Madras High Court
The District Elementary Educational ... vs P.Pommi Kutty Porcia on 31 August, 2020
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan, P.Rajamanickam
W.A.(MD)No.647 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 31.08.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
W.A.(MD)No.647 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.4054 of 2020
1. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2. The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District. ... Appellants/ 1 & 2 respondents
Vs.
1. P.Pommi Kutty Porcia,
Secondary Grade Teacher,
R.C.Middle School, Thalamuthu Nagar,
Puthukottai Range, Tuticorin District.
...1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2.The Correspondent,
St.Antony's Primary School,
Nellaiappapuram, Nanguneri Union,
Tirunelveli District. ... 2nd Respondent/3rd Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of this
Court made in W.P.(MD).No.17932 of 2014 dated 20.03.2019.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/10
W.A.(MD)No.647 of 2020
For Appellants : Mrs.S.Srimathy,
Special Government Pleader.
For Respondents : Mr.A.Ajith Geethan for R1
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.) The official respondents in W.P.(MD).No.17932 of 2014, are the appellants.
2. The first respondent/writ petitioner filed W.P.(MD).No.17932 of 2014, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, relating to the impugned proceedings of the first appellant dated 25.10.2014 and quash the same and also prayed for consequential direction directing the first appellant herein, to approve the service as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the services of the second respondent/School, during the period from 01.02.2002 to 17.06.2004 (2 years, 4 months and 16 days) with salary and other attendant benefits.
3. The said writ petition after contest came to be allowed, vide common impugned order dated 20.03.2019, along with the other writ petitions and hence, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.
4. It is a case of the first respondent/writ petitioner that she had the educational qualification of H.S.C with D.T.Ed and she was initially appointed as http://www.judis.nic.in 2/10 W.A.(MD)No.647 of 2020 Secondary Grade Teacher in another private aided school under the management of the second respondent with effect from 01.02.2002, vide appointment order issued by the Manager, R.C. School, Tuticorin Diocese, dated 31.01.2002 and it is also her claim that her appointment was against a permanent vacancy, which arose on account of the voluntary retirement of the previous incumbent Tmt.M.S.Ramani, on 31.01.2002. Subsequently, the first respondent/writ petitioner was deployed to St.Xavier's Middle School, Saveriarpuram, kalakadu Range, Tirunelveli District, with effect from 29.04.2006 and thereafter, she was transferred to the present school at Thalamuthunagar on 01.08.2006 and her service is continuous, unblemished and to the utmost satisfaction of all.
5. The correspondent of the second respondent/school submitted a proposal to the first appellant herein, through proper channel, namely, the second appellant for requesting disbursement of grant-in-aid toward her salary with the positive recommendation. It was forwarded to the first appellant, who returned the proposal vide proceedings dated 11.04.2002, stating the same could be considered only after the deployment of all the surplus teachers working in the R.C.Schools under the management. The first respondent/writ petitioner would further aver that thereafter, the second respondent/school once again forwarded the proposal to the first appellant on 07.07.2004, stating that as of then there was no surplus teachers in the R.C.Schools and made a positive recommendation and thereafter, the first appellant granted approval vide proceedings dated 11.08.2004, however, only with http://www.judis.nic.in 3/10 W.A.(MD)No.647 of 2020 effect from 08.06.2004, for the reason that the management of R.C.Schools had completed deploying the surplus teachers under it's schools only on 08.06.2004.
6. The first respondent/writ petitioner also submitted a representation to the second appellant, praying for approval of her period of service during the period from 01.02.2002 to 17.06.2004 (2 years, 4 months, and 16 days) with salary and other benefits and it was also forwarded to the concerned authorities and since, there was no response, she filed W.P.(MD).No.1613 of 2014, seeking for appropriate directions and in compliance of the order, the first appellant had returned the proposal once again vide proceedings dated 25.10.2014, reiterated his earlier stand and challenging the legality of the same, the first respondent/writ petitioner filed the writ petition. The writ petition was entertained and on behalf of the first appellant herein, a counter affidavit was also filed, wherein he took a stand among other things that there were so many surplus teachers working in other schools coming under the management of R.C.Diocese, Tuticorin and therefore, an obligation is cast upon the R.C. Diocese, Tuticorin to redeploy the surplus teachers to the needy schools in the existing vacancies. In the light of the same, the first respondent/writ petitioner is not entitled for approval of her service rendered between 01.02.2002 and 17.06.2004.
7. The learned Single Judge after taking note of the judgment in The Director of Elementary Education and Ors., v. The Correspondent, reported http://www.judis.nic.in 4/10 W.A.(MD)No.647 of 2020 in [2018 (1) Writ L.R.421], in terms of G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997, the obligation is cast upon the Director of Elementary Education to redeploy the surplus staff from one School to another had found that the case of the first respondent/writ petitioner merits acceptance and accordingly, disposed of the writ petition with certain directions and challenging the legality of the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed.
8. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that in the light of the facts that the Roman Catholic Schools of Tuticorin Diocese have very many surplus teachers. The approval of the first respondent/writ petitioner with regard to her services rendered between 01.02.2002 and 17.06.2004, could not be granted and prayed for short accommodation to produce the list.
9. Per contra, Mr.A.Ajith Geethan, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that even in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.(MD).No. 17932 of 2014, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the exercise carried out in terms of G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997, have not been implemented and so also in the counter affidavit of the official respondent in the present Writ Appeal. The learned Single Judge having taken note of the well settled position of law has rightly granted relief and prays for dismissal of the Writ Appeal.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5/10 W.A.(MD)No.647 of 2020
10. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.
11. A Division Bench of this Court in the common judgment dated 17.06.2015 in W.P.(MD).Nos.639 to 642 of 2015 and batch, etc., [The Director of Elementary Education v. B.Infanse & Ors.,] has considered the issue and observed as under:-
"8.It is now more than four years, since the observations were made in W.A(MD)No.70 of 2012 dated 13.03.2012. It is also be noted that every year as per G.O.MS.NA.525, School Education(D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997, staff fixation is done, in each school, by educational authorities, on the basis of teacher- pupil ratio. No materials have been placed before this Court, as to the staff fixation done in the subsequent years, from 2012 onwards, in the schools, in which, surplus was noticed. If the existence of surplus staff continued in the subsequent years, the department ought to have taken action only, as against the said schools and redeployment could have been done then and there. But from the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader, it is evident that no steps were taken, for all these four years. If in the subsequent years, staff fixation in the schools, in which excess was noticed, had already been approved, then the educational authorities are bound by such orders."
12. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the official respondents in the earlier round of litigation filed by the first respondent/writ http://www.judis.nic.in 6/10 W.A.(MD)No.647 of 2020 petitioner in W.P.(MD).No. 17932 of 2014, as well as the present round of litigation in W.P.(MD).No. 1613 of 2014 and batch, etc., where the following stand has been taken by the official respondents:-
"It is submitted that there were so many surplus teachers were working in the schools which are running under the R.C. Diocese. It is required to be re-deployed the surplus teachers to the needy schools in the existing vacancies.” The contents of the counter affidavits merely states that there were so many surplus teachers working in the Schools, which are running under the R.C.Diocese, Tuticorin and therefore, there is a requirement of redeployment of surplus teachers to the needy schools in existing vacancies.
13. It is to be noted at this juncture, the counter affidavits are silent as to the exercise undertaken by the concerned officials, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997. Though opportunity is available to the respondents to bring to the knowledge of the concerned school, as to the actual number of surplus teachers available within the aided Schools of R.C.Diocese of Tuticorin, the said vital fact has not been stated by the concerned official respondents for the reasons best known to them, for which, the first respondent/writ petitioner cannot be faulted with. http://www.judis.nic.in 7/10 W.A.(MD)No.647 of 2020
14. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of the fact the appointment of the first respondent in respect of the concerned post and in the light of the said legal position has rightly granted the relief.
15. This Court, on an independent application of mind is of the considered view that there is no error apparent or any infirmity in the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for disposing of the writ petition with certain directions and finds no merit in this Writ Appeal.
16. In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed, confirming the order dated 20.03.2019, passed in W.P.(MD).No.17932 of 2014. The respondents are directed to comply with the order dated 20.03.2019, as confirmed by this Writ Appeal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken to the respondents. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
Index :No [M.S.N.,J.] [P.R.M.,J.]
Internet :Yes 31.08.2020
pkn
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. http://www.judis.nic.in 8/10 W.A.(MD)No.647 of 2020 To
1. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2. The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9/10 W.A.(MD)No.647 of 2020 M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.
AND P.RAJAMANICKAM,J.
pkn W.A.(MD)No.647 of 2020 and C.M.P.(MD).No.4054 of 2020 31.08.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 10/10