Madras High Court
A.Andi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 November, 2012
Author: K.Ravichandrabaabu
Bench: K.Ravichandrabaabu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16/11/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P(MD)No.5150 of 2007 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2007 A.Andi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary to Government Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary Education) College Road, Chennai-6. 3.The District Educational Officer, Virudunagar. 4.The Secretary, Nadar Higher Secondary School, Jamin Kollankondan Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District-626 142. ... Respondents Prayer Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records connected with the impugned order in Government Lr.No.33787/VE/2006-1, dated 26.02.2007 passed by the 1st respondent in confirming the order in G.O.(routine)No.130, School Education (VE) Department, dated 14.05.2004 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Higher Secondary Headmaster in the 4th respondent school w.e.f.17.01.2002 with all consequential monetary and attendant benefits. !For Petitioner ... Mr.K.K.Kannan ^For R1 to R3 ... Mr.S.Kumar Additional Government Pleader For 4th Respondent ... Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu :ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the first respondent, dated 26.02.2007, confirming its earlier order made in G.O.No.130, dated 14.05.2004. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Higher Secondary School Headmaster at the 4th respondent School with effect from 17.01.2002 with all consequential, monetary and attendant benefits.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent School is a private non-minority aided Higher Secondary School. There were eight P.G. Assistants working in the said School. The petitioner was appointed as Headmaster of the 4th respondent School with effect from 17.01.2002. The said appointment was sought to be approved before the educational authority. The 3rd respondent rejected the proposal on 25.02.2002. Against which, the 4th respondent School preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the same was rejected on 09.04.2003. The 4th respondent School had preferred further revision before the first respondent and the same was also rejected on 14.05.2004 in G.O.No.130, dated 14.05.2004. The reason for rejection of approval by all the authorities was that the petitioner was not working in the feeder category of P.G. Assistants while getting appointed as Headmaster in the Higher Secondary School. Even during the pendency of the revision before the first respondent, the petitioner preferred a detailed representation to the first respondent on 01.04.2004. However, without considering the same, the first respondent had passed the order on 14.05.2004, and rejected the revision filed by the School Management. Hence, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court in W.P.No.24540 of 2004, wherein a direction was issued on 03.11.2006 for considering the petitioner's representation in the revision filed before the first respondent. Consequently, the present impugned order came to be passed.
3.The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the petitioner was working as a B.T Assistant at the 4th respondent School and therefore, he was appointed as Headmaster on 17.01.2002 by the then Secretary of the School. When the said appointment was sought to be approved before the 3rd respondent, the same was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not having the qualification to be appointed as Headmaster as per the Rule 15(4)(d) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School Regulation Rule, 1973, as he was not working as a P.G. Assistant at the time of appointment. The petitioner was not qualified to hold the post of Headmaster in the above said School as per the said rule.
4.It is further stated by the 4th respondent that subsequently, another person by name, Mr.N.Pownraj, who was working as a P.G. Assistant at the 4th respondent School, was promoted and appointed as Headmaster with effect from 13.02.2006 and the said person is now working in the said School as Headmaster.
5.The 3rd respondent has filed a separate counter affidavit, wherein he has justified the impugned order and reiterated the contention that the petitioner did not satisfy the requirement under Rule 15(4)(d) of the said Rules for appointment to the post of Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School. As the petitioner was not rendering service in the feeder category of P.G. Assistant and he was admittedly working only as B.T. Assistant, he was not eligible for the post of Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was having the requisite qualification to the post of Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School, as he possessed the educational qualification of M.A.(Economics), M.A.(Tamil) and M.Ed. Decrees. Mover-over, when the 4th respondent School had appointed the petitioner as Headmaster, by taking into consideration of his qualification, it cannot now turn around and say that the petitioner was not possessing the qualification and take a contra stand against the petitioner, merely because there is a change of the Management.
7.The learned counsel further contended that when the 3rd respondent rejected the proposal for approval, only the 4th respondent School challenged the same before the 2nd respondent as well as the 1st respondent, which conduct shows that the appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster was fully justified by the Management all throughout till the order of revision is passed by the Government.
8.He has further contended that at any event, the petitioner having worked from 16.01.2002 to 30.10.2005, the 4th respondent School management is bound to pay the salary to the petitioner, even though the proposal for approval was rejected by the Education Department.
9.In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court reported in (2006) 4 MLJ 1125, in the case of Bharath Primary School run by Sri Bathrakalaiamman Trust Rep. by its Secretary Chinnadurai Vairavikinaru, Tirunelveli District vs. A Pauldurai and others.
10.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that when the very appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster of the 4th respondent School was not in accordance with Rule 15(4)(d) of the said Rule, the proposal for approval was rightly rejected by the 3rd respondent and confirmed by the 2nd and 1st respondents in their respective orders. The petitioner admittedly worked as B.T. Assistant in the 4th respondent School, which is not a feeder category to the post of Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School as contemplated under Rule 15(4)(d) of the said Rule.
