Madras High Court
) The Government Of Tamilnadu vs ) Udhaya Kumar ... R1 In W.A.1031/14 on 17 September, 2014
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, V.S.Ravi
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.09.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI WRIT APPEAL(MD)Nos.1031 of 2014 and WRIT APPEAL(MD)Nos.1032 of 2014 and Connected Miscellaneous Petitions 1) The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Department of Education, Chennai-9. 2) The Director of Secondary Education, College Road, Chennai-9. 3) The District Educational Officer, Cheranmadevi (Educational District), Tirunelveli-1. ... Appellants in both appeals Vs. 1) Udhaya Kumar ... R1 in W.A.1031/14 2) P.Balamurugan ... R1 in W.A.1032/14 3) The Secretary, Balaiahmarthandam Higher Secondary School, Aavaraikulam, Tirunelveli District. ... R2 in both appeals Prayer in both appeals Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent, against the common order passed in W.P(MD)Nos.15393 and 15394 of 2012 dated 01.04.2014. !For Appellants : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader ^For R1 : Mr.K.K.Kannan For R2 : No appearance :C O M M ON J U D G M E N T
(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.) Writ Appeals are directed against the common order made in W.P(MD)Nos.15393 and 15394 of 2012 dated 01.04.2014.
2. As pleadings and submissions are common, both the appeals are disposed of by a common judgment.
3. The impugned orders in the writ petitions are dated 16.12.2011 and 23.01.2012 respectively, passed by the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, withholding the salary of the petitioners.
4. Short facts culled out from the impugned orders are that the petitioners were appointed as Graduate Teacher and Secondary Grade Teacher, respectively, in the 4th respondent school on 16.10.1997 and 17.10.1997. Their approval has been made subject to the interim order made in the Writ Petition. Lateron, stay has been vacated. Hence, they have been directed to be terminated and their salary withheld.
5. Impugned orders dated 16.12.2011 and 23.01.2012 are extracted hereunder-
mDg;g[eh; bgWeh; jpU. g. KUfd;, vk;.v!;rp.vk;.vl;., brayh;,<
khtl;lf; fy;tp mYtyh; ghiyahkhh;j;jhz;lk; Bk.ep.g. Brud;kfhBjtp (n) jpUbey;Btyp. MtiuFsk;.
X.K.vz;.2044 M1/2011, ehs; 16.12.2011 Iah, bghUs;: jtph;g;g[ - MtiuFsk; ghiyahkhhj;jhz;lk; Bky;epiyg; gs;sp - nU Mrphpah;fs; Btiy tha;g;g[ mYtyfk; Kykhf my;yJ ePjpkd;w nilf;fhyj; jilapd;Kyk; Behpilahf epakdk; _
- ePjpkd;w nilf;fhy jil js;Sgo bra;ag;gl;lJ - epakdj;jpw;F jsh;thiz Btz;oaJ ? rhh;g[.
ghh;it: 1. gs;spr;brayhpd; fojk; ehs; 2.5.2011.
2. brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w ? tHf;F vz;.lgps;a[.gp.vk;gp 10515/97 lgps;a[.gp. 6365/97 nilf;fhy cj;jut[ ehs; 28.4.97
3.Brud;kfhBjtp khtl;lf; fy;tp mYtyhpd;
ef.vz;.11549/M1/97, ehs; 12.5.98 DATED : 17.09.2014 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI WRIT APPEAL(MD)Nos.1031 and 1032 of 2014 and Connected Miscellaneous Petitions
1) The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Department of Education, Chennai-9.
2) The Director of Secondary Education, College Road, Chennai-9.
3) The District Educational Officer, Cheranmadevi (Educational District), Tirunelveli-1. ... Appellants in both appeals Vs.
1) Udhaya Kumar ... R1 in W.A.1031/14
2) P.Balamurugan ... R1 in W.A.1032/14
3) The Secretary, Balaiahmarthandam Higher Secondary School, Aavaraikulam, Tirunelveli District. ... R2 in both appeals Prayer in both appeals : Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent, against the common order passed in W.P(MD)Nos.15393 and 15394 of 2012 dated 01.04.2014.
