Madras High Court
The Correspondent vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 March, 2019
Author: R.Mahadevan
Bench: R.Mahadevan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:22.03.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P(MD)No.24698 of 2016
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.17803 of 2016
The Correspondent,
St. Antony's Higher Secondary School,
Pazhaiyakayal,
Tuticorin District – 628 152. ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Tuticorin,
Tuticorin District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
the records relating to impugned Staff-Fixation fixed by the third
respondent herein for the academic year 2015-2016 vide
http://www.judis.nic.in
proceedings in Moo.Moo.No.6306/Aa3/2015, dated 14.12.2015 and
2
consequently impugned proceedings issued by the fourth
respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.715/Aa1/16, dated 24.10.2016,
quash the same and further direct the third respondent herein to re-
fix the staff strength of the petitioner school as per G.O.(Ms).No.
525, School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997 and
consequently directing the fourth respondent herein to approve the
appointment of Tmt.Britto Caroline as BT Assistant (Maths) in the
petitioner school w.e.f., 12.06.2014 with salary and other attendant
benefits within reasonable time as may be fixed.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ajith Geethan
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings of the third respondent in Moo.Moo.No.6306/Aa3/2015, dated 14.12.2015 and the consequential impugned proceedings issued by the fourth respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.715/Aa1/16, dated 24.10.2016 and to direct the third respondent herein to re-fix the staff strength of the petitioner school as per G.O.(Ms).No.525, School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997 and consequently direct the fourth respondent herein to approve the http://www.judis.nic.in 3 appointment of Tmt.Britto Caroline as BT Assistant (Maths) in the petitioner school w.e.f., 12.06.2014 with salary and other attendant benefits within a reasonable time as may be fixed by this Court.
2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been settled by this Court, by order dated 01.11.2017, in WP(MD)No.4896 of 2017, in the case of TDTA Primary and Middle Schools Vs. The Secretary to the Government and others, the relevant portions whereof read thus:
“5.The issue involved in this case is no more res-integra in view of the Full Bench Decision in the case of the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai-6 and others V. S.Vigila reported in 2006(5) CTC 385, wherein the relevant G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997 was considered in detail and it has been observed at Para No.23 as follows:
''23.Keeping in view the various relevant http://www.judis.nic.in aspects, we feel that G.O.Ms.No.525, dated 4 29.12.1997 should be interpreted in the following manner:
(1)The ratio of students-teacher strength as indicated in the G.O. Should be primarily considered by taking each individual standard/section as a unit.
(2)The minimum strength of teachers required obviously should not fall below the number of standards/Section in a school. In other words, if there are five standards, obviously the minimum number of teachers should be five, out of which one would be the Headmaster.
(3)If the students' strength in a particular Standard exceeds 60, at that stage, an additional section is required to be created requiring the sanction of a second teacher and the strength reaches 100, the post of a third teacher is required.
(4)Even after maintaining the aforesaid ratio by taking into account the students' strength of each individual standard and additional section, as the case may be, by keeping in view the teacher-students ratio 1:40 of the entire school if the teachers strength is required to be increased, the http://www.judis.nic.in 5 same has to be allowed, but in no case, the teachers' strength should be less than the number of standards including the additional sections. If more teachers are thus sanctioned keeping in view the over all strength of the school, the authorities of the school should create additional section in respect of any particular Standard according to the need and convenience keeping in view the standard of education. This requirement is not only in respect of Aided Schools or Government Schools, but also in respect of any Private Recognized School. In other words, this ratio is to be maintained for any school which requires recognition.
(5)It would be obviously open to the Government to formulate appropriate norms in consonance with the above observation and provisions of the Constitution.''
6.Therefore, the respondents have to fix the staff strength only in accordance with the norms prescribed in the above said decision of the Full Bench for the Academic years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016.”
4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed for a similar direction in this writ petition is also and the learned Special http://www.judis.nic.in 6 Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has no serious objection towards the same.
5. Considering the submissions made on either side and also taking into account the decision of the Full Bench cited supra, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the third and fourth respondents for considering the staff fixation of the Petitioner-school afresh in the light of the order passed by the Full Bench reported in 2006(5) CTC 385 cited supra. Such an exercise shall be done by the third respondent within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6.The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
22.03.2019 Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No ssl To
1.The Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, http://www.judis.nic.in Chennai – 600 009.
72.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
4.The District Educational Officer, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8 W.P.(MD)No.24698 of 2016 and WMP (MD) No.17803 of 2016 R.MAHADEVAN, J.
This writ petition is listed today under the caption “for being mentioned” at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court, vide order dated 22.03.2019, allowed the aforesaid writ petition, following the order of the learned Single Judge in S.Rasheetha Banu v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2012) 4 MLJ 198] and the Division Bench of this Court in the State of Tamil Nadu and three others v. the Correspondent, St.Thomas Higher Secondary School, Kunnathur Post, Pudukottai District [W.A.(MD)No.716 of 2014 dated 04.04.2017]. However, while typing the order, it has been stated that the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of, based on the Full Bench decision in the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai-6 and others v. S.Vigila [2006 (5) CTC 385], due to inadvertent mistake. According to the learned counsel, the Full Bench decision is applicable only to middle school. Hence, the learned counsel sought to rectify the said mistake.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has 9 no serious objection with regard to the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4.Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record, this Court is inclined to rectify the said mistake crept-in in the order, as the same was due to inadvertent mistake.
