Madras High Court
S.Kishore Chand vs The Secretary To The Govt on 16 July, 2015
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.07.2015
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.(MD).Nos.17023 of 2013
and
11860 and 13486 of 2014
1. S.Kishore Chand ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD) Nos.17023/2013
& 11860/2014
2. Dr.S.Prathibha ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.13486/2014
-vs-
1. The Secretary to the Govt.,
Department of School Education,
Chennai.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Office of the Chief Educational Officer,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
3. The District Educational Officer,
The District Educational Office,
Kulithurai, Kanyakumari District.
4. Arumanai Higher Secondary School,
Rep. by its Correspondent & Manager,
B.Saraswathy Amma,
Arumanai, Vilavagodu Taluk,
Kanyakumari District.
5. S.Pradhibha ... Respondents in W.P.(MD).No.17023/2013
1. The District Educational Officer,
Kulithurai @ Marthaandam,
Kanyakumari District.
2. The Correspondent,
Headmistress,
Arumanai Aided Higher Secondary School,
Arumanai Post, Kanyakumari District.
3. S.Pradhibha ... Respondents in W.P.(MD) No.11860/2014
1. The Chief Educational Officer,
Office of the Chief Educational Officer,
Nagercoil.
2. The District Educational Officer,
Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District.
3. Arumanai Higher Secondary School,
Rep. by its Correspondent & Manager,
Mrs.B.Saraswathy Amma,
Arumanai, Vilavagodu Taluk,
Kanyakumari District.
4. S.Kishore Chand ... Respondents in W.P.(MD) No.13486/2014
(R4 in W.P.(MD) No.13486/2014 impleaded as per order of this Court
dated 21.01.2015)
Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.17023/2013: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd
respondent to appoint a qualified person as the Head Master of the 4th
respondent school by removing the unqualified 5th respondent as the Head
Master by considering his representation dated 16.09.2013.
Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.11860/2014: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st
respondent to take necessary action pursuant to his proceedings in
O.Mu.No.8201/A2/2014 dated 10.07.2014 so as to ensure that the 3rd respondent
herein is no longer discharging the functions of Headmistress in the 2nd
respondent school on the basis of his representation dated 14.07.2014.
Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.13486/2014: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records from the 2nd respondent relating to his impugned
order dated 10.07.2014 passed in O.Mu.No.8201/A2/2014, quash the same and
consequently direct the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the
petitioner as Headmistress of the 3rd respondent school from 01.06.2013.
!For Petitioners : Mr.M.Solaisamy (W.P.(MD) 17023/2013)
Mr.B.Saravanan (W.P.(MD) 11860/2014)
Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
For Mr.RM.Sivakumar (W.P.(MD)
13486/2014)
^For Respondents : Mr.V.Muruganandam
Addl. Govt. Pleader
(For R1 to R3 in W.P.(MD) No.
7023/2013, R1 in W.P.(MD) No.
11860/2014 & for R1 and R2 in W.P.(MD)
No.13486/2014)
Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
For Mr.D.Nallathambi
(For R5 in W.P.(MD) No.17023/2013 and
for R3 in W.P.(MD) No.11860/2014)
Mr.Xavier Rajini
For R.Murugan
(For R4 in W.P.(MD) No.17023/2013, R2
in W.P.(MD) No.11860/2014 and for R3
in W.P. (MD) No.13486/2014)
Mr.B.Saravanan
(For R4 in W.P.(MD) No.17023/2013)
:COMMON ORDER
The prayer in the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.17023/2013 is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to appoint a qualified person as the Head Master of the 4th respondent school by removing the unqualified 5th respondent as the Head Master by considering his representation dated 16.09.2013.
2. The prayer in the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.11860/2014 is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to take necessary action pursuant to his proceedings in O.Mu.No.8201/A2/2014 dated 10.07.2014 so as to ensure that the 3rd respondent herein is no longer discharging the functions of Headmistress in the 2nd respondent school on the basis of his representation dated 14.07.2014.
3. The petitioner in the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.13486/2014 has filed this writ petition, seeking to quash the order of the 2nd respondent dated 10.07.2014 passed in O.Mu.No.8201/A2/2014, in and by which, the 2nd respondent refused to approve the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that she had not worked as P.G.Assistant or Headmistress of High School or Headmistress of Teacher Training Institute for more than 10 years. The petitioner also sought a direction to the 2nd respondent to approve her appointment as Headmistress of the 3rd respondent school from 01.06.2013.
4. Since the issue in question is one and the same, all these writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from W.P.(MD) No.13486 of 2014 and for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their names.
5. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is as follows:
i) The 3rd respondent school is a linguistic minority educational institution and getting aid from the State Government. Dr.S.Prathibha / petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.13486 of 2014 has submitted that she had completed her U.G. and P.G. Courses in Science in the year 1989 and 1991 respectively, her B.Ed. Course in 1992 and thereafter, she also obtained Doctor of Philosophy degree in 2001. Based on her qualification, she was appointed as B.T. Assistant in the 3rd respondent school on 02.06.1997 and worked in the 3rd respondent school upto 06.01.2007.
ii) It is submitted by her that pursuant to her fulfillment of qualification, she got appointment at VIT University, Vellore as Senior Lecturer from 28.05.2007 to 31.12.2008 and thereafter, promoted to Assistant Professor (Senior) from 01.01.2009 to 25.02.2010. Subsequently, due to her family convenient, she sought reappointment in the 3rd respondent school, which was also accepted and was reappointed in a vacancy in the 3rd respondent school on 01.10.2012. While so, on account of the retirement of Mr.S.Kishore Chand / R4 in this writ petition and petitioner in W.P.(MD) Nos.17023/2013 and 11860/2014, Dr.S.Prathibha was appointed as Headmistress of the 3rd respondent school, as she was holding required qualifications.
