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 3/19 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 4/19 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 5/19 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 6/19 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 7/19 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 8/19 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 9/19 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 10/19 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 11/19 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 12/19 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 13/19 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 14/19 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 15/19 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 16/19 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
17/19
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 18/19 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 19/19