Madras High Court
S.Poongundran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 October, 2024
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
W.A.No.2312 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 17.10.2024
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.A.No.2312 of 2022
S.Poongundran ... Appellant /Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By its Secretary,
Education Department,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
3. The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
4. The Chief Educational Officer,
Cuddalore.
5. The District Educational Officer,
Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District.
6. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Cuddalore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1
W.A.No.2312 of 2022
7. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Keerapalayam, Cuddalore District.
8. The Secretary,
Nataraja High School, Sozhatharam,
Cuddalore Distirct. ... Respondents 1 to 8/Respondents 1to 8
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order dated 5.07.2022 in W.P.No.18351 of 2014.
For Appellant : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran
For Respondents 1 to 7 : Mr.J.C.Durairaj, A.G.P.
For Respondent - 8 : Mr.C.Prabakaran
*****
JUDGMENT
(D.Krishnakumar, J.)
Today this writ appeal is listed under the caption 'For clarification'.
After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing
for the parties concerned, the following order is passed.
2. The appellant is the writ petitioner, he filed the writ petition
challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent in
Na.Ka.NO.88721/D2/E1/2013 dated 29.01.2014 and for a direction to the
respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the post of
Headmaster or B.T. Assistant in the 8th respondent High School w.e.f.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
01.03.1998 with all consequential benefits. The Writ Petition was
dismissed by the Writ Court, against which the present intra court appeal
has been filed.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief, is that the appellant/writ
petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 22.7.1991, in
the 8th respondent School. The petitioner studied B.A. in the year 1983
and B.Ed. in the year 1985. His appointment was not approved and he
filed W.P.No.13667 of 1991 for a direction for approval of his
appointment and the said writ petition was allowed. Thereafter, his
appointment was approved from the date of his initial appointment. The
8th respondent school was upgraded as High School in the year 1996-97
by the proceedings of the Joint Director of School Education dated
12.01.1998. Consequently, the High School sections were bifurcated and
are functioning separately. The then Middle School Headmaster was
only a Secondary Grade qualified and therefore, he was transferred to
primary school and there is no Headmaster for the High School. In this
context, the appellant claims that he is fully qualified for appointment to
the post of B.T. Assistant and his case is to be considered for upgradation
of post in the said school, so as to accommodate him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The Writ Court, after contest, has held that upgradation of post
can never be claimed as a matter of right by an employee. For
upgradation of post, the decsion has to be taken by the competent
authorities of the department, as per Rules. The teachers are eligible to
consider their names for appointment or promotion only if the posts are
sanctioned, but not otherwise. A teacher who is working as a Secondary
Grade Teacher has no right to claim that a particular post is to be
upgraded as B.T. Assistant / Middle School Headmaster, in view of the
fact that he is fully qualified for the post. Possession of an educational
qualification would not confer any right to claim such upgradation. Only
if the administrative decision is taken by the competent authorities and if
the posts are upgraded then only, the case of the writ petitioner can be
considered and therefore, the Writ Court dismissed the writ petition,
against which the instant writ appeal has been filed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that
despite the fact that recommendation made by the 5th respondent, the
second respondent rejected the claim of the respondent. Admittedly, the
appellant is qualified to the post of Secondary Grade teacher only, the
appellant cannot claim upgradation of such post as B.T. Assistant /
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Middle School Headmaster as a matter of right. It is for the competent
authorities to decide the upgradation of any such post and an employee
cannot claim upgradation of such post. Further, the 5 th respondent
School is governed by the rules and regulations of the Tamilnadu Private
Schools Regulations Act, 1973 and rules 1974 and there is no patent
error or illegality in the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.18351
of 2014 dated 5.7.2022 and prays for dismissal of this writ appeal.
6. Mr.J.C.Durairaj, learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the official respondents 1 to 7 has drawn the attention of
this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent before the
writ court, wherein it is stated that the 8th respondent has to abide by the
rules and regulations of Tamilnadu Private Schools Regulations Act,
1973 and rules framed thereunder and the school was upgraded as a High
School in the year 1996-97 from that of aided Middle School. The
standards 6 to 8 are receiving grant and Standards 9 & 10 of the School
did not receive any aid from the Government. The 8 th respondent School
is partly Government aided. Since the Headmaster was qualified only as
Secondary Grade and not having the B.T. Qualification, he was
transferred to the Primary School on his own volition. Whenever a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Middle School is upgraded as a High School, the incumbent holding the
post of Middle School Headmaster, may be transferred to another Middle
School reverting the junior most Headmaster of middle School as B.T.
Teacher in the upgraded High School. If it is not feasible, the
Headmaster of Middle School has to be appointed as B.T. Teacher in the
upgraded High School. In the instant case, the then Middle School
Headmaster was having only a Secondary Grade qualification and not
B.T. Qualification. Moreover, the management of the 8th respondent is
functioning only one Middle School. Therefore, the post of Middle
School Headmaster was downgraded as Primary School Headmaster on
his own volition, after the upgradation and bifurcation. Therefore, the
appellant is not entitled to claim either Middle School Headmaster or the
B.T. Teacher post and therefore, prayed for dismissal of this writ appeal.