iii) It is further submitted that when the 3rd respondent school sent a letter dated 11.12.2013 to the 2nd respondent for approval of her appointment, the 2nd respondent, vide impugned order dated 10.07.2014 refused to approve her appointment as Headmistress stating that a teacher should have worked as P.G.Assistant or Headmistress of High School or Headmistress of Teacher Training Institute for more than 10 years and the petitioner had earned the said experience only for 8 years 9 months and 26 days. Therefore, it is submitted that the order of the 2nd respondent is against the provisions of Tamil Nadu Private School (Regulations) Rules, 1974, as under
the said Rules, experience as B.T.Teacher for 10 years is sufficient.
iv) The claim of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent has wrongly counted her service as 8 years 9 months and 26 days and she had worked as B.T. Assistant in the 3rd respondent school from 02.06.1997 to 06.01.2007, which comes to 9 years 7 months 5 days and if rounded off, it has to be treated as 10 years. The 2nd respondent also failed to take into account her subsequent service period to fill up the shortage of 5 months, which comes to 8 months and is more than the required period. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. The District Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District / 2nd respondent has filed a counter, wherein it has been stated as under:
i) It is stated in the counter that as per Annexure V Appendix IV (1) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private School Regulation Rules, 1974, experience of not less 10 years as B.T. School Assistant or Pandit in a Secondary School or Training School or Higher Secondary School recognized by the Director of School Education is required. Since the petitioner had not fulfilled the said norms, the 2nd respondent refused to approve her appointment as Headmistress. As per the records, she had worked as B.T. Assistant in the said school from 02.06.1997 to 05.01.2007 and thereafter, she had resigned from her job on 06.01.2007, which was also approved by the respondent and she was on leave under loss of pay for 1 year 2 months and 4 days.
ii) It is further stated that on scrutiny of all the relevant records, it comes to light that she had only 8 years 9 months and 26 days of experience as B.T.Assistant and therefore, it is clear that she did not complete the required experience of 10 years. The contention of the petitioner that she was reappointed in the school against a vacancy on 01.10.2012, which was duly accepted by the respondent, is baseless and utter false, as no such communication or document is found with the respondent for approval on 11.10.2013.
iii) The stand taken by the respondent is that the petitioner, by suppressing the factum of her leave on loss of pay alleged that the respondent wrongly calculated her service as only 8 years 9 months and 26 days, since the leave period under loss of pay cannot be taken into account, while determining the total service period. Her subsequent service period in the University of Vellore from 28.05.2007 to 31.12.2008 and from 01.01.2009 to 25.02.2010 cannot be counted for arriving at the total service experience. It is further stated that the petitioner had obtained interim order by producing false and fabricated document and therefore, the 2nd respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. To the above averments made in the counter, the petitioner had rebutted to the same, by filing a reply affidavit as follows:
i) It is submitted that the 4th respondent, namely, Mr.S.Kishore Chand was supposed to attain superannuation from the post of Headmaster on 30.09.2012. Since he was allowed to continue as Headmaster till the end of the academic year, i.e. 31.05.2013 based on his request, the petitioner was not permitted to join as Headmistress of the school as per the order dated 01.09.2012. It is denied by her that the appointment order dated 01.09.2012 is a fabricated one.
ii) It is further submitted that since at last 4th respondent was relieved from the school as Headmaster on 31.05.2013, against which vacancy, she was appointed as Headmistress and from that day onwards, she has been executing her duties without any blemish. It is stated that the 4th respondent is interfering with the day to day administration of the school by showing that he is the correspondent of the school, that when she did not dance as per his tune, he made such vexatious allegations against her and that 4th respondent has no locus standi to question about her qualification and teaching experience.
iii) It is also submitted in the reply affidavit that Mr.S.Kishore Chand, being the son of the Correspondent, entered into the school with hired hooligans and had taken away various school records and refused to return the same. In this regard, she also made representation to the CEO and DEO on 09.07.2013 for taking action against him. Since no action was taken against him, she also filed W.P.(MD) No.12007 of 2013 for a direction to CEO and DEO to take action based on her representation dated 09.07.2013, but subsequently, the said writ petition was withdrawn by her.
iv) She has also stated that she has upgraded the standard of the school to great extent and the school has also produced very high percentage of results in public examinations in SSLC and HSC. While reiterating the same averments made in the writ petition, she has prayed for allowing the writ petition.
8. The school has also filed a counter in W.P.(MD) Nos.17023 of 2013 and 11860 of 2014, by stating as under:
i) The school is a linguistic minority school, providing education free of cost, except small portion of sum as specified by the Government and admission is not denied to any one on the basis of caste, creed or religion.
