Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Jeyalakshmi on 4 March, 2024
Author: R. Mahadevan
Bench: R. Mahadevan, Mohammed Shaffiq
W.A.No.749 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 04.03.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No.749 of 2024
AND
C.M.P.No.5006 of 2024
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Secretary
Department of School Education
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009
2.The Director of Elementary Education
College Road, Chennai 600 006
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer
Villupuram, New Bus Stand
Near Collectorate, Villupuram 605 602
4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer
Villupuram New Bus Stand
Near Collectorate, Villupuram 605 602 .. Appellants
Vs.
1.S.Jeyalakshmi
2.The Correspondent
Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church
No.7 Court Road, Villupuram 605 602 .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.A.No.749 of 2024
dated 24.07.2023 passed in W.P.No.22189 of 2019.
For Appellants : Mr.UM.Ravichandran
Special Government Pleader
For 1st Respondent : Ms.H.Mary Sowmi Rexi
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
The appellant authorities have come forward with this intra-court appeal
aggrieved by the order dated 24.07.2023 passed by the learned Judge allowing
the writ petition in W.P.No.22189 of 2019 filed by the first respondent/writ
petitioner.
2.The first respondent/writ petitioner has filed the aforesaid writ petition
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings
dated 29.03.2016 issued by the 3rd appellant and for a further direction to the
authorities to approve her appointment as Middle Graduate Teacher from the
date of her initial appointment viz., 25.07.2002 with all other attendant benefits
including time scale of pay.
3.The case of the first respondent herein before the writ court was that she
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
got qualified in B.Sc. (Maths) and B.Ed. Degrees and appointed as B.T.
Assistant (Maths) by the second respondent school at Villupuram on 25.07.2002
and her vacancy was approved. She joined duty on 25.07.2002 in the second
respondent school and continued to work till attaining the age of superannuation
on 31.05.2013. As per G.O.Ms.No.79 (Secondary Education-U1) dated
14.06.2002, the Secondary Grade Posts in the middle school would be equal to
Standards 6, 7 and 8 with Graduate Teachers for the posts which fell vacant
since 01.06.2002. Since the first respondent was qualified, the second
respondent recognised her educational qualifications and appointed her as
Middle Grade Graduate Teacher with effect from 25.07.2002, since the then
Headmistress of TELC Middle School, Chidambaram had been further
promoted. When a proposal was sent to the fourth appellant to grant approval of
the appointment of the first respondent, it was denied on the ground that she
was irregularly appointed as Middle Grade Graduate Teacher overlooking the
subsequent Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 27.06.2003.
4.A counter was also filed on behalf of the third appellant justifying the
stand taken as above before the writ Court, wherein it was stated that the first
respondent was appointed consequent to transfer vacancy of Secondary Grade
Teacher contrary to G.O.Ms.No.79. It was further stated that to uplift the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
education of the students of VI, VII and VII standards, appointments of the
education of the students of VI, VII and VIII Standards, appointments of
B.Ed. qualified teachers were made and therefore, when the post of Secondary
Grade Teacher falls vacant due to retirement, resignation or promotion, that post
should be converted as Middle Grade Graduate Teacher and filled up by B.Ed.
qualified persons in the scale of pay of Rs.4500-125-7000 applicable to the post
of Secondary Grade Teachers with one advance increment, ie., Rs.4625-127-
7000/-. It was also stated that the advance increment should be borne by the
Management.
5.That apart, it was contended on behalf of the appellants before the writ
Court that since the second respondent herein had appointed the first respondent
not in permanent vacancy but only consequent to promotion, approval of
appointment in the regular scale of pay as applicable to B.T. Assistant with
effect from the date of initial appointment on 24.07.2002 is not permissible.
Without following the procedure, the second respondent had appointed the first
respondent as Middle School Teacher. There is no question of granting approval
to the said post and the first respondent had been granted with such approval
only after introduction of G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 27.06.2003.
6.The learned Judge, after hearing both sides, allowed the writ petition,
however, placing a caveat in favour of the authorities from granting interest for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the benefits, by the order impugned herein.