7. Heard Mr. S.N.Ravichandran learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr. J.C.Durairaj, learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents 1 to 7 and Mr.C.Prabakaran, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent no.8 and perused the materials
available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Admittedly, the appellant, who served as a Secondary Grade
Teacher in the 8th respondent’s school, sought an upgrade of his post to
either a Middle School Headmaster or a B.T. Teacher. To support his
claim, the appellant relied on various Government Orders (G.O.s) and
administrative decisions. However, upon careful scrutiny of these G.O.s
and the facts of the case, it becomes evident that his claim lacks merit.
8.1. Applicability of G.O.Ms.No.100, School Education Department,
dated 27.06.2003:
The appellant primarily relied on G.O.Ms.No.100, School
Education Department, which governs the upgradation of posts from
Secondary Grade Teacher to B.T. Assistant. According to this G.O.,
whenever a vacancy arises in a Secondary Grade post, it would be
upgraded to the level of B.T. Teacher, provided to satisfy certain
conditions. However, as noted in the order passed by the Director of
School Education, Chennai, dated 20.01.2014 (vide
Na.Ka.88721/D2/S1/2013), no such vacancy arose during the appellant’s
tenure until his retirement on 31.10.2022. Therefore, while the G.O.
outlines a clear process for upgradation, the appellant cannot claim the
benefit of this order in the absence of a vacancy. The administrative
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
framework established by G.O.Ms.No.100 did not apply to the
appellant’s situation because there was no vacancy to trigger the post-
upgradation process during his service period.
8.2. Applicability of G.O.Ms.No.1297, Education Department, dated
21.07.1979:
The appellant further relied on G.O.Ms.No.1297, which deals with
the pay scales of Middle School Headmasters who hold B.Ed
qualifications. The relevant portion of this G.O. clarifies that teachers
holding the necessary B.Ed qualification are eligible for pay protection at
the B.Ed scale. However, this G.O. does not provide for the automatic
creation of a Middle School Headmaster post or its upgradation to a High
School Headmaster post. The appellant's misunderstanding of this G.O.
is evident, as he seems to equate pay protection with the creation or
upgradation of posts. Since the appellant did not hold the requisite
qualifications and there was no existing vacancy for the post he sought,
this G.O. cannot support his claim for upgradation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.3. The appellant has further relied on G.O.Ms.No.525, Education
Department, dated 29.12.1997. Since the 8th respondent school has no
adequate strength of students as mentioned in the said G.O, the
submissions made by the appellant cannot be considered.
8. 4. The Case of Mr. S. Robert Mohanraj relied by the appellant;
The appellant’s comparison to the case of one Mr. S. Robert
Mohanraj, whose post was upgraded from Middle School Headmaster to
B.T. Assistant, is not applicable to the appellant’s situation. In the case of
Mr. Mohanraj, the upgradation was approved because he possessed the
requisite B.T. qualification, and the upgradation took place as per the
relevant G.O.s when the school was upgraded. However,
C. Sundaramoorthy, who worked as Headmaster in the school did not
possess the necessary B.Ed qualification at the time of the upgradation of
the school. As a result, there was no basis for upgrading his post to that
of a B.T. Assistant, and the appellant cannot claim on par with
Mohanraj.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. In view of the above, it is clearly proved that the 8th
respondent school did not have any vacancy for the post of Middle
School Headmaster or B.T. Teacher posts at the time of the appellant’s
request. Furthermore, it is the administrative prerogative of the school,
not the appellant, to make decisions regarding vacancies and the creation
of new posts. As per the records, the post of Middle School Headmaster
in the appellant’s school was downgraded to that of a Primary School
Headmaster due to the incumbent's lack of the required qualifications.
This decision was made by the 8th respondent with the consent of the
school committee, and pay protection was provided to the existing
Headmaster. Thus, the appellant’s role remained unchanged, and he was
not adversely affected by this administrative decision. Further, it is
brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant had retired from
service on attaining superannuation on 31.05.2023.
10. In light of the above, we conclude that the appellant’s reliance
on G.O.Ms.No.100, G.O.Ms.No.1297, and G.O.Ms.No.525 is misplaced,
as none of these Government Orders support his claim for upgradation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
post of Secondary Grade Teacher to Middle School Headmaster or a B.T.
Teacher or the creation of additional posts. Additionally, there was no
vacancy in the school at the relevant time to justify his claim, and his
comparison with other cases is factually unsupported. The learned Single
Judge has correctly dismissed the writ petition, and there is no reason to
interfere with that decision. The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[D.K.K.,J.] [K.B., J.]
17.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non Speaking order
ak
To
1. The Secretary,
Education Department,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
3. The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
4. The Chief Educational Officer,
Cuddalore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
ak
5. The District Educational Officer,
Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District.
6. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Cuddalore.
7. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Keerapalayam, Cuddalore District.
8. The Secretary,
Nataraja High School, Sozhatharam,
Cuddalore Distirct.
17.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