For Appellants : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader For R1 : Mr.K.K.Kannan For R2 : No appearance C O M M ON J U D G M E N T (Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.) Writ Appeals are directed against the common order made in W.P(MD)Nos.15393 and 15394 of 2012 dated 01.04.2014.
2. As pleadings and submissions are common, both the appeals are disposed of by a common judgment.
3. The impugned orders in the writ petitions are dated 16.12.2011 and 23.01.2012 respectively, passed by the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, withholding the salary of the petitioners.
4. Short facts culled out from the impugned orders are that the petitioners were appointed as Graduate Teacher and Secondary Grade Teacher, respectively, in the 4th respondent school on 16.10.1997 and 17.10.1997. Their approval has been made subject to the interim order made in the Writ Petition. Lateron, stay has been vacated. Hence, they have been directed to be terminated and their salary withheld.
5. Impugned orders dated 16.12.2011 and 23.01.2012 are extracted hereunder-
mDg;g[eh; bgWeh; jpU. g. KUfd;, vk;.v!;rp.vk;.vl;., brayh;,<
khtl;lf; fy;tp mYtyh; ghiyahkhh;j;jhz;lk; Bk.ep.g. Brud;kfhBjtp (n) jpUbey;Btyp. MtiuFsk;.
X.K.vz;.2044 M1/2011, ehs; 16.12.2011 Iah, bghUs;: jtph;g;g[ - MtiuFsk; ghiyahkhhj;jhz;lk; Bky;epiyg; gs;sp - nU Mrphpah;fs; Btiy tha;g;g[ mYtyfk; Kykhf my;yJ ePjpkd;w nilf;fhyj; jilapd;Kyk; Behpilahf epakdk; _
- ePjpkd;w nilf;fhy jil js;Sgo bra;ag;gl;lJ - epakdj;jpw;F jsh;thiz Btz;oaJ ? rhh;g[.
ghh;it: 1. gs;spr;brayhpd; fojk; ehs; 2.5.2011.
2. brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w ? tHf;F vz;.lgps;a[.gp.vk;gp 10515/97 lgps;a[.gp. 6365/97 nilf;fhy cj;jut[ ehs; 28.4.97
3.Brud;kfhBjtp khtl;lf; fy;tp mYtyhpd;
ef.vz;.11549/M1/97, ehs; 12.5.98
4.brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w jPhg;g[ ehs; ny;iy.
5.kJiu gs;spf; fy;tpj; Jiw, kz;ly fzf;F mYtyhpd; (jzpf;if) ef.3233/m6/10, ehs;
4.1.2011
6.murhiz vz;.873, ehs; 13.11.95.
muR epjpa[jtp bgWk; jdpahh; gs;spfspy; fhyp Vw;gLk; gzpaplA;fs; midj;Jk; ghh;it(6)-y; fz;Ls;sgo 17.2.95-f;Fg; gpd; khtl;l Btiy tha;g;gfk; Kyk; epug;gg;gl Btz;Lk;. Mdhy; MtiuFsk; ghiyahkhh;j;jhz;lk; Bky;epiyg;gs;spapy; gzpg[hpe;JtUk; fPH;f;fhZk; nU Mrphpah;fs; Bkw;go murhizf;F ghh;it(2)-y; fhZk; ePjpkd;w cj;jutpd K:yk; nilf;fhy jilbgw;W epakdk; bgw;Ws;sdh;:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - --- - - - - -- -
- - - - - - - - - - -
t.vz;. Mrphpah; bgah; gjtp epakd ehs;
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - -
- - - - - - - - - -
1. bgh.cjaFkhh; gl;ljhhp Mrphpah; 16.10.97
2. bg.ghyKUfd; nilepiy Mrphpah; 17.10.97
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
Bkw;go epakdA;fs;, ghh;it(2)-y; fhZk; ePjpkd;w nilf;fhy jil cj;jutpd; nWjpj; jPh;g;g[f;Fl;gl;L ghh;it(3)-y; fhZk; nt;tYtyf bray;Kiwapy; xg;g[jy; tHA;fg;gl;lJ. ghh;it(4)-y; fhZk; ePjpkd;w cj;jutpy; Bkw;go nilf;fhy js;Sgo bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. vdBt nth;fs; cld; gzpePf;fk; bra;ag;gl Btz;Lk;. vdBt nth;fSf;F jsh;thiz tHA;f ghpe;Jiuf;f nayhJ vd;gjhy; nt;thrphpah;fis cld; gzpePf;fk; bra;J mjw;fhd tptuj;ij nW mq;rypy; nt;tYtyfj;jpw;F mDg;gp itj;jpl gs;spr; brayh; md;g[ld; Bfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;.