Pursuant to the retirement of one V.Gopinathan Nair, Dr.S.Prathiba was appointed as B.T. Assistant in Science in the school with effect from 02.06.1997. Since Dr.S.Prathiba got placement in the Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, she had resigned her job on 06.01.2007. Due to some domestic reasons, she resigned from the said Institute on 25.02.2010. Since she had all the required qualifications, she was appointed as Headmistress in the place of Mr.Kishore Chand, who attained superannuation on 31.05.2013. Though Dr.S.Prathiba and Mr.Kishore Chand are close relatives, he strongly opposed the appointment of Dr.S.Prathiba to the post of Headmistress, as there was some dispute erupted between them.
ii) It is stated by the school that Dr.S.Prathiba is having 10 years teaching experience as required under the Act and Rules, framed thereunder. It is also denied that Mr.Kishore Chand is a part of Management and that even after his relieving from the school, he is interfering with administration of the school for the reason that Dr.S.Prathiba has not yielded for his demands. It is also stated in the counter that Mr.Kishore Chand has no locus standi to question the appointment of Dr.S.Prathiba as Headmistress and interfere with the affairs of the school. Hence, it is prayed that the writ petitions filed by Mr.Kishore Chand have to be dismissed with extempore costs.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD) Nos.17023 of 2013 and 11860 of 2014 submitted that it is well settled that a person, who is incompetent to carry out the work and is without qualification, shall not be allowed to discharge the functions of a particular post. Though Dr.S.Prathiba was appointed as the Headmistress of the school on 01.06.2013, she does not possess required qualification. It is submitted that the legal heirs of the father of Mr.Kishore Chand passed a resolution on 20.08.2013 for removal of the Correspondent and Manager, namely, Saraswathy Amma due to her incapability to manage the school and in her place, Mr.Kishore Chand was appointed as the Secretary and one Mrs.Jeyashree as the Correspondent.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD) Nos.17023/2013 and 11860/2014 has relied on the following judgments in support of his argument:
i) Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 398;
?59. In light of these legal principles, appellant and, in fact, to a great extent even respondent No.8 have made an attempt to hurt the reputation and image of respondent no.6 by stating incorrect facts, that too, by abusing %DATED: 16.07.2015 *Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN +W.P.(MD).Nos.17023 of 2013, 11860 and 13486 of 2014 #1. S.Kishore Chand ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD) Nos.17023/2013 & 11860/2014
2. Dr.S.Prathibha ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.13486/2014
-vs-
$1. The Secretary to the Govt., Department of School Education, Chennai.
2. The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
3. The District Educational Officer, The District Educational Office, Kulithurai, Kanyakumari District.
4. Arumanai Higher Secondary School, Rep. by its Correspondent & Manager, B.Saraswathy Amma, Arumanai, Vilavagodu Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
5. S.Pradhibha ... Respondents in W.P.(MD).No.17023/2013
1. The District Educational Officer, Kulithurai @ Marthaandam, Kanyakumari District.
2. The Correspondent, Headmistress, Arumanai Aided Higher Secondary School, Arumanai Post, Kanyakumari District.
3. S.Pradhibha ... Respondents in W.P.(MD) No.11860/2014
1. The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil.
2. The District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District.
3. Arumanai Higher Secondary School, Rep. by its Correspondent & Manager, Mrs.B.Saraswathy Amma, Arumanai, Vilavagodu Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
4. S.Kishore Chand ... Respondents in W.P.(MD) No.13486/2014 (R4 in W.P.(MD) No.13486/2014 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 21.01.2015) Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.17023/2013: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to appoint a qualified person as the Head Master of the 4th respondent school by removing the unqualified 5th respondent as the Head Master by considering his representation dated 16.09.2013.
Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.11860/2014: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to take necessary action pursuant to his proceedings in O.Mu.No.8201/A2/2014 dated 10.07.2014 so as to ensure that the 3rd respondent herein is no longer discharging the functions of Headmistress in the 2nd respondent school on the basis of his representation dated 14.07.2014. Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.13486/2014: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the 2nd respondent relating to his impugned order dated 10.07.2014 passed in O.Mu.No.8201/A2/2014, quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress of the 3rd respondent school from 01.06.2013.
!For Petitioners : Mr.M.Solaisamy (W.P.(MD) 17023/2013) Mr.B.Saravanan (W.P.(MD) 11860/2014) Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram For Mr.RM.Sivakumar (W.P.(MD) 13486/2014) ^For Respondents : Mr.V.Muruganandam Addl. Govt. Pleader (For R1 to R3 in W.P.(MD) No. 7023/2013, R1 in W.P.(MD) No. 11860/2014 & for R1 and R2 in W.P.(MD) No.13486/2014) Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram For Mr.D.Nallathambi (For R5 in W.P.(MD) No.17023/2013 and for R3 in W.P.(MD) No.11860/2014) Mr.Xavier Rajini For R.Murugan (For R4 in W.P.(MD) No.17023/2013, R2 in W.P.(MD) No.11860/2014 and for R3 in W.P. (MD) No.13486/2014) Mr.B.Saravanan (For R4 in W.P.(MD) No.17023/2013) :COMMON ORDER The prayer in the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.17023/2013 is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to appoint a qualified person as the Head Master of the 4th respondent school by removing the unqualified 5th respondent as the Head Master by considering his representation dated 16.09.2013.
2. The prayer in the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.11860/2014 is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to take necessary action pursuant to his proceedings in O.Mu.No.8201/A2/2014 dated 10.07.2014 so as to ensure that the 3rd respondent herein is no longer discharging the functions of Headmistress in the 2nd respondent school on the basis of his representation dated 14.07.2014.
3. The petitioner in the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.13486/2014 has filed this writ petition, seeking to quash the order of the 2nd respondent dated 10.07.2014 passed in O.Mu.No.8201/A2/2014, in and by which, the 2nd respondent refused to approve the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that she had not worked as P.G.Assistant or Headmistress of High School or Headmistress of Teacher Training Institute for more than 10 years. The petitioner also sought a direction to the 2nd respondent to approve her appointment as Headmistress of the 3rd respondent school from 01.06.2013.
4. Since the issue in question is one and the same, all these writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from W.P.(MD) No.13486 of 2014 and for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their names.
5. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is as follows:
i) The 3rd respondent school is a linguistic minority educational institution and getting aid from the State Government. Dr.S.Prathibha / petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.13486 of 2014 has submitted that she had completed her U.G. and P.G. Courses in Science in the year 1989 and 1991 respectively, her B.Ed. Course in 1992 and thereafter, she also obtained Doctor of Philosophy degree in 2001. Based on her qualification, she was appointed as B.T. Assistant in the 3rd respondent school on 02.06.1997 and worked in the 3rd respondent school upto 06.01.2007.
ii) It is submitted by her that pursuant to her fulfillment of qualification, she got appointment at VIT University, Vellore as Senior Lecturer from 28.05.2007 to 31.12.2008 and thereafter, promoted to Assistant Professor (Senior) from 01.01.2009 to 25.02.2010. Subsequently, due to her family convenient, she sought reappointment in the 3rd respondent school, which was also accepted and was reappointed in a vacancy in the 3rd respondent school on 01.10.2012. While so, on account of the retirement of Mr.S.Kishore Chand / R4 in this writ petition and petitioner in W.P.(MD) Nos.17023/2013 and 11860/2014, Dr.S.Prathibha was appointed as Headmistress of the 3rd respondent school, as she was holding required qualifications.
iii) It is further submitted that when the 3rd respondent school sent a letter dated 11.12.2013 to the 2nd respondent for approval of her appointment, the 2nd respondent, vide impugned order dated 10.07.2014 refused to approve her appointment as Headmistress stating that a teacher should have worked as P.G.Assistant or Headmistress of High School or Headmistress of Teacher Training Institute for more than 10 years and the petitioner had earned the said experience only for 8 years 9 months and 26 days. Therefore, it is submitted that the order of the 2nd respondent is against the provisions of Tamil Nadu Private School (Regulations) Rules, 1974, as under
the said Rules, experience as B.T.Teacher for 10 years is sufficient.
iv) The claim of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent has wrongly counted her service as 8 years 9 months and 26 days and she had worked as B.T. Assistant in the 3rd respondent school from 02.06.1997 to 06.01.2007, which comes to 9 years 7 months 5 days and if rounded off, it has to be treated as 10 years. The 2nd respondent also failed to take into account her subsequent service period to fill up the shortage of 5 months, which comes to 8 months and is more than the required period. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. The District Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District / 2nd respondent has filed a counter, wherein it has been stated as under:
i) It is stated in the counter that as per Annexure V Appendix IV (1) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private School Regulation Rules, 1974, experience of not less 10 years as B.T. School Assistant or Pandit in a Secondary School or Training School or Higher Secondary School recognized by the Director of School Education is required. Since the petitioner had not fulfilled the said norms, the 2nd respondent refused to approve her appointment as Headmistress. As per the records, she had worked as B.T. Assistant in the said school from 02.06.1997 to 05.01.2007 and thereafter, she had resigned from her job on 06.01.2007, which was also approved by the respondent and she was on leave under loss of pay for 1 year 2 months and 4 days.
ii) It is further stated that on scrutiny of all the relevant records, it comes to light that she had only 8 years 9 months and 26 days of experience as B.T.Assistant and therefore, it is clear that she did not complete the required experience of 10 years. The contention of the petitioner that she was reappointed in the school against a vacancy on 01.10.2012, which was duly accepted by the respondent, is baseless and utter false, as no such communication or document is found with the respondent for approval on 11.10.2013.
iii) The stand taken by the respondent is that the petitioner, by suppressing the factum of her leave on loss of pay alleged that the respondent wrongly calculated her service as only 8 years 9 months and 26 days, since the leave period under loss of pay cannot be taken into account, while determining the total service period. Her subsequent service period in the University of Vellore from 28.05.2007 to 31.12.2008 and from 01.01.2009 to 25.02.2010 cannot be counted for arriving at the total service experience. It is further stated that the petitioner had obtained interim order by producing false and fabricated document and therefore, the 2nd respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. To the above averments made in the counter, the petitioner had rebutted to the same, by filing a reply affidavit as follows:
i) It is submitted that the 4th respondent, namely, Mr.S.Kishore Chand was supposed to attain superannuation from the post of Headmaster on 30.09.2012. Since he was allowed to continue as Headmaster till the end of the academic year, i.e. 31.05.2013 based on his request, the petitioner was not permitted to join as Headmistress of the school as per the order dated 01.09.2012. It is denied by her that the appointment order dated 01.09.2012 is a fabricated one.
ii) It is further submitted that since at last 4th respondent was relieved from the school as Headmaster on 31.05.2013, against which vacancy, she was appointed as Headmistress and from that day onwards, she has been executing her duties without any blemish. It is stated that the 4th respondent is interfering with the day to day administration of the school by showing that he is the correspondent of the school, that when she did not dance as per his tune, he made such vexatious allegations against her and that 4th respondent has no locus standi to question about her qualification and teaching experience.
iii) It is also submitted in the reply affidavit that Mr.S.Kishore Chand, being the son of the Correspondent, entered into the school with hired hooligans and had taken away various school records and refused to return the same. In this regard, she also made representation to the CEO and DEO on 09.07.2013 for taking action against him. Since no action was taken against him, she also filed W.P.(MD) No.12007 of 2013 for a direction to CEO and DEO to take action based on her representation dated 09.07.2013, but subsequently, the said writ petition was withdrawn by her.
iv) She has also stated that she has upgraded the standard of the school to great extent and the school has also produced very high percentage of results in public examinations in SSLC and HSC. While reiterating the same averments made in the writ petition, she has prayed for allowing the writ petition.
