the ground that surplus teachers.

8. It is relevant to note that the very issue was whether G.O.Ms.No.165

dated 17.09.2019 was applicable to the petitioner case or not? This court has

categorically stated that G.O.(Ms) No.165 dated 17.09.2019 was only

prospective in nature and approval have to be given in the cases where https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP.Nos.17909, 17913 & 17914 of 2023

appointment of teachers were made prior to the said Government Order.

Having non-suited the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation citing

G.O.(Ms) No.165, now the impugned order has been passed on a different

ground. The authorities cannot take different stand at different points of time to

stick on their stand so as to negate the claim of the petitioner. Be that as it may,

the impugned order came to be passed not on merits but the proposal was

rejected merely on the ground that there are surplus teachers.

9. In the light of the above discussion and the factual matrix of the case,

the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 3 rd

respondent for considering the proposal afresh and passing orders granting

approval as sought by the school management, provided it satisfies all the

norms prescribed for such appointment and the rules. While passing orders of

the proposal, the 3rd respondent shall keep in mind the directions given by this

court in W.P.No.3439 of 2020 dated 18.04.2022. If the authority concerned

wants to raise any further query or make clarification, the same may be had

from the school management. The said exercise shall be completed within a

period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. This writ petition is allowed accordingly with the directions as

indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected WMPs are closed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP.Nos.17909, 17913 & 17914 of 2023

15.09.2023 dhk Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No

To

1.The Director of Elementary Education DPI Campus, College Road Chennai – 600 006

2.The Chief Educational Officer Kallakurichi District Kallakurichi

3.The District Elementary Educational Officer Kallakurichi District Kallakurichi

4.The Block Educational Officer Chinnasalem, Kallakurichi District

5.The Correspondent Danish Mission Primary School Alathi, Kalvarayan Hills Kallakurichi District – 606 207

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

dhk https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP.Nos.17909, 17913 & 17914 of 2023

WP.Nos.17909, 17913 & 17914 of 2023

15.09.2023 (1/2)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis