Madras High Court
A.Jerin Yesotha vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 June, 2024
W.P.(MD).No.20390 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.06.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.(MD).No.20390 of 2022
and WMP(MD) Nos.14787 & 14788 of 2022
A.Jerin Yesotha
... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented 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,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
4. The District Educational Officer
Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.
5. The Correspondent,
All Saints Higher Secondary School,
Muttom - 629 202, Kanyakumari District.
... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.(MD).No.20390 of 2022
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, calling for the records relating
to the impugned proceedings issued by the 4th respondent/ District Educational
Officer in Na.Ka. No.5527/Aa2/2017, dated 23.08.2021, quash the same and
further direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to approve forthwith the appointment
of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant (History) in the 5th respondent school w.e.f.
03.07.2017, with all attendant benefits including the arrears of salary and
allowance.
For Petitioners : Mr. K.Ragatheesh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Heard Mr.N.Sathish Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.M.Siddharthan, learned Additional Government Pleader, for the
respondents.
2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the
impugned proceedings issued by the 4th respondent / District Educational
Officer in Na.Ka. No.5527/Aa2/2017, dated 23.08.2021 and to direct the 2nd
and 3rd respondents to approve forthwith the appointment of the petitioner as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
B.T. Assistant (History) in the 5th respondent school w.e.f. 03.07.2017, with all
attendant benefits including the arrears of salary and allowance.
3.The petitioner got appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on
03.07.2017. The proposal sent to approve his appointment got rejected and that
is under challenge.
4.The contention of the petitioner is that during the time when his
appointment was issued, the post against which he was appointed was very
much available and hence the approval of his appointment, ought to have been
given.
5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submitted that even at the time when the petitioner was appointed,
the post was not sanctioned and hence, approval as claimed by the petitioner
cannot be given and further, in order to get a post sanctioned, it is for the
School, who has to initiate action. The petitioner, who is not a party to the
impugned proceedings, does not have any locus standi to file this writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.The records would show that the proposal for approval has been
sent to the Department only on 15.12.2017. During the time when the proposal
was sent, the post was not available and as per the staff fixation for the
academic year 2017-18, the post against which the petitioner said to have got
appointed was shown blank.
7.Sofar as the locus standi of the petitioner to maintain this petition
is concerned, my attention was drawn to the earlier Judgment of this Court
rendered in WP(MD) No.21334 of 2018 etc., batch, wherein it is held as under:
“11.The objection on maintainability advanced by the
State is also misconceived. They would argue that the
petitioners have no locus standi to seek the benefits that they do
now, and it is only the school that could have sought
enforcement of the orders. This is also rejected as I am of the
categoric view that there could none more interested in service
benefits than the concerned employee himself or herself. Thus,
it is certainly open to the concerned employee to move this
Court for appropriate relief.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.No doubt, the petitioner would be the aggrieved person. If he
has got the entitlement of appointment during the relevant time and his
approval is rejected for any reasons and against which, the Management failed
to challenge by way of taking any legal action.
9.There is also no quarrel on the point that once the teacher is
appointed to the sanctioned post, the approval cannot be refused. But the crux
of the matter lies, whether on the date of appointment, the post was sanctioned
and available for appointment. Even according to the petitioner, his date of
appointment is 03.07.2017, which date relates to the academic year 2017-18,
not to the academic year 2016-17. As per the staff fixation for the year
2017-18, the post is not available for accommodating the petitioner. When the
fundamental point that the post is not available as a sanctioned post on the date
of appointment would go against the petitioner and hence, the petitioner could
not have had any valid ground to sustain his claim.
10.However, the petitioner has brought to the attention of the
Court that the third respondent School has got sufficient student strength in
order to accommodate one more B.T.Assistant and for which, the petitioner can
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
be accommodated. But that part of action can be taken only by the
Management. Since the petitioner is not in the Management of the School and
his limited interest would play only after his appointment is made, the
petitioner cannot canvass that the School has got enough student strength to
sanction one more post. Even in that case, the petitioner can get his approval
for his post only after the post is sanctioned through the steps taken by the
Management and with effect from the date of sanctioning to the post.
11.In view of the above stated reasons, I find no merits in the writ
petition. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
05.06.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
PNM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The 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,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
4. The District Educational Officer
Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.N.MANJULA, J.
PNM
ORDER IN
and WMP(MD) Nos.14787 & 14788 of 2022
05.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
