Madras High Court
R.Priyadharshni vs The Director Of Elementary Education on 19 August, 2024
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Writ Petition Nos.21250,21254 and 21258 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Writ Petition Nos.21250, 21254 and 21258 of 2024
and WMP Nos.23205, 23206, 23215, 23216, 23221 and 23222 of 2024
R.Priyadharshni .. Petitioner in WP No.21250 of 2024
B.Kurinjimalaron .. Petitioner in WP No.21254 of 2024
D.Ancy Praveena .. Petitioner in WP No.21258 of 2023
Vs.
1. The Director of Elementary Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai 600 006
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi
3. The District Educational Officer (Elementary),
Kallakurichi District,
Kalakurichi
4. The Block Educational Officer,
Chinnasalem,
Kallakurichi District.
5. The Correspondent,
Danish Mission Primary School,
Alathi, Kalvarayan Hills,
Kallakurichi District – 606 207 .. Respondents
in all WPs
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition Nos.21250,21254 and 21258 of 2024
PRAYER IN WP No.21250 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to Call for the records relating to the proceedings issued by the
3rd respondent in proceeding Na.Ka. No.518/A2/ 2022 dated 08.07.2024
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 within a
time frame to be fixed by this Court.
PRAYER IN WP No.21254 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to Call for the records relating to the proceedings issued by the
3rd respondent in proceeding Na.Ka. No.517/A2/ 2022 dated 08.07.2024
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
2/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition Nos.21250,21254 and 21258 of 2024
payment of salary from the date of appointment along with interest within a
time frame to be fixed by this Court.
PRAYER IN WP No.21258 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to Call for the records relating to the proceedings issued by the
3rd respondent in proceeding Na.Ka. No.519/A2/ 2022 dated 08.07.2024
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 within a
time frame to be fixed by this Court.
In all WPs
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Dharani
For Respondents : Mr.K.H.Ravikumar
Government Advocate
for R1 to R4
*****
ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned
proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 08.07.2024 and for a consequential
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition Nos.21250,21254 and 21258 of 2024
direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioners in
the post of secondary grade teacher in the 5 th respondent school from the
date of their appointment on 16.11.2016 with all consequential and
attendant benefits.
2. The 5th respondent school is an aided minority school. The
petitioners were appointed as Secondary grade Assistants on 16.11.2016,
17.04.2017 and 13.12.2018 respectively in a sanctioned post. Pursuant to
the appointment, the 5th respondent school submitted a proposal to the 3 rd
respondent through the 4th respondent for approval of appointment.
3. The 3rd respondent through proceedings dated 07.01.2020
rejected the proposal on the sole ground that there are surplus teaching
staffs. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed WP Nos.3439 of 2020
etc., before this Court. The same was considered along with a batch of cases
and a common judgment was passed on 18.04.2022. This Court had set-
aside the rejection orders and remitted the matter back to the file of the 3 rd
respondent for passing fresh orders on merits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition Nos.21250,21254 and 21258 of 2024
4. Pursuant to the above order, the matter went before the 3 rd
respondent and the 3rd respondent through proceedings dated 25.05.2023
once again rejected the proposal on the ground that the petitioners have been
appointed in the surplus posts. The same became a subject matter of
challenge in WP Nos.17909, 17913 and 17914 of 2023. That was virtually
the 3rd round of litigation for the petitioners before this Court.
5. The learned Single Judge of this Court by a common order
dated 15.09.2023 allowed the writ petitions and the relevant portions in the
order are extracted hereunder :-
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 3rd 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 3rd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition Nos.21250,21254 and 21258 of 2024
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition Nos.21250,21254 and 21258 of 2024
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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition Nos.21250,21254 and 21258 of 2024
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 3rd 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.
6. After the above order was passed and the matter was remanded
back to the file of the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent has once again
rejected the proposal through the impugned proceedings dated 08.07.2024.
The 3rd respondent has once again stated that the petitioners have been
appointed in the surplus posts. Aggrieved by the same, these writ petitions
have been filed before this Court.
7. Heard Mrs.T.Dharani, learned counsel for the petitioner and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition Nos.21250,21254 and 21258 of 2024
Mr.K.H.Ravikumar, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 4.
8. In the considered view of this Court, the present impugned
orders passed by the 3rd respondent virtually amounts to contempt of Court.
On the first occasion when the approval was rejected, it was challenged by
the petitioners along with a batch of other similarly placed persons. The
rejection order was set-aside by this Court and this Court made it clear that
the approval cannot be denied on the ground of existence of surplus
teachers. Inspite of such an observation being made, the 3rd respondent once
again through proceedings dated 25.05.2023 rejected the proposal on the
ground that the petitioners were appointed in the surplus posts, not
withstanding the fact that they were appointed in the sanctioned post. This
issue was once against dealt with by this Court and this Court found that the
impugned order is unsustainable and it was also made clear that if the
petitioners satisfied all the other requirements, their appointment must be
approved keeping in mind the earlier order passed by this Court in WP
No.3439 of 2020 etc., dated 18.04.2022.
9. It is quite unfortunate that the 3rd respondent has once again
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition Nos.21250,21254 and 21258 of 2024
rejected the approval by taking the very same stand that the petitioners have
been appointed in the surplus posts. This time, for a change the 3rd
respondent has given more particulars as to why he came to a conclusion
that the petitioners were appointed in the surplus posts.
10. During the previous occasion, the 3rd respondent apart from
taking the stand that the petitioners have been appointed in the surplus
posts, also took a stand that the petitioners have not cleared the TET without
knowing that clearing the TET will not apply to Minority Schools. This
clarification was infact given by the Division Bench by an order dated
14.06.2024.
11. To add insult to injury, the order that was passed by the learned
Single Judge in WP No.17907 etc., of 2023 was further confirmed by the
Division Bench in WA Nos.1705 of 2024 by an order dated 14.06.2024.
Thus, the 3rd respondent seems to be rejecting the sanctioning of the
appointment on the very same ground every time inspite of this Court
repeatedly setting aside such ground taken by the 3rd respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition Nos.21250,21254 and 21258 of 2024
12. The impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent, as stated
above virtually amounts to supplanting the earlier orders passed by this
Court and thereby, is a clear violation of the orders passed by this Court. It
clearly makes out a ground for initiating contempt proceedings against the
3rd respondent. However, this Court is not inclined to take such an extreme
step for the present. This Court wants to wait and see the attitude of the 3 rd
respondent in complying with the orders passed in these writ petitions.
13. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned proceedings
of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka. No.517/A2/ 2022 dated 08.07.2024,
Na.Ka. No.518/A2/ 2022 dated 08.07.2024 and Na.Ka. No.519/A2/ 2022
dated 08.07.2024, is hereby set-aside. There shall be a direction to the 3rd
respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioners in the post of
Secondary grade teachers in the 5th respondent school from the date of their
appointment with all consequential and attendant benefits. This process shall
be completed by the 3rd respondent within a period of six weeks from today.
14. In the result, all these writ petitions stand allowed with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition Nos.21250,21254 and 21258 of 2024
above directions. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
15. Post these cases under the caption for “Reporting compliance”
on 03.10.2024 at 2.15 p.m.
19.08.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order:Yes/No
Neutral citation:Yes/No
rka
1. The Director of Elementary Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai 600 006
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi
3. The District Educational Officer (Elementary),
Kallakurichi District,
Kalakurichi
4. The Block Educational Officer,
Chinnasalem,
Kallakurichi District.
5. The Correspondent,
Danish Mission Primary School,
Alathi, Kalvarayan Hills,
Kallakurichi District – 606 207
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition Nos.21250,21254 and 21258 of 2024
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
rka
Writ Petition Nos.21250, 21254 and 21258 of 2024
19.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