khtl;lf; fy;tp mYtyh;, Brud;kfhBjtp (n) jpUbey;Btyp.
jpUg;gg;gLfpwJ $dthp 2012 khj Cjpag;gl;oaypy;. t/v/17 kw;Wk; 29y; cs;s jpU/bgh/cjaFkhh;. gl;ljhhp Mrphpah; kw;Wk; jpU/bg/ghyKUfd; ,ilepiy Mrphpah; Mfpnahh;. ePjpkd;w ,ilf;fhy cj;jutpd;go epakdk; bra;ag;gl;L. me;j ,ilf;fhy cj;jut[ js;Sgo bra;ag;gl;ljhy;. ,t;tYtyf x/K/vz;/2044 M/1 11 ehs;/16/12/2011d;go ,t;tpU Mrphpah;fSk; cld; gzpePf;fk; bra;ag;gl ntz;Lk; vd bjhptpf;fg;gl;lJ/ Mdhy;. gzpePf;fk; bra;ag;glhky; ,th;fSf;F $dthp 2012 khj Cjpak; mDkjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhy; ,g;gl;oaYf;F xg;g[jy; tH';f ,ayhJ vd bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ khtl;lf; fy;tp mYtyh;
nrud;kfhnjtp (,Ug;g[) jpUbey;ntyp 1/
6. Before the Writ Court, the petitioners have relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. S.S.Somasundram, reported in 2008 (3) MLJ 492. The learned counsel, who appeared in the Writ Court, for the official respondents 1 to 3 therein, presently appellants herein, has fairly submitted that the issue involved in the Writ Petitions was covered by a Full Bench decision cited supra.
7. The Writ Court extracted paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Full Bench decision, which are reproduced hereunder:-
?15.In the case on hand, though the appointment of the first respondent came to be made by way of a direct recruitment without reference to employment exchange, we hold that inasmuch as such appointment of the first respondent came to be made on merits, it will be in order for the appellants to approve of his appointment and pay the salary along with arrears from the date of his appointment and continue to pay the same till the completion of his service.
16.We therefore dismiss the writ appeal and allow the writ petition.
The order made in the writ petition is set aside and the appellants are directed to pass appropriate orders approving the appointment of the first respondent from the date of his initial appointment and pay the arrears of salary after due fixation and also continue to pay the future salary as applicable to him till the completion of his service.?
8. Following the Full Bench judgment, at paragraph 7 in the common order in W.P(MD)Nos.15393 and 15394 of 2012, the Writ Court ordered as follows:-
?In the light of the judgment cited supra, the impugned orders dated 16.12.2011 and 23.01.2012 are set aside and the writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to grant relaxation to the petitioner's appointment as Graduate Teacher and Secondary Grade Teacher respectively.
The respondents are further directed to pay arrears of salary and such exercise shall be completed, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and also continue to pay the future salary as applicable to the petitioners till the completion of their service.?
9. Being aggrieved by the common order stated supra, by placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.873, Education Science and Technology (D2) Department, dated 13.11.1995, the appellants have submitted that the Writ Court has failed to consider that all the appointments after 17.02.1995 ought to have been made only through employment exchange. The appellants have further submitted that when the abovesaid Government Order was challenged in W.P.No.6365 of 1997 by the Tamilnadu Recognised Private Schools Managers' Association, initially, stay was granted on 28.04.1997. Lateron, the said writ petition was dismissed on 22.04.1998.
