Madras High Court
T.Jones vs The Secretary on 18 July, 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.07.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P.(MD)No.12049 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012 T.Jones .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary, Department of School Education, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai-6. 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 4.The District Educational Officer, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 5.The Correspondent, TNDTA RMP Pulamadan Chettiar National Higher Secondary School, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings passed by the 4th respondent in A.Thi.Mu.No.1789/A5/12, dated 12.03.2012, quashing the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondents to approve the petitioner's appointment as Record Clerk from 05.01.2011. !For Petitioner : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer For Respondents : Mr.S.Kumar, 1 to 4 Addl.Govt.Pleader. :ORDER
The 5th respondent is an aided Minority Higher Secondary School. As against a sanctioned vacancy, the petitioner was appointed as a Record Clerk, by order dated 05.01.2011. Seeking approval of the same, the 5th respondent submitted a proposal to the 4th respondent. But, the 4th respondent returned the said proposal by order dated 12.03.2012, stating that prior permission should have been obtained by the 5th respondent from the Director of School Education. Challenging the said order, returning the proposal for approval, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.
2.I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and also perused the records, carefully.
3.In the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that the proposal has not been rejected but, instead, it was only returned for production of fitness certificate and the orders of the 2nd respondent respondent for the approval of the post.
4.I have considered the above.
5.There is no provision which mandates that for filling-up a vacancy in a sanctioned post prior permission should be obtained from the Director of School Education. This has been held so by a learned Judge of this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.(MD)Nos.6542 to 6544 and 5546 of 2014, by order dated 28.04.2014.
6.In view of the above, the impugned order, returning the proposal, is hereby set aside and the 5th respondent is directed to resubmit the proposal for approval of the appointment of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such re-submission of the proposal, the respondents 1 to 4 shall approve the appointment of the petitioner from the date of his appointment as Record Clerk, with all monetary benefits. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012 is closed.
Index : Yes/No 18.07.2014 Internet: Yes/No gb To 1.The Secretary, Department of School Education, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai-6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
4.The District Educational Officer, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
S.NAGAMUTHU,J gb Order in WP(MD)No.12049 of 2012 and MP(MD)No.1/2012 Dated:18.07.2014