Madras High Court
The Chief Educational Officer vs The Correspondent on 26 September, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A(MD)No.1716 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.A(MD)No.1716 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.13201 of 2024
1.The Chief Educational Officer,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.
Presently,
The District Educational Officer,
Marthandam,
Kanyakumari District. ... Appellants / Respondents 1 to 2
-vs-
The Correspondent,
Amala convent Girls Higher
Secondary School,
Thuckalay-629 175,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the
order dated 29.06.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.14577 of 2020.
For Appellants : Mr.S.P.Maharajan,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.A.Ajith Geethan
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 5
W.A(MD)No.1716 of 2024
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]
This is another appeal which is an abuse of process of Court. Despite
the fact that the issue involved is covered by division bench judgments of
this Court, the department is persistently filing appeals.
2. The order in the writ petition which is the subject matter of the
appeal arose under the following circumstances:
The petitioner which is an aided minority institution is under a
corporate management. A vacancy arose in one of the schools due to the
retirement of one M.G.Mary Isabell who was a secondary grade teacher and
the post was upgraded automatically as B.T.Assistant in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.79, School Education Department, dated 14.06.2022. In the
upgraded vacancy, the corporate management transferred one Sr.Roselet
Mary as a B.T.Assistant in English, by its order dated 01.06.2017 and she
joined the school on 08.06.2017. When approval was sought for the said
appointment that came to be rejected on the ground that there was a
surplus teacher in the school from the years 2017-2018 to 2019-2020.
This order was passed on 02.07.2020, despite the fact that this Court had
as early as on 21.03.2012 by its pronouncement made in S.Rasheetha
Banu vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to
Government, Chennai and others held that the question of surplus will
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
have to be taken on the date of appointment and not thereafter. It was also
held that if the appointment is to a sanctioned post the fact that it becomes
a surplus in view of subsequent reduction in student strength cannot be a
ground for rejecting approval. In fact that the judgment in S.Rasheetha
Banu vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to
Government, Chennai and others followed the pronouncement of
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.703 of 2019. It is not in
dispute that the judgment in S.Rasheetha Banu was not appealed against
and it has become final. The appointment of Sr.Roselet Mary was on
08.06.2017. Therefore, it is within the period 2016-2017 for the purposes
of staff fixation. The fact that at the staff fixation done during the month of
August 2017 (2017-18), the student strength came down rendering one
post as surplus cannot be a ground for rejecting approval. Therefore the
only ground for rejection of approval made out in the order impugned in
the writ petition does not survive.
3. Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader would
however contend that the modus adopted by corporate management in
transferring a teacher and creating vacancy in another school is
deplorable. There are several deplorable practices adopted both by the
private managements as well as the Education Department and this Court
has no power to control or curb the same. It is for the State Government to
step in legislatively in order to curb such deplorable practices. We have to
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
go by a law declared by this Court.
4. Hence, we see no merit in the appeal. The appeal fails and it is
dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) payable by
the appellants / respondents to Cancare Foundation, 3A, Ramaniyam
Saras, 39/17, 4th Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600
020, (Mobile No. 9841617464).
5. It is also made clear that the appellants / respondents shall
approve the appointment of the teacher with effect from the date of initial
appointment within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order and the salary due to her shall be paid with interest at
the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date on which it became due till
date of payment. The arrears of salary along with interest shall be paid
within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]
26.09.2024
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes
Sml
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Sml
26.09.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