8. The school has also filed a counter in W.P.(MD) Nos.17023 of 2013 and 11860 of 2014, by stating as under:
i) The school is a linguistic minority school, providing education free of cost, except small portion of sum as specified by the Government and admission is not denied to any one on the basis of caste, creed or religion.
Pursuant to the retirement of one V.Gopinathan Nair, Dr.S.Prathiba was appointed as B.T. Assistant in Science in the school with effect from 02.06.1997. Since Dr.S.Prathiba got placement in the Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, she had resigned her job on 06.01.2007. Due to some domestic reasons, she resigned from the said Institute on 25.02.2010. Since she had all the required qualifications, she was appointed as Headmistress in the place of Mr.Kishore Chand, who attained superannuation on 31.05.2013. Though Dr.S.Prathiba and Mr.Kishore Chand are close relatives, he strongly opposed the appointment of Dr.S.Prathiba to the post of Headmistress, as there was some dispute erupted between them.
ii) It is stated by the school that Dr.S.Prathiba is having 10 years teaching experience as required under the Act and Rules, framed thereunder. It is also denied that Mr.Kishore Chand is a part of Management and that even after his relieving from the school, he is interfering with administration of the school for the reason that Dr.S.Prathiba has not yielded for his demands. It is also stated in the counter that Mr.Kishore Chand has no locus standi to question the appointment of Dr.S.Prathiba as Headmistress and interfere with the affairs of the school. Hence, it is prayed that the writ petitions filed by Mr.Kishore Chand have to be dismissed with extempore costs.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD) Nos.17023 of 2013 and 11860 of 2014 submitted that it is well settled that a person, who is incompetent to carry out the work and is without qualification, shall not be allowed to discharge the functions of a particular post. Though Dr.S.Prathiba was appointed as the Headmistress of the school on 01.06.2013, she does not possess required qualification. It is submitted that the legal heirs of the father of Mr.Kishore Chand passed a resolution on 20.08.2013 for removal of the Correspondent and Manager, namely, Saraswathy Amma due to her incapability to manage the school and in her place, Mr.Kishore Chand was appointed as the Secretary and one Mrs.Jeyashree as the Correspondent.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD) Nos.17023/2013 and 11860/2014 has relied on the following judgments in support of his argument:
i) Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 398;
?59. In light of these legal principles, appellant and, in fact, to a great extent even respondent No.8 have made an attempt to hurt the reputation and image of respondent no.6 by stating incorrect facts, that too, by abusing the process of court.
60. Coming to the judgment of the High Court under appeal it has to be noticed that the appellant was deprived of adequate hearing by the High Court, but that defect stands cured inasmuch as we have heard of the concerned parties in both the writ petitions at length. The transfer of Writ Petition No. 111/2011 was not in consonance with the accepted canons of judicial administrative propriety. The imposition of such heavy costs upon the petitioner was not called for in the facts and circumstances of the case as the Court was not dealing with a suit for damages but with a petition for habeas corpus, even if the petition was not bona fide. Furthermore, we are unable to endorse our approval to the manner in which the costs imposed were ordered to be disbursed to the different parties. Moreover, the question of paying rewards to the Director General of Police does not arise as the police and the Director General of Police were only performing their duties by producing the petitioners in the Court. They, in any case, were living in their own house without restriction or any kind of detention by anyone. In fact, the three petitioners have been compulsorily dragged to the court by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 125/2011. They had made no complaint to any person and thus, the question of their illegal detention and consequential release would not arise. These three persons have been used by both the petitioners and it is, in fact, they are the ones whose reputation has suffered a serious setback and were exposed to inconvenience of being dragged to courts for no fault of their own. We hardly see any attributes of the Police except performance of their duties in the normal course so as to entitled them to exceptional rewards. Certainly, the reputation of respondent no.6 has also been damaged, factually and in law. Both these petitions are based on falsehood. The reputation of respondent no.6 is damaged and his public image diminished due to the undesirable acts of the appellant and respondent no.8.
61. For these reasons, we are unable to sustain the order under appeal in its entirety and while modifying the judgments under appeal, we pass the following order:-
61.1. Writ petition No. 111/2011 was based upon falsehood, was abuse of the process of court and was driven by malice and political vendetta. Thus, while dismissing this petition, we impose exemplary costs of Rs. 5 lacs upon the next friend, costs being payable to respondent no.6.
61.2. The next friend in Writ Petition No. 125/2011 had approached the court with unclean hands, without disclosing complete facts and misusing the judicial process. In fact, he filed the petition without any proper authority, in fact and in law. Thus, this petition is also dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 5 lakhs for abuse of the process of the court and/or for such other offences that they are found to have committed, which shall be payable to the three petitioners produced before the High Court, i.e. Ms. Kirti Singh, Dr. Balram Singh and Ms. Sushila @ Mohini Devi.
61.3. On the basis of the affidavit filed by the Director General of Police, U.P., statement of the three petitioners in the Writ Petition, CBI?s stand before the Court, its report and the contradictory stand taken by the next friend in Writ Petition No.111/2011, we, prima facie, are of the view that the allegations against the respondent no.6 in regard to the alleged incident of rape on 3rd December, 2006 and the alleged detention of the petitioners, are without substance and there is not even an iota of evidence before the Court to validly form an opinion to the contrary. In fact, as per the petitioners (allegedly detained persons), they were never detained by any person at any point of time.
61.4. The CBI shall continue the investigation in furtherance to the direction of the High Court against petitioner in Writ Petition No. 111/2011 and all other persons responsible for the abuse of the process of Court, making false statement in pleadings, filing false affidavits and committing such other offences as the Investigating Agency may find during investigation. The CBI shall submit its report to the court of competent jurisdiction as expeditiously as possible and not later than six months from the date of passing of this order.
61.5. These directions are without prejudice to the rights of the respective parties to take such legal remedy as may be available to them in accordance with law. We also make it clear that the Court of competent jurisdiction or the CBI would not in any way be influenced by the observations made in this judgment or even the judgment of the High Court.
All the pleas and contentions which may be raised by the parties are left open.
62. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
ii) Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1;
?51. The argument that the right to life protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India would include the right to employment cannot also be accepted at this juncture. The law is dynamic and our Constitution is a living document. May be at some future point of time, the right to employment can also be brought in under the concept of right to life or even included as a fundamental right. The new statute is perhaps a beginning. As things now stand, the acceptance of such a plea at the instance of the employees before us would lead to the consequence of depriving a large number of other aspirants of an opportunity to compete for the post or employment. Their right to employment, if it is a part of right to life, would stand denuded by the preferring of those who have got in casually or those who have come through the back door. The obligation cast on the State under Article 39(a) of the Constitution of India is to ensure that all citizens equally have the right to adequate means of livelihood. It will be more consistent with that policy if the courts recognize that an appointment to a post in government service or in the service of its instrumentalities, can only be by way of a proper selection in the manner recognized by the relevant legislation in the context of the relevant provisions of the Constitution. In the name of individualizing justice, it is also not possible to shut our eyes to the constitutional scheme and the right of the numerous as against the few who are before the court. The Directive Principles of State Policy have also to be reconciled with the rights available to the citizen under Part III of the Constitution and the obligation of the State to one and all and not to a particular group of citizens. We, therefore, overrule the argument based on Article 21 of the Constitution.
52. Normally, what is sought for by such temporary employees when they approach the court, is the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the employer, the State or its instrumentalities, to absorb them in permanent service or to allow them to continue. In this context, the question arises whether a mandamus could be issued in favour of such persons. At this juncture, it will be proper to refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College [(1962) Supp. 2 SCR 144]. That case arose out of a refusal to promote the writ petitioner therein as the Principal of a college. This Court held that in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right under the statute or rule to enforce it. This classical position continues and a mandamus could not be issued in favour of the employees directing the government to make them permanent since the employees cannot show that they have an enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed or that the State has a legal duty to make them permanent.
53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.
54. It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents.
55. In cases relating to service in the commercial taxes department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the High Court should have directed that wages equal to the salary that are being paid to regular employees be paid to these daily wage employees with effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in government service, from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Since, they are only daily wage earners, there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them. In view of our conclusion, that Courts are not expected to issue directions for making such persons permanent in service, we set aside that part of the direction of the High Court directing the Government to consider their cases for regularization. We also notice that the High Court has not adverted to the aspect as to whether it was regularization or it was giving permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection. But when regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in C.A. No. 3595-3612 and those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated, will be allowed to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a significant period of time. That would be the extent of the exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice to them.
56. Coming to Civil Appeal Nos. 1861-2063 of 2001, in view of our conclusion on the questions referred to, no relief can be granted, that too to an indeterminate number of members of the association. These appointments or engagements were also made in the teeth of directions of the Government not to make such appointments and it is impermissible to recognize such appointments made in the teeth of directions issued by the Government in that regard. We have also held that they are not legally entitled to any such relief. Granting of the relief claimed would mean paying a premium for defiance and insubordination by those concerned who engaged these persons against the interdict in that behalf. Thus, on the whole, the appellants in these appeals are found to be not entitled to any relief. These appeals have, therefore, to be dismissed.
57. C.A. Nos. 3520-24 of 2002 have also to be allowed since the decision of the Zilla Parishads to make permanent the employees cannot be accepted as legal. Nor can the employees be directed to be treated as employees of the Government, in the circumstances. The direction of the High Court is found unsustainable.
58. In the result, Civil Appeal Nos. 3595-3612 of 1999, Civil Appeal No. 3849 of 2001, Civil Appeal Nos. 3520-3524 of 2002 and Civil appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 9103-9105 of 2001 are allowed subject to the direction issued under Article 142 of the Constitution in paragraph 46 and the general directions contained in paragraph 44 of the judgment and Civil Appeal Nos. 1861-2063 of 2001 are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.?
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, viz., School and Dr.S.Prathiba, has contended that after the retirement of Mr.Kishore Chand as Headmaster, he is not allowing smooth functioning of the school and makes hindrance to the school in one way or the other without any authority. Learned counsel for the school has submitted that a proposal sent to the DEO on 11.12.2013, requesting to approve the appointment of Dr.S.Prathiba, was declined for the reason that she does not possess ten years of teaching experience. But actually speaking, Dr.S.Prathiba has more than 10 years of teaching experience as required under the Rules. However, learned Additional Government Pleader has refuted the stand of the School that they sent a proposal for approval of the appointment of Dr.S.Prathiba as Headmistress with effect from 03.06.2013.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent school has also quoted the following decisions of the Apex Court in the midst of his argument:
i) Ram Sarup vs. State of Haryana and Others, reported in (1979) 1 SCC 168;
?3. The question then arises as to what was the effect of breach of Clause (1) of Rule 4 of the Rules. Did it. have the effect of rendering the appointment wholly void so as to be completely ineffective or merely irregular, so that it could be regularised as and when the appellant acquired the necessary qualifications to hold the post of Labour-com Conciliation Officer. We are of the view that the appointment of the appellant was irregular since he did not possess one of the three requisite qualifications but as soon as he acquired the necessary qualification of five years' experience of the working of labour laws in any one of the three capacities mentioned in Clause (1) of Rule 4 or in any higher capacity, his appointment must be regarded as having been regularised. The appellant worked as Labour- cum-Conciliation Officer from 1st January, 1968 and that being a post higher than that of Labour Inspector or Deputy Chief Inspector of Shops or Wage Inspector, the experience gained by him in the working of Labour Laws in the post of Labour-cum Conciliation Officer must be regarded as sufficient to constitute fulfilment of the requirement of five years experience provided in Clause (1) of Rule 4. The appointment of the appellant to the post of Labour cum Conciliation Officer, therefore, became regular from the date when he completed five years after taking into account the period of about ten months during which he worked as Chief Inspector of Shops. Once his appointment became regular on the expiry of this period of five years on his fulfilling the requirements for appointment as Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer arid becoming eligible for that purpose, he could not thereafter be reverted to the post of Statistical Officer. The order of reversion passed against the appellant, was therefore, clearly illegal and it must be set aside.
4. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench as well as of the Single judge of the High Court and quash the order of reversion passed against the appellant reverting him from the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer to that of Statistical Officer. We further make it clear that the appointment of the appellant as labour cum Conciliation Officer must be deemed to have become regular and he mutt be deemed to have been appointed to that post only on the expiry of a period of five years calculated from the date when he was appointed Chief Inspector of Shops. There will be no order as to costs of the appeal.?
ii) J.C.Yadav and others vs. State of Haryana and Others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 857;
?12. On behalf of the appellants an alternative submission was made that since the appellants had already completed eight years' of service in Class H service during the pend- ency of the writ petition their appointment stood regula- rised. To support this submission reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Ram Sarup v. State of Punjab, [1979] 1 SCC 168. In that case appointment to the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer was made in breach of Rule 4 Clause (I) of the Punjab Labour Service Class I and II Rules 1955 as Ram Sarup did not possess five years' experience, required by sub-clause (I) of Rule 4, In spite of that he had been appointed to the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer. Subsequently, Ram Sarup was reverted on the ground that he was not qualified to be appointed as a Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer as he did not possess the minimum qualification of length of service. This Court held that the appointment of Ram Sarup made in breach of Rules was irregu- lar, but not wholly void and since Ram Sarup had completed five years of experience of working of labour laws before his reversion, his appointment to the post of Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer stood regularised with effect from the date he completed five years of service. On these findings order of reversion was set aside by this Court. Undisputa- bly, the appellants completed eight years of service before January 15, 1980, the date on which the Division Bench of the High Court set aside their promotions. In view of the principles laid down in Ram Sarup's case (supra) the appel- lants' appointment, even if irregular, stood regularised on the date they completed eight years of their service and there- after their promotions could not be set aside.
13. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 15.1.1980 and restore the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the re- spondents' writ petition. There will be no order as to costs.
13. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.
14. A perusal of all the affidavits filed in support of these writ petitions would go to show that owing to the retirement of Mr.Kishore Chand, Dr.S.Prathiba was appointed as Headmistress of the school and the dispute started erupting from the date of her appointment. Though there is no controversy with regard to her qualification, the District Educational Officer refused to approve her appointment, pursuant to her non fulfillment of having teaching experience of 10 years. It is no doubt true that pursuant to her selection as Senior Lecturer in the Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore from 28.05.2007 to 31.12.2008, Dr.S.Prathiba was constrained to quit the respondent school so as to take up the new task. Subsequently, on account of her family circumstances, she sought reappointment in the respondent school and was duly appointed.
15. In the meanwhile, a vacancy of Headmaster arose consequent to the attainment of superannuation by Mr.Kishore Chand, against which, the name of Dr.S.Prathiba was considered, as she was in possession of required qualifications. However, the said appointment was not approved by the District Educational Officer on the ground of lack of 10 years teaching experience. Though Dr.S.Prathiba pleaded that if her subsequent service as Senior Lecturer in VIT University, Vellore is taken into account, she had crossed more than 10 years of teaching experience, but her plea was not given proper heed. Apart from the above, the retired Headmaster Mr.Kishore Chand also joined hand with the official respondents to oppose the appointment of Dr.S.Prathiba, even though she is his close relative.
16. It is pertinent to mention here that the period of service rendered in higher post shall have to be considered for the purpose of computing the period of 10 years of service. Admittedly, in this case, though Dr.S.Prathiba had worked only for 8 years 9 months and 26 days after excluding her leave on loss of pay, her services rendered as Senior Lecturer in the University, which is definitely a higher post, will have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing total 10 years of service, as the teacher or lecturer serving in a higher post will have a better perspective to teach students in the lower class. Hence, it is held that Dr.S.Prathiba has completed 10 years of service and giving different interpretations to the Rule that 10 years of experience in B.T. Assistant is required and that the services rendered in higher post cannot be counted, has no legs to stand, when the Rule is silent on this aspect. For better appreciation, Annexure V Appendix IV (1) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private School Regulation Rules, 1974 is extracted as follows:
?IV. Qualifications for appointment as teachers in Higher Secondary School -
Name of the Post (1) Qualifications (2)
1. Headmaster or Headmistress (Higher Secondary Schools)
(i) A Master's degree of a university in the State for teaching any of the languages under Parts I and II or subjects under Part III, Group ?A? of the syllabus for Higher Secondary courses or a Master's Degree of equivalent standard in any one of the subjects or languages specified in the said syllabus or a certificate issued by the University of Madras for having undergone the certificates course in Science and Humanities for Graduate Teachers in High Schools during the year 1960-1964.
(ii) B.T. or B.Ed., degree or its equivalent.