7.We have heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the
entire papers, including the order impugned herein. The learned Judge has
placed reliance on the order of a learned Judge dated 02.11.2006 in WP (MD)
No. 1664 of 2005 and the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this court in
The District Elementary Educational Officer and Others vs. Indirani and others
[2016 SCC OnLine Mad 31562].
8.On a perusal of the Division Bench judgment of this Court referred to
supra, it is seen that the learned counsel appearing for the State in that case
argued that since no prior approval was taken, the benefits should not be made
available from 2002, but from 2006 when G.O.Ms.No.99 School Education
(Budget-II) Department dated 27.06.2006 was issued waiving the condition of
lack of prior approval. This argument was not accepted by the Court on the
reason that as per the G.O. of the year 2002, the private respondents were
eligible for appointment and since they have been appointed earlier, there could
not have been any prior approval for the appointment and the benefits prior to
2002 from the initial date of appointment has not been granted. The Division
Bench affirmed the reason of the learned Judge in the order impugned therein,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
who had ordered in favour of the writ petitioners therein that they are eligible
for appointment and entitled for benefits from the initial date of appointment.
For better appreciation, the judgment of the Division Bench is extracted below:
“The private respondents were appointed as Middle Grade Graduate
Teachers on 29.06.1998, but on that date, they were over qualified for the
appointment to the said post. However, vide G.O.Ms.No.79, School Education
Department, dated 14.06.2002, such appointments were permitted, but with prior
approval.
2.It is the case of the private respondents that in fact, they were so
regularised and thus, they are entitled to the benefit of pay from that date
accordingly, rather than, consolidated pay being granted to them.
3.In terms of the impugned order dated 24.11.2014, the learned Single
Judge has ruled in favour of the private respondents.
4.The learned counsel for the appellants contends that since no prior
approval was taken, the benefits should not be made available in from 2002 but
from 2006, when G.O.Ms.No.99 School Education (Budget-II) Department dated
27.06.2006 was issued waiving the condition of lack of prior approval.
5.We are unable to accept the plea for the reason that the present case is
one, as per the G.O. of the year 2002, the private respondents were eligible for
appointment and since they have been appointed earlier, there could not have
been any prior approval for the appointment and the benefits prior to 2002 from
the initial date of appointment has not been granted.
6.We thus, find no infirmity in the impugned order. We may also note that
a coordination Bench of this Court has opined likewise, while dismissing the
appeal against the order of the learned single Judge in W.A (MD) No.190/2007
decided on 23.07.2008.
7.Writ appeals dismissed. No costs...."
9.With regard to the order passed by the learned Judge in
W.P.(MD)No.1664 of 2005 dated 02.11.2006, the date of appointment of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner therein is 08.08.2002. The petitioner therein has been working from
the said date and the proposals have also been received by the authorities which
were kept pending till the Director issued proceedings on 27.01.2004. In the
circumstances, the learned Single Judge held that it cannot be a ground to deny
approval of the petitioner's appointment from 08.08.2002. The proceedings of
the Director referred to in that case in the counter affidavit dated 27.01.2004 is
applicable to the teachers who were appointed after 01.06.2003. Since the
petitioner therein, having been appointed as early as on 08.08.2002, his
appointment has to be approved in terms of G.O.Ms.No.79 and accordingly he
is entitled to time scale of pay, it was held.
10.In the case on hand, since the initial employment of the first
respondent was on 25.07.2002, the learned Judge, in the order impugned herein,
held that the first respondent is entitled for the benefits. This court is of the view
that the learned Judge has correctly dealt with the facts and the case laws and
had allowed the writ petition, but placing a caveat in favour of the authorities
from granting interest for the benefits, since the first respondent had retired on
attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2013, but filed the writ petition
only in the year 2019. Hence, there is no ground made out by the appellants to
interfere with the order so passed by the learned Judge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed. The appellant
authorities are directed to comply with the order of the learned Judge within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.M.D, J.] [M.S.Q, J.]
04.03.2024
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
gya
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Department of School Education
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009
2.The Director of Elementary Education
College Road, Chennai 600 006
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer
Villupuram, New Bus Stand
Near Collectorate, Villupuram 605 602
4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer
Villupuram New Bus Stand
Near Collectorate, Villupuram 605 602
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
gya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
04.03.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