Accordingly, the said mistake is rectified and paragraph nos.3 to 6 of the order dated 22.03.2019 made in WP.(MD)No.24698 of 2016 are modified as paragraph nos.3 to 5, which read as follows:
“3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in similar circumstances, the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.Rasheetha Banu v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2012) 4 MLJ 198], at paragraph no.7, observed as follows:
“7. The issue involved in this Writ Petition was already considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1263 of 2001, dated 22.1.2004. In the said Judgment, it is held that if a person is appointed in a sanctioned post, the approval of appointment cannot be rejected and if there is fall in strength and the post become surplus, after granting approval of the post, the said teacher along with post could be transferred/deployed to a needy school. The said Judgment of the Division Bench was followed in W.P.(MD)No.11353 of 2008, dated 11.9.2009. As against the said order dated 11.9.2009, the department preferred W.A.(MD)No.703 of 2009. A Division Bench of this Court, by Judgment dated 1.2.2011, dismissed the said Writ Appeal.” The learned counsel further submitted that the issue involved herein is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, in the State of Tamil http://www.judis.nic.in 10 Nadu and three others v. the Correspondent, St.Thomas Higher Secondary School, Kunnathur Post, Pudukottai District [W.A.(MD)No.716 of 2014 dated 04.04.2017] and the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:
“3. The respondent / writ petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the proceedings of the third appellant / Chief Educational Officer, dated 27.02.2012, rejecting his request for conversion of B.T.Assistant in English into that of B.T.Assistant in Tamil and the consequential proceedings of the fourth appellant / District Educational Officer, dated 24.06.2013, refusing the approval to the appointment of one Tmt.Alice Mary as B.T.Assistant in Tamil and also for a direction to the appellants / respondents to approve her appointment and to pay salary and other benefits from the date of her appointment.
4. The learned Single Judge, while considering the matter referred to the decision of the Division Bench, in W.A.No.1198 of 2007 and allowed the writ petition. The legal question involved in this matter is as to whether the Minority Institution can be compelled to follow a subject roaster without there being appropriate amendment to the relevant Rules. This issue was considered by the Division Bench and it was held in favour of the institution. It was pointed out by the learned counsels on either side that the case of the appellants / respondents itself is based on G.O. (Ms).No.144, Education (D1) Department, dated 04.07.2008. This Government Order was subject matter of challenge in R.Emerson Udaisingh vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education and others, W.P.(MD).No.2750 of 2012 and this Court by order, dated 22.08.2013, allowed the said writ petition and quashed the said Government Order. The operative portion of the said order, dated 22.03.2013, reads as follows:
" 3. Similar issue was considered by this Court in the decision reported in 2006(5) CTC 504 - The Corporate Management, CSI Corporate Schools, CSI Diocese of Kanyakumari, Nagarcoil vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary, Chennai and others and this Court quashed the Circular, dated 26.10.2004 http://www.judis.nic.in issued, restricting the number of teachers having degrees in the same subject in a school.11
4.The said decision was considered by a Division Bench of the Principal Seat in the Judgment dated 20.09.2007 made in W.A.No. 1198 of 2007 wherein it is held thus:
"3. In fact the legal implication of the said proceedings dated 26.10.2004, was considered by this Court in the light of Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (in short T.W. Act 29 of 1974) in the Correspondent, Britannia Higher Secondary School, Chennai vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai and others (2007 (2) MLJ 760) and held that the said Act 29/74 does not contemplate any subject roster to be followed regarding the appointment of Middle Grade Graduate teachers. That was also the decision taken earlier by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the corporate Manager, CSI Corporate Schools Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006 (5) CTC
504). It was also considered in the above said cases that the executive instruction cannot supersede the statutory provision, by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in B.N. Nagarajan Vs. State of Karnataka (1979 II LLJ 209 (SC), which was subsequently reiterated by the Supreme Court in V.Sreenivasa Reddy Vs. Government of A.P. (AIR 1995 SC 586). Therefore, by virtue of the above said judgments, it is the categoric decision of this Court that the proceedings of the second appellant dated 26.10.2004 by imposing subject roster in making appointment is not Valid and is in violation of the provisions of the Act 29/74. In view of the same, http://www.judis.nic.in there is absolutely no reason to 12 interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
Consequently, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed with direction to the appellants to approve the appointment of V.J. Titus Prabhakar (Mathematics) with effect form the date of his appointment with salary and other benefits within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No Costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed".
5. We are informed by the learned Special Government Pleader that as against the said order, no writ appeal has been preferred by the Government.
6. In the light of the above, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.” Hence, the learned counsel prayed for a similar order in this writ petition also, for which, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has no serious objection.
4.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also following the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the orders impugned herein are set aside. The respondents are directed to do the needful with regard to approval of appointment of Britto Caroline as B.T Assistant (Maths) in the petitioner School with effect from the date of her appointment with salary and other benefits within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. http://www.judis.nic.in 13
5.This writ petition stands allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”
5.The Registry is directed to carry out the necessary corrections and issue a fresh order copy to all the parties.
01-07-2019 rk R.MAHADEVAN, J.
rk W.P.(MD)No.24698 of 2016 http://www.judis.nic.in 14 01.07.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in 15 R.MAHADEVAN, J.
ssl W.P(MD)No.24698 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD)No.17803 of 2016 22.03.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in