Madras High Court
T.John Shibu Manick vs The Director Of Elementary Education on 28 June, 2022
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
W.P.No.15853 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.15853 of 2021
and
W.M.P.No.16737 of 2021
T.John Shibu Manick ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Block Educational Officer,
Coonoor, Nilgiris District.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Coonoor, Nilgiris District.
4.C.S.I. Aided Primary and Middle School,
Represented by its Correspondent, Coonoor Range. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the 2nd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.1518/A2/2019 dated 30.10.2019,
to quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd Respondents herein,
to grant approval for the appointment of the Petitioner as Secondary Grade
Teacher with effect from 17.01.2018 at CSI Primary School, Parkside Estate,
Coonoor, Nilgiris being appointed by the 4th Respondent.
For Petitioner : Mrs.Kaavya Silambanan
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15853 of 2021
For R1 to R3 : Mr.T.Chezhiyan
Additional Government Pleader
For R4 : Mr.S.Bharathi Rajan
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2 nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.1518/A2/2019, dated 30.10.2019, to quash the same and consequently, to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein, to grant approval for the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 17.01.2018 at CSI Primary School, Parkside Estate, Coonoor, Nilgiris being appointed by the 4th respondent.
2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher by the 4th respondent-School on 17.01.2018, subject to the approval of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. Thereafter, the 4th respondent-School has sent a proposal dated 27.01.2018 to the 2nd and 3rd respondents, seeking approval of the appointment of the petitioner from the date of appointment. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent by the Letter in Na.Ka.No.374/A2/2018, dated 31.05.2018 has returned the said proposal for rectifying some defects.
2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15853 of 2021
3. Pursuant to the same, the 4th respondent-School has rectified the defects pointed out by the 2nd respondent and resubmitted the said proposal by the letter dated 30.10.2018. However, the 2nd respondent by the Letter dated 19.11.2018, has refused to approve his appointment and returned the same by pointing out some defects that the 4 th respondent-School has to furnish the True Copy of his School Certificates, School Correspondent's Appointment Order, School Recognition Order, Student's Attendance Register.
4. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent once again forwarded the papers on 01.07.2019 to the 2nd and 3rd respondents along with all the relevant documents for approval of his appointment and the same was rejected by the 2nd respondent by the Letter in Na.Ka.No.1518/A2/2019, dated 30.10.2019.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner has made a written representation dated 02.03.2021 to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to recall the Letter in Na.Ka.No.1518/A2/2019, dated 30.10.2019 rejecting to grant approval of his appointment on 17.01.2018 as Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4th respondent-School and further, seeking to consider his representation and to 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15853 of 2021 grant approval of his appointment. But the said representation is still pending, no order has been passed. Hence, he has filed the instant writ petition before this Court.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 4th respondent-School has submitted the said proposal on 27.01.2018 before the 2nd and 3rd respondents for their approval. The 2nd respondent by the Letter in Na.Ka.No.1518/A2/2019, dated 30.10.2019 has declined the approval of the appointment of the petitioner by relying upon the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.165, School Education [Tho.Ka.2(1)] Department, dated 17.09.2019.
7. The prayer as sought for in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 18.4.2022 in W.P.No.3194 of 2020, etc. Batch case [B.Kurinjimalaron vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9] wherein this Court held as follows:
''9. On perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid Batch of cases and also the G.O.Ms.No.165 issued 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15853 of 2021 by the School Education Department, dated 17.9.2019, both the judgment as well as G.O.Ms.No.165 are prospective in nature. The appointments made by the School Management in the instant writ petitions are prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 and proposals for the said appointments were also forwarded to the educational authorities prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019. Therefore, there is no legal impediments for the respondents to accord approval to the appointment made by the School Management in the instant writ petitions.
10. Having regard to the rival submissions of the parties, taking note of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in a Batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD) No.76 of 2019, etc., G.O.Ms.No.165 issued by the School Education department, dated 17.9.2019 will not prohibit the educational authorities to approve the appointments made by the School Management in the instant writ petitions since the proposals for approval of appointments made by the School Management were forwarded to the educational authorities prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.165 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15853 of 2021 dated 17.9.2019. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondent department without considering the G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 in proper perspective and passed the impugned order rejecting the proposals submitted by the School Management. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondent department are liable to be quashed.
11. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the respondent department in the aforesaid writ petitions are quashed and remitted to the Chief Educational Officers/District Educational Officers concerned, to consider and pass an order of approval of the appointments made by the School management, provided the said proposals satisfies all the norms prescribed for such appointments and as per the Rules, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It is made clear that those who are appointed to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher/B.T. Assistant/Middle Grade Assistant prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 and also, the proposals for approval of such appointments were also forwarded to the 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15853 of 2021 educational authorities prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 alone are entitled to the relief granted hereinabove.” The aforesaid judgment is squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
8. On perusal of the records, reveals that the 4th respondent-School has submitted the proposal prior to the aforesaid Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.165, School Education [Tho.Ka.2(1)] Department, dated 17.09.2019. Therefore, the said proposal of the 4th respondent-school seeking approval of the appointment of the petitioner would be considered, if otherwise eligible. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent- School undertakes that the 4th respondent-School would resubmit the said proposal, within the time as specified by this Court.
9. In the light of the judgment cited supra, this Court is inclined to pass orders as follows:-
(i) The impugned Letter in Na.Ka.No.1518/A2/2019, dated 30.10.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent, is quashed.
(ii) The 4th respondent-School is directed to resubmit the said proposal 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15853 of 2021 before the 2nd respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii) On such proposal received by the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the said proposal in the light of the judgment of this Court dated 18.4.2022 in W.P.No.3194 of 2020, etc. Batch case [B.Kurinjimalaron vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9] and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, as early as possible, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.
10. With the above directions, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
dm
8/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15853 of 2021
To
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Block Educational Officer, Coonoor, Nilgiris District.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Coonoor, Nilgiris District.
9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15853 of 2021 D.KRISHNAKUMAR. J dm W.P.No.15853 of 2021 28.06.2022 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis