Madras High Court
S.Lucy Paul vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 4 July, 2011
Author: Vinod K.Sharma
Bench: Vinod K.Sharma
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04/07/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.(MD)No.384 of 2006 S.Lucy Paul, W/o. Suresh Bright, B.T.Assistant, Hacker Memorial Higher Secondary School, Neyyoor, Kanyakumari District. ..Petitioner Vs 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, reresented by its Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. 3. The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 4. The District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District. 5. The District Educational Officer, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District. 6. The Corporate Manager of Schools, Kanyakumari Diocese, C.S.I, Diocesan Office, 71-A, Dennis Street, Nagercoil - 629 001. Kanyakumari District. ...Respondents. Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the fourth respondent pertaining to his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.749A2/2005, dated 3.5.2005, on his file quash the same and directing the respondents 1 to 5 to approve the petitioner's appointment as B.T.Assistant(Graduate Teacher) in L.M.S.Higher Secondary School, Mathicode, Kanyakumari District for the period from 19.01.2000 to 3.7.2001 and consequently to pay the petitioner the salary including all benefits for the same. ---- !For Petitioner ...M/s.K.N.Thampi ^For Respondents...Mr.D.Muruganandham 1 to 5 Addl. Govt.Pleader For Respondent-6...M/s. K.Sreekumarar Nair :ORDER
The petitioner prays for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order issued vide Na.Ka.No.749A2/2005, dated 03.05.2005, with a consequential relief in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as B.T.Assistant(Graduate Teacher) in L.M.S.Higher Secondary School, Mathicode, Kanyakumari District for the period from 19.01.2000 to 3.7.2001 and further to direct the respondents to release the salary including other benefits for the period of her service with L.M.S.Higher Secondary school.
2. The petitioner possesses the qualification of B.Sc B.Ed and qualified to be appointed as B.T.Assistant (Graduate Teacher) in Mathematics in L.M.S.Higher Secondary School, Mathicode, Kanyakumari District, a recognized aided school by the State.
3. The petitioner was appointed as B.T.Assistant(Graduate Teacher) vide order dated 19.01.2000 against the available vacancy which occurred due to the resignation of one Mrs.J.Christal Mabel Eglantine.
4. The petitioner joined the duty on the date of appointment. The proposal for the approval of the appointment of the petitioner was submitted to the State on 3.2.2000, but it was returned, by observing therein that there were no excess vacancy of Graduate School Teacher in C.S.I.School in Kanyakumari District therefore her appointment can only be considered after excess five teachers are transferred to the needy schools.
5. The respondent/school resubmitted the proposal for the approval of the appointment of the petitioner, which was again returned. Finally, the proposal was rejected on the ground that three posts of B.T Teachers were in excess, therefore, there is no possibility for approving the appointment of the petitioner.
6. On 11.10.2001, the management of the school posted her as B.T.Assitant in Mathematics in Hacker Memorial Higher Secondary School, Neyyoor, Kanyakumari District against the post of B.T.Assistant(Mathematics) having been transferred from L.M.S.Higher Secondary School, Mathicode, Kanaykumari District. She was taken on the strength of the school with retrospective effect from July 2001.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order primarily on the ground that the rejection of the claim for approval cannot be sustained in law, as on the date of appointment, the sanctioned post were available. It was only for the subsequent year that due to the decrease in the strength of the students, that the post had become excess.
8. The contention of the learned counsel, therefore is that the subsequent reduction in the strength of the students could not be a ground to deny the approval, once it is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed against the sanctioned post which was created on account of the resignation of Mrs.Christal Mabel Eglantine.
9. The learned counsel for the management has supported the claim of the petitioner.
10. Mr.D.Muruganandham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State vehemently contends that once the strength of students had come down, and there was no available vacancy, no fault can be found with the decision of the Government in not approving the appointment of the petitioner.
11. It is also the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader State that the decisions has been taken on the facts and circumstances of the case, thereafter cannot be questioned in writ jurisdiction, as it is for the Government to see the strength of the student to form an opinion as to whether the appointment could be approved or vide specially when it is not disputed that for the subsequent year the strength of the student had come down.
12. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner finds support from the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Mahadeva Vilasam High School, represented bty its Correspondent,Govinda Vilasam, Perunjakonam, Chenkedy Post, Kanyakumari District .vs. The District Educational Officer,Thuckalay in W.A.No.1263 of 2001 decided on 22.1.2004, wherein Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to lay down as under:
"4. Fixation of teachers strength is governed by G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997. As per the said Government Order, a school is entitled to one teacher for the average attendance of 40 student taken in the month of August of the academic year. As we already pointed out, there is no dispute that the appellant school was sanctioned six posts of Secondary Grade Teachers for the academic year 1999-2000 which was fixed on the month of August,1999. It is also not in dispute that a teacher by name C.Vasanthal was appointed within the sanctioned strength of six Secondary Grade Teachers. Proposals were also sent on 28.12.1999. In the circumstances, we cannot find fault with the appellant-school in appointing C.Vasanthal as Secondary Grade Teacher, as admittedly the appellant had the sanctioned teachers strength on the date of appointment. The approval, which was sought, is rejected solely on the ground of subsequent development viz., the fixation of the teachers strength for subsequent academic years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 on the basis of average attendance of students taken during August,2000 and August the appellant to appoint a teacher as against the sanctioned strength for the previous years. What has been done in this case, by the impugned order, is exactly the reliance placed on the subsequent re-fixation of the sanctioned strength of teachers for the academic year 2000-2001 which, in our considered view, is impermissible in law. When the Government being the funding authority, is entitled to consider the average attendance of students before sanctioning the teachers, equally the management is also entitled to appoint the teachers as against the sanctioned strength based on the average attendance of students taken during August 1999. Though it is the case of the respondent that the appellant had boosted the attendance of the students, the same is sought to be supported only on the basis of the inspection carried on 6.1.2000 and 3.4.2000 and on the basis of the attendance of the students on those days and not with reference to the average attendance of August 1999.
5. In that view of the matter, we find every merit in the grievance of the appellant-school for approval of the appointment of C.Vasanthal as Secondary Grade Teacher for the academic year 1999-2000. In that view, we do not find any justification to hold that the subsequent development or re-fixation of sanctioned strength could be a ground for denying the right of the appellant- school to appoint the teacher as against the sanctioned strength for the previous academic years."
13. For the reason stated above, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to grant approval the appointment of the petitioner for the period she performed duty with L.M.S.Higher Secondary School, Mathicode, Kanyakumari District.
14. The respondents are further directed to release the salary and consequential benefits arising from the approval within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
vsn To
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
4. The District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District.
5. The District Educational Officer, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.