11.The learned Additional Government Pleader also pointed out that the petitioner has not in-fact challenged the order of the first authority rejecting the proposal for approval. On the other hand, it is only the school had filed the appeal and further revision before the 2nd and 1st respondents respectively.
12.The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent contended that the petitioner was appointed as Headmaster of the 4th respondent School on 17.01.2002 by the then Secretary of the School, without following the mandatory rule 15(4)(d) of the said rules, as the feeder category to the post of Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School is either the Headmaster of the High School or PG Assistant working in the said School. As admittedly, the petitioner was working as only B.T. Assistant, the very appointment itself was not in accordance with rule 15(4)(d) of the said rules, even though, the petitioner had possessed the Post-Graduate qualifications, namely. M.A(Economics), M.A.(Tamil) and M.Ed. Degrees.
13.It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent that the petitioner was working as Headmaster from 16.01.2002 to 03.10.2005 and thereafter, another person was appointed as Headmaster from 13.02.2006 onwards and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
14.Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties.
15.In this case, the core issue to be decided is whether the appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster of the 4th respondent school is valid or not?
16.The admitted facts, which are placed before this court are as follows:-
(i)The petitioner was working as B.T. Assistant at the 4th respondent School.
(ii)The petitioner was appointed as Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School on 16.01.2002 and working in such capacity till 03.10.2005.
(iii)Another person, by name Mr.N.Pownraj was appointed as Headmaster of the 4th respondent School on 13.02.2006 and he is now working in such capacity.
and
(iv)The petitioner is having educational qualification with M.A.(Economics), M.A.(Tamil) and M.Ed. degrees.
17.In order to find out as to whether the petitioner's appointment was validly made or not, the relevant provision under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private (Regulation) Rules, 1974 is extracted hereunder:-
Rule 15(4)(d) reads as follows:-
(d)Appointment to the post of Headmaster of Higher Secondary School shall be made by the method specified in clause (ii)either from the category of Headmasters of High Schools or Teacher's Training Institutes or from the category of Post Graduate Assistants in academic subjects or Post-Graduate Assistants in Languages provided they possess the prescribed qualifications.
18.Annexure V of sub-clause IV deals with qualifications for appointment as teachers in Higher Secondary Schools, wherein the qualification for the post of Headmaster or Headmistress of the Higher Secondary Schools are stated as follows:-
Name of the Post Qualifications
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.
19.From the combined reading of the above said provisions made under Rule 15(4)(d) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 as well as sub-clause (IV) of Annexure V, it is seen that in order to get appointed as Headmaster or Headmistress of the Higher Secondary School, one should necessarily possess the educational qualifications or other experience qualifications, as contemplated under sub clause IV of Annexure V of the said rules and that such appointment to the post of Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School shall be made from the category of Headmasters of the Higher Secondary Schools or from the category of Post-Graduate Assistants in academic subjects or Post-Graduate Assistants in Languages, provided they possess the prescribed qualifications. Thus, a combined reading of both the provisions shows that it is not sufficient for a person to hold the qualification prescribed under sub-clause IV of Annexure V alone, but he should also satisfy the requirement of Rule 15(4)(d). In other words, he should be from the feeder category to the post of Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School. As admittedly, the petitioner was not serving as P.G. Assistant in the 4th respondent School at the time of appointing him as Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School, I find that there is a clear violation of Rule 15(4)(d) of the said rules and consequently, the very appointment of the petitioner to the post of Headmaster was not validly made.
20.No-doubt, the petitioner was possessing the requisite educational qualifications namely, M.A.(Economics), M.A.(Tamil) and M.Ed. degree, but that itself could not confer him any right to get appointed as Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School, unless he also satisfy the requirement made under Rule 15(4)(d). The respondents 1 to 3 have considered all these aspects and rightly rejected the proposal for approval. Therefore, I find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the first respondent, confirming the order of the respondents 2 and 3.
21.However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the 4th respondent School having appointed the petitioner to the post of Headmaster and extracted the work as Headmaster from 16.01.2002 to 03.10.2005, they are bound to pay the salary to the petitioner as Headmaster, even though the proposal for approval was rejected by the educational authorities. I find force in this submission. The petitioner has not obtained the appointment as Headmaster by making any false or misrepresentation. On the other hand, knowing fully well about the qualification of the petitioner, the 4th respondent appointed the petitioner as Headmaster.
22.The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner as cited supra, had taken a view that notwithstanding the fact that the appointment of Headmaster of the School, was not approved by the District Elementary Education Officer, the School management is liable to pay salary to the Headmaster, for the period he worked in the School. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent that the petitioner was receiving salary as B.T. Assistant and therefore, his claim cannot be considered. No-doubt the petitioner was received salary as B.T. Assistant. However, as he had worked as Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School from 16.01.2002 to 3.10.2005, the differential pay between B.T. Assistant and the Headmaster has to be borne out by the School management and accordingly, a direction is issued to the 4th respondent to pay the differential pay to the petitioner for the period during which he worked as Headmaster at the 4th respondent. Such payment shall be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
23.With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
er To,
1.The District Revenue Officer-cum-
Additional District Judge, Tuticorin.
2.The Government Advocate, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.