10. According to the appellants, taking advantage of the interim stay and claiming to be a member of the abovesaid association, the Secretary, Balaiahmarthandam Higher Secondary School, Aavaraikulam, Tirunelveli District, 2nd respondent, has appointed teachers in the said school. The appellants have further submitted that the approval granted by the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, was subject to the interim order made in W.P.No.6365 of 1997.
11. It is the case of the appellants that staff grant was obtained illegally and during inspection between 06.09.2010 and 08.09.2010, the Regional Accounts Officer (Audit), School Education Department, Madurai, has found out the illegality. The appellants have further submitted that vide order, dated 16.12.2011, of the District Educational Officer, Cheranmadevi (Educational District), Tirunelveli, 3rd appellant, the School was informed to terminate them. Consequently, proceedings dated 23.01.2012 were issued by the District Educational Officer, Cheranmadevi (Educational District), Tirunelveli, 3rd appellant, to withhold the salary. Both the proceedings dated 16.12.2011 and 23.01.2012 have been challenged in W.P(MD)Nos.15393 and 15394 of 2012.
12. G.O.Ms.No.873, Education Science and Technology (D2) Department, dated 13.11.1995, has been issued, directing the aided schools to make appointments through employment exchange. In the abovesaid Government Order, the Government have issued the following directions:-
?i.The Private aided Educational institutions shall make all appointments in their institutions through the Employment Exchange only when no candidate is available from the Employment Exchange or the candidates who are sponsored from the Employment Exchange are found to be unfit, it would be open to the Private educational agency to seek the permission of the concerned Authority and go ahead with the recruitments from the open competition.
ii.This order shall take effect from 17.2.95 i.e., the date of judgment of the High Court in the W.A.No.879/93. The Director of School Education/Director of Elementary Education and the Private school managements shall compute the vacancies well in advance and take steps to fill up the same within three months. So that there will not be any difficulty and the vacancies will be filled up without any loss of time. iii.The Employment Exchange should send the list within 10 days from the date of the receipt of the requisition made from the private aided school managements for appointment of candidates as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.778, Edn. dated 19.5.79. If the qualified candidates are not available in the Employment Exchange, it should send a Nil Report to the Private school management within 10 days.
iv.The appointment made upto 17.2.95 i.e., the date of judgment in the writ appeal in the Private aided Educational institutions without consulting the Employment Exchange shall be regularised, if the appointment are found to be otherwise regular and in accordance with the rules.?
13. W.P.No.6365 of 1997 has been filed by the Tamilnadu Recognised Private Schools Managers' Association. Stay has been granted on 28.04.1997. Approval of appointments of P.Udhaya Kumar and Balamurugan/Writ Petitioners, have been made on 16.10.1997 and 17.10.1997 respectively. Both the appointments have been made, based on the interim orders in W.P.No.6365 of 1997. The said writ petition along with others, have been dismissed, by a common order, dated 22.04.1998, based on the earlier order dated 03.04.1998 made in W.P.No.355 of 1997(A writ petition filed by Association of Management of Hindu Educational Institution, Tamilnadu, rep.by Secretary vs. State of Tamilnadu, rep.by Secretary to Government, Education Department, Madras).
14. Nehru Memorial College, Puthanampatti, by its Secretary, Ponnambalam, has filed W.P.No.16151 of 1993, challenging G.O.Ms.No.1138, Labour and Employment Department, dated 25.09.1978. Association of Management of Hindu Educational Institutions, Tamilnadu, rep by Secretary, Dr.V.S.Narasimman, Shri Ramakrishna Ashram Thiruvedagam West, Madurai, who had earlier filed W.P.No.355 of 1997, challenging the proceedings of the Director of School Education in Roc.No.105532/C22/96 dated 02.10.1996 and which was dismissed on 03.04.1998, has filed W.A.No.696 of 1998.
