Madras High Court
A.Murugesan vs The Chief Educational Officer on 6 January, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P(MD).Nos.29390 & 29391 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON : 18.12.2024
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 06.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).Nos.29390 & 29391 of 2023
and
WMP(MD).Nos.25356, 25357, 25360 & 25361 of 2023
WP(MD).No.29390 of 2023
A.Murugesan ....Petitioner
Vs
1.The Chief Educational Officer
Thenkasi District, Thenkasi
2.The District Educational Officer (Secondary)
Thenkasi, Thenkasi District
3.The Secretary
Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Committee Higher Secondary School
Sivaraman Nagar 1st Street, T.N.Puthukudi
Puliyankudi 627 855
Thenkasi District
4.The Secretary
Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Committee Primary School
Sivaraman Nadar 1st Street, T.N.Puthukudi
Puliyankudi 627 855
Thenkasi District ....Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/19
W.P(MD).Nos.29390 & 29391 of 2023
WP(MD).No.29391 of 2023
A.Murugesan ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Educational Officer (Secondary)
Thenkasi, Thenkasi District
2.The Secretary
Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Committee Higher Secondary School
Sivaraman Nagar 1st Street, T.N.Puthukudi
Puliyankudi 627 855
Thenkasi District
3.The Secretary
Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Committee Primary School
Sivaraman Nadar 1st Street, T.N.Puthukudi
Puliyankudi 627 855
Thenkasi District ....Respondents
Prayer in WP(MD).No.29390 of 2023 : This Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records of the second respondent in relation to the proceedings
issued in Na.Ka.No.1495/A1/2023 dated 07.11.2023 by the second
respondent and quash the same and issue consequential direction to the
second respondent to approve the appointment by promotion of the petitioner
to the post of PG Assistant in History with effect from 09.04.2008 with
service and consequential benefits as per Rule 15(4)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu
Private School Regulation Rules.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/19
W.P(MD).Nos.29390 & 29391 of 2023
Prayer in WP(MD).No.29391 of 2023 : This Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records of the second respondent management School in
relation to the Notification No.NIL dated 17.11.2023 issued in “DINAMANI”
daily newspaper and quash the same and issue consequential direction to the
2nd and 3rd respondents to restore the petitioner to the post of PG Assistant in
History with effect from 09.04.2008 with service and consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saseetharan
in both petitions
For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2
in WP.No.29390 of 2023
and R1 in WP.No.29391 of 2023
:Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram for R3 & R4
in WP.No.29390 of 2023 and
For R2 & R3 in WP.No.29391 of 2023
COMMON ORDER
Both the writ petitions have been filed by a Secondary Grade Teacher
who was working in the Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Committee Primary
School, Puliyankudi.
2.WP(MD).No.29390 of 2023 has been filed challenging the order
dated 07.11.2023, passed by the District Educational Officer (Secondary)
Tenkasi wherein the proposal of the management for approving the
appointment of the writ petitioner as P.G.Assistant (History) has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.29390 & 29391 of 2023
rejected.
3.WP(MD).No.29391 of 2023 has been filed challenging the paper
notification issued by the Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Committee Higher
Secondary School calling for applications to the post of P.G.Assistant
(History).
4.Since a common issue is involved, both the writ petitions are tagged
together and a common order is passed.
(A)Facts leading to the filing of these present writ petitions are as
follows:
5.The petitioner herein was initially appointed as a Secondary Grade
Teacher on 11.02.1991 at Hindu Nadar Uravin Murai Committee Elementary
School, T.N.Pudukudi, Kadayanallur Taluk, Thenkasi District. According to
him, the said school and another school namely Hindu Nadar Uravin Murai
Committee Higher Secondary School are owned by a single educational
agency and the school committee is common to both the schools. A vacancy
arose in Hindu Nadar Uravin Murai Committee Higher Secondary School for
the post of P.G.Assistant in History. The petitioner being qualified, had
applied for the said post. By way of a School Committee Resolution dated
02.08.2007, a School Committee headed by Thiru.A.Ramakrishnan, Secretary
resolved to promote the petitioner. On 09.04.2008, the appointment order
was issued and the petitioner as P.G.Assistant (History) and the petitioner has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.29390 & 29391 of 2023
joined the said post on the same day. The management had forwarded the
proposal for approval to District Educational Office, Tenkasi on 22.04.2008
6.On 18.11.2008, the said proposal was returned by the said authority
primarily on the ground that the following documents are not enclosed:
(i) A copy of application received from the candidates;
(ii) Call letter issued to the candidates along with certificate of
posting;
(iii) Record of attendance of the candidates in the interview;
(iv) A copy of School Committee resolution;
(v) Whether any other B.T.Assistants in the School have
relinquished their right of promotion and if so, the details.
7.Since there was a change in the school management, the management
has not resubmitted the said proposal and the petitioner has also not chosen to
challenge the order of return. The petitioner has sent a complaint to the Chief
Educational Officer, Tirunelveli alleging that the new management has not
permitted him to sign the attendance register and to take classes. Based upon
the said complaint, the CEO, Tirunelveli conducted an enquiry and an order
came to be passed on 29.04.2010 wherein the Chief Educational Officer had
directed the District Educational Officer Tenkasi to consider the proposal
submitted by the management for approval of appointment of the writ
petitioner and pass orders on merits within a period of two weeks. In case, if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.29390 & 29391 of 2023
the DEO finds that the appointment is as per Rules, the School Management
was directed to permit the petitioner to perform his duty.
8.The School Management had filed WP(MD).No.7160 of 2010
challenging the order of CEO dated 29.04.2010. The writ petitioner had filed
WP(MD).No.26540 of 2010 challenging the order of Joint Director of School
Education wherein it was stated that both the Schools do not fall under one
corporate management and no such order has been obtained from the
Educational Department to treat both the Schools as falling under a corporate
management. In the said order, it was further pointed out that since both the
Schools are under different managements, having two different School
Committees, the petitioner cannot be promoted from one School to another
School. These two writ petitions were heard together along with other writ
petitions and a common order came to be passed by the writ Court on
20.11.2018.
9.The writ Court found that the appointment of the writ petitioner is
not as per Rules since there is no proof of any School Committee Resolution
dated 02.08.2007. The writ Court further set aside the order of CEO,
Tirunelveli dated 29.04.2010. The writ Court further found that both the
Schools do not fall under a single Corporate Management and therefore, the
petitioner's promotion from one School to other School is not valid in the eye
of law. Challenging the order of the writ Court, the petitioner had filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.29390 & 29391 of 2023
WA(MD).Nos.3958, 3964, 3974, 3980 and 3981 of 2019. The Hon'ble
Division Bench by way of a common order dated 20.03.2023 had set aside
the order of the writ Court and directed the School Management to resubmit
the proposal to the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli who shall take a
decision for approval of appointment/promotion of the writ petitioner as
P.G.Assistant after giving opportunity to the parties concerned. The Hon'ble
Division Bench further found that if the writ petitioner is willing, he can
without prejudice to his rights, shall immediately join as a Secondary Grade
Teacher in the Primary School.
10.In compliance with the orders of this Court, the District Educational
Officer (Secondary) Tenkasi, has passed the present impugned order on
07.11.2023 wherein the proposal submitted by the management for approval
of appointment of the writ petitioner has been rejected on the following
grounds:
a)Both the Schools do no fall under a single management and the
School Committee of both the Schools are different;
b)Since both the Schools are different, the appointment of the writ
petitioner cannot be considered to be a promotion from the post of Secondary
Grade Teacher to the post of P.G.Assistant;
c)For the appointment of the writ petitioner, the School Committee has
to give its approval. However, no such Committee meeting was convened or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.29390 & 29391 of 2023
any resolution was passed appointing the writ petitioner as P.G.Assistant;
d)One of the teachers who has given relinquishment letter to the post
of P.G.Assistant has stated that the relinquishment letter was obtained by
force;
e)Though a paper notification was issued only on 09.04.2008, the
petitioner has given his application even before the said date;
f)A copy of the call letter issued to the applicant who had applied
pursuant to the paper notification has not been enclosed;
g)No call letter has been issued to the writ petitioner for participating
in the interview.
11.Based upon the above said reasons, the proposal submitted by the
management for approving the appointment of the writ petitioner as
P.G.Assistant (History) has been rejected under the impugned order passed by
DEO, Tenkasi. This order is put to challenge in the present writ petitions.
(B)The Submissions made on the side of the counsels appearing on
either side are as follows:
12.According to the writ petitioner, the Primary School as well as
Higher Secondary School are owned by a common educational agency. The
School Committee members are also one and the same, except the teaching
and non-teaching staff members. Therefore, the petitioner while he was
working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the Primary School had given his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.29390 & 29391 of 2023
application for being appointed as P.G.Assistant in the Higher Secondary
School. Based upon the said submission, the School Committee of the Higher
Secondary School passed a resolution on 02.08.2007 appointing the writ
petitioner as P.G.Assistant.
13The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further
contended that based upon the said resolution, the proposal was forwarded to
District Educational Officer Tenkasi on 22.04.2008 who had returned the
same citing certain defects on 18.11.2008. Since the management got
changed, the proposal was not resubmitted by the new management. That
apart, the new management prevented him from attending his duties. Hence,
he had lodged a complaint before Chief Educational Officer,Tirunelveli, who
has passed an order on 29.04.2010 directing the DEO to grant approval
within a period of two weeks. The said order was challenged by the
management. Though the writ Court had allowed the writ petition, the
Division Bench has allowed the writ appeal and directed the DEO,
Tirunelveli (Now Tenkasi) to consider the proposal on merits and in
accordance with law.
14.The learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that
since the petitioner is an in-service candidate, he had already applied for the
said post even before a paper publication was made by the Higher Secondary
School for the post of P.G.Assistant. Based upon the said application, a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.29390 & 29391 of 2023
resolution was also passed by the School Committee. However, by way of
abundant caution, the petitioner has also participated in the interview on
09.04.2008. Thereafter, the appointment order was issued to the writ
petitioner on the same day and he had also joined on 09.04.2008.
15. In view of the above said facts, the petitioner appointment cannot
be considered to be pursuant to a paper notification and therefore, the defects
pointed out by DEO Tenkasi with regard to non-filing of application, call
letter, attendance register on the date of the interview, have no relavance
whatsoever in granting approval to his appointment. No other in-service
candidate had made any application to the post of P.G.Assistant in the Higher
Secondary School. Therefore, there cannot be any legal impediment for the
authority to approve his appointment. The defects pointed out by DEO
Tenkasi are on the presumption that the appointment has been made pursuant
to paper publication. He further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Division Bench and contended that the orders of the writ Court have been set
aside and therefore, the authorities ought to have approved the appointment
of the writ petitioner. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ petitions.
16.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
for the official respondents herein had contended that the order of return
issued by the District Educational Authority, Tenkasi on 18.11.2008 was not
challenged either by management or by the writ petitioner. The petitioner had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.29390 & 29391 of 2023
attended the interview held on 09.04.2008, pursuant to paper publication and
proposal was also forwarded by the management only based upon the
interview conducted. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that his
appointment is traceable to his application prior to paper publication and
being an in-service candidate, he has only been promoted from Secondary
Grade Teacher post to P.G.Assistant.
17.The learned counsel appearing for the School Management had
contended that the management has approached the educational authority
seeking permission to fill up the post through direct recruitment. The
permission was granted by the Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli on
10.03.2008. Thereafter, a paper publication was made on 02.04.2008 calling
upon the applicants to appear for an interview on 09.04.2008. The petitioner
herein has not submitted any application pursuant to paper publication.
However, the then Secretary had created records as if the petitioner had
attended the interview. Without conducting a School Committee meeting, the
proposal has been forwarded by the then Secretary of the School Committee
on 22.04.2008 which was rightly returned by the officials citing defects.
18.The learned counsel for the School Management had further
contended that the petitioner having been appointed pursuant to paper
publication as a direct recruitee, cannot contend that the authorities cannot
seek for the records relating to conduct of interview. The petitioner is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.29390 & 29391 of 2023
working in a Primary School as a Secondary Grade Teacher and he is aspiring
to be appointed as a P.G.Assistant in the Higher Secondary School. Both the
Schools are under different educational agencies and the School Committees
are also different. Therefore, the petitioner can only be appointed through
direct recruitment and there is no possibility of appointing the petitioner by
way of promotion or from any other School under a common management.
Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he had been appointed
pursuant to a School Committee Resolution dated 02.08.2007 is clearly
illegal and the authorities were right in rejecting the proposal submitted by
the then management.
19.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused
the material records.
(C)Discussion:
20.The petitioner was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Hindu
Nadar Uravin Murai Committee Primary School. He aspired to the post of
P.G.(History) in Hindu Nadar Uravin Murai Committee Higher Secondary
School. According to the petitioner, both the Schools are owned by a single
educational agency and the School Committee is also one and the same
except the teaching and non-teaching members. Just because some of the
members of one of the educational agencies or School Committee are also
members of the other educational agencies or the School Committee, both the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.29390 & 29391 of 2023
Schools cannot be considered to be falling under single management. The
DEO Tenkasi in his impugned order has given a specific finding that both the
Schools are made different management and they are having two separate
School committees. The petitioner has not produced any records to establish
that both the Schools are under a single management.
21. In fact, the petitioner has submitted a letter to the Secretary of the
Primary School on 03.01.2008 seeking permission to make an application and
to attend the interview for the post of P.G.Assistant in the Higher Secondary
School. This will also clearly establish that both the schools are under two
different managements.
22.In the light of the above said facts, we have to consider the issue
raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner.
23.When the Primary School as well as the Higher Secondary School
are owned and managed by two different educational agencies and
administered by two different school committees, the appointment of the
petitioner by way of promotion from Primary School to Higher Secondary
School does not arise.
24.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his
appointment could be considered either as an appointment of teacher from
any other School or direct recruitment. A perusal of Rule 15(4) of the Tamil
Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 reveals that for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.29390 & 29391 of 2023
any appointment from any other School or by direct recruitment, the School
Committee has to obtain prior permission from District Educational Officer
concerned. On 10.03.2008, the Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli has
granted permission to the School management only for direct recruitment and
not for appointment from any other School. Therefore, the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that he was appointed as teacher from
another School following Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private
Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 is not legally sustainable.
25.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that
as soon as a vacancy for the post of P.G.Assistant arose in the Higher
Secondary School, he had submitted an application and based upon the
application, a resolution was passed on 02.08.2007. However, no records
have been placed before the Court to prove that the petitioner, at any point of
time, made an application to the Higher Secondary School prior to the
resolution dated 02.08.2007. The typed set of papers filed by the management
reveal that the petitioner has submitted his application only on 07.04.2008
referring to the paper publication dated 02.04.2008. Therefore, it is clear that
the petitioner's appointment order dated 09.04.2008 is only traceable to the
paper notification and it is only a direct recruitment and not a promotion from
the post of Secondary Grade Teacher to the post of P.G.Assistant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.29390 & 29391 of 2023
26.As per Section 18 of of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools
(Regulation) Act, 1973, the power to appoint a teacher lies within the
exclusive domain of the School Committee and any resolution passed by the
School Committee is binding upon the Educational Agency. In the present
case, as per records, the appointment of the petitioner is traceable to the paper
publication dated 02.04.2008 and the interview dated 09.04.2008.
Admittedly, there is no School Committee resolution approving the
appointment of the writ petitioner as a P.G.Assistant after the date of
interview, namely on 09.04.2008. Therefore, it is clear that the proposal
submitted by the management was rightly rejected by the educational
authority.
27.The petitioner has been issued with an appointment order on
09.04.2008 and he had joined on the same day. When the proposal was
forwarded by the management on 22.04.2008 to the District Educational
Officer, Tirunelveli, it is specifically mentioned that the appointment is
pursuant to paper notification dated 02.04.2008 and interview dated
09.04.2008. Therefore, the District Educational Officer, Tenkasi by his
proceedings dated 18.11.2008 had returned the proposal calling for School
Committee Resolution. The same grounds have been reiterated in the present
impugned order dated 07.11.2023. When the appointment of the writ
petitioner and the proposal forwarded by the management reveals that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.29390 & 29391 of 2023
appointment is traceable only to paper publication and the interview dated
09.04.2008, the petitioner cannot contend that his appointment is traceable to
School Committee Resolution dated 02.08.2007 which is eight months prior
to the date of interview. In other words, the petitioner relies upon a School
Committee Resolution which is prior to the date of paper publication and the
date of interview.
28.When the petitioner's appointment is by way of a direct recruitment
through paper notification, the School Management is duty bound to produce
details relating to the applications, call letters, attendance on the interview
date to the authorities to establish that really an interview was conducted on
the said date. That apart, as per Section 18 of the of the Tamil Nadu
Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, the appointment has to
be first approved by the School Committee. In the present case, none of the
above said statutory requirements have been fulfilled by the management
while submitting the proposal. In such circumstances, this Court does not find
any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the District Educational
Officer, Tenkasi dated 07.11.2023 rejecting the proposal of the School
Management.
29.After rejection order was passed by the District Educational Officer,
Tenkasi on 07.11.2023, the Higher Secondary School Management has issued
a paper publication on 17.11.2023 calling for applications to the post of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.29390 & 29391 of 2023
P.G.Assistant (History). The said paper notification is under challenge in
WP(MD).No.29391 of 2023. Since the authorities have rightly rejected the
appointment of the writ petitioner to the post of P.G.Assistant, the
management cannot be found fault with for issuing a fresh paper notification
calling for applications from the open market, pursuant to the permission
granted to them by the authorities on 10.03.2008.
30.In view of the above said deliberations, there are no merits in both
the writ petitions and both the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
06.01.2025.
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.29390 & 29391 of 2023
To
1.The Chief Educational Officer
Thenkasi District, Thenkasi
2.The District Educational Officer (Secondary)
Thenkasi, Thenkasi District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.29390 & 29391 of 2023
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Pre-delivery common order made in
W.P.(MD).Nos.29390 & 29391 of
2023 and WMP(MD).Nos.25356,
25357, 25360 & 25361 of 2023
06.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