(iii) Experience for a period of not less than ten years as B.T.School Assistant or Pandit in a Secondary School or Training School or Higher Secondary School recognised by the Director of School Education:
Provided that the experience in the category of Headmaster and Headmistress in a School recognised by the Director of School Education shall be taken into account for calculating the experience in the category of B.T.Assistant.
17. With regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos.17023 of 2013 and 11860 of 2014 filed by Mr.Kishore Chand, since he has already retired from service on 31.05.2013, he has no locus standi to maintain these writ petitions, as Dr.S.Prathiba's appointment has been made after his retirement with effect from 03.06.2013. However, since Mr.Kishore Chand has been made as a party in the writ petition filed by Dr.S.Prathiba, he was allowed to put forth his contention. He has stated that Dr.S.Prathiba has suppressed the fact and that she has also filed a false affidavit. To that effect, he drew the attention of this Court to the Ground-C of the writ petition filed by Dr.S.Prathiba, wherein it has been stated as under:
?c) I submit that even if I was treated to have been in shortage of 5 months, in the required period of 10 years of experience, the 2nd respondent ought to have considered and taken into account my subsequent service period, after I was reappointed from 01.10.2012 to 31.05.2013 which comes 8 months and which is more than the remaining required period. If the period of my experience earned by me by working in the University of Vellore is added, the experience comes nearly 13 years. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is wrong in stating that I am not having required experience.?
18. It is stated by Mr.Kishore Chand that though he was supposed to attain superannuation on 30.09.2012, pursuant to his extension, he attained superannuation only on 31.05.2013 and therefore, the appointment order given to her from 01.10.2012 was kept in abeyance and that the subsequent order dated 03.06.2013 was issued. But to the contrary, Dr.S.Prathiba has included those period viz., between 01.10.2012 and 31.05.2013 for the purpose of calculation of 10 years of service falsely in the affidavit.
19. A perusal of the said ground, referred to above, it is clear that Dr.S.Prathiba has made a false statement before this Court for the purpose of completion of 10 years of service, though Dr.S.Prathiba is fully qualified to be appointed as Headmistress in the respondent school. Ultimately, a careful reading of the writ petitions filed by Mr.Kishore Chand, several things have come out to the effect that Mr.Kishore Chand is the son of Mrs.B.Sareaswathy Amma, who is the Correspondent and Manager of the school after the demise of her husband late Sekhara Pillai and Dr.S.Prathiba is her grand daughter. It is seen that in order to remove Saraswathy Amma and usurp her position without her consent, several documents have been created for such purpose. Even though Mr.Kishore Chand has pleaded that Dr.S.Prathiba has filed false affidavit, he is also equally responsible for creating false documents and filing the same before this Court to portray that he has the full authority to manage the affairs of the school so as to deprive the rights of Dr.S.Prathiba.
20. Having heard both sides, this Court is of the view that though Dr.S.Prathiba is eligible for appointment, since she has filed a false affidavit, she is liable to pay a cost of Rs.50,000/-. That apart, decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjay Sharma vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 757 and also in the case of Amar Singh vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 69, quoted by the learned counsel for Mr.Kishore Chand against Dr.S.Prathiba are squarely applicable to him also. This Court is not inclined to pardon the act of Mr.Kishore Chand for creating false documents to dethrone his own mother. Therefore, Mr.Kishore Chand is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as costs. Litigants must know that the Court is a Temple of Justice and Justice is beyond temple.
21. Accordingly, the following orders are passed in these writ petitions:
i) W.P.(MD) Nos.17023 of 2013 and 11860 of 2014 filed by Mr.Kishore Chand are dismissed as not maintainable with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) payable by Mr.Kishore Chand to Balar Illam, 12, Jawahar Road, Madurai ? 625002 (Phone No.:452-2532085) within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
ii) W.P.(MD) No.13486 of 2014 filed by Dr.S.Prathibha is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The District Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District is directed to approve the appointment of Dr.S.Prathibha as Headmistress of the respondent school from 01.06.2013. As already stated above, since she has daringly filed a false affidavit before this Court, she is also liable to pay Rs.50,000/- as costs. Accordingly, she is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the MUNAVVARAH GIRLS ORPHANAGE HOME, 3/780, Alagar Kovil Main Road, Surveyor Colony, Madurai 625 007 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
22. In case the costs are not deposited within the time stipulated, the Registry of this Court is directed to recover the same by coercive means as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr.B.Singhversus Union of India and others, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 363.
23. Before parting with this judgment, this Court would like to add few things for consideration. Teaching profession is a noble profession. Even though Dr.S.Prathibha is competent to hold the post of Headmistress and is eligible to be appointed as per Rules, this Court is afraid as to how far she will contribute to the development of student community and she must be aware that education is different from qualification. By merely looking at papers and Rules, this Court granted the relief to Dr.S.Prathibha, but my conscience and insight do not permit me to arrive at such a conclusion. It is quite true that Dr.S.Prathibha is a qualified person, but not an educated person in view of the false affidavit filed by her before this Court. Of course, according to Matthew 12:31, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven and Jesus Christ also said that ?But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.? (Matthew 5:39). It does not imply pacifism, nor does it mean we place ourselves or others in mortal danger. Because in this Kaliyuga, if you show your other cheek, you will get not only one more slap, but also several blows. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
16.07.2015 To
1. The Secretary to the Govt., Department of School Education, Chennai.
2. The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
3. The District Educational Officer, The District Educational Office, Kulithurai, Kanyakumari District.
4. The Correspondent & Manager, Arumanai Higher Secondary School, Arumanai, Vilavagodu Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
.