15. At this juncture, it is to be noted that W.P.No.6365 of 1997, based on the interim orders, approval has been granted by the educational authorities and other writ petitions have been dismissed, by a common order dated 22.04.1998, based on an earlier order dated 03.04.1998 made in W.P.No.355 of 1997. Therefore, whatever orders that are passed in W.A.No.696 of 1998, filed by the Association of Management of Hindu Educational Institutions, Tamilnadu, rep by Secretary, Dr.V.S.Narasimman, Shri Ramakrishna Ashram Thiruvedagam West, Madurai, the said orders should be equally made applicable to other writ petitions, which were dismissed, following the order made in W.P.No.355 of 1997 dated 03.04.1998. W.P.No.6365 of 1997 has been dismissed simpliciter, following the decision made in W.P.No.355 of 1997 dated 03.04.1998.
16. W.P.No.16151 of 1993 and W.A.No.696 of 1998 have been disposed of, by a common order dated 12.11.2002, wherein after considering the statutory provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 and the rules made thereunder, a Hon'ble Division Bench, at paragraphs 16 to 26, held as follows:-
?16. The question for consideration in both the writ petition and in the writ appeal is as to whether the State Government can issue directions to Private educational Institutions receiving aid, directing them to recruit both teaching and non-teaching staff only from the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange.
17. The provisions of Section 4 of the Employment Exchanges ( Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 came up for consideration before a Bench of two Judges of the Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..VS.. N.HARGOPAL AND OTHERS (1987 (3) S.C.C. 308) The question raised before the Apex Court was as to whether an establishment in the Public Sector or in the Private Sector as defined under the Act may make an appointment to the post, to which the Act applies by persons not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The Apex Court held as follows:- The object of recruitment to any service or post is to secure the most suitable person who answers the demands of the requirements of the job. In the case of public employment, it is necessary to eliminate arbitrariness and favouritism and introduce uniformity of standardsand orderliness in the matter of employment. There has to be an element of procedural fairness in recruitment. If a public employer chooses to receive applications for employment where and when he pleases, and chooses to make appointments as he likes, a grave element of arbitrariness is certainly introduced. This must necessarily be avoided if Articles 14 and 16 have to be given any meaning. We, therefore, consider that insistence on recruitment through Employment Exchanges advances rather than restricts the rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The submission that Employment Exchanges do not reach everywhere applies equally to whatever method of advertising vacancies is adopted. Advertisement in the daily press, for example, is also equally ineffective as it does not reach everyone desiring employment. In the absence of a better method of recruitment, we think that any restriction that employment in government departments should through the medium of employment exchanges does not offend Articles 14 and 16 of theConstitution". Though the Apex Court found that insistence on recruitment through Employment Exchange advances the rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 1 6 of the Constitution of India, it never laid down a law that the establishment should not call for applications from other modes. The Apex Court had only said that the establishment if allowed to choose the candidates for making appointments by receiving applications on other modes only, an element of arbitrariness would be introduced.
18. A similar question came up for consideration before the bench of three Judges of the Apex Court in the judgment reported in EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT MALKAPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. ..VS.. K.B.N. VISWESHWARA RAO AND OTHERS (1996 (6) S.C.C. 216). The Apex Court also considered the judgment reported in UNION OF INDIA ..VS.. N.HARGOPAL (1987 (3) S.C.C. 308) and held as follows:-
"It is common knowledge that many a candidate is unable to have the names sponsored, though their names are either registered or are waiting to be registered in the employment exchange, with the result that the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the employment exchange. Under these circumstances, many a deserving candidate is deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. Better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority / establishment to intimate the employment exchange, and employment exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning departments for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition. In addition, the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins; and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates".
19. From the analysis of law laid down by the Apex Court, it is apparent that though it is mandatory on the part of private educational institutions receiving aid from the Government to notify the vacancies to the respective employment exchanges, they are also at liberty to call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins. If this procedure is adopted, it would give a fair chance for the committees to identify and select the best of the candidates. The procedure would be also in the interest of the students as they will have the benefit of training and education from talented teachers.
20. Let us now consider the substainablity of the impugned Government Order in the writ petition and the consequential impugned proceedings of the Director of School Education in the writ appeal. A reading of the impugned orders would disclose a clear mandate to the educational institutions to recruit both teaching and non-teaching staff only from among the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange, leaving no room for them to have better candidates for consideration through other modes also. This, in our considered view is unsustainable in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in K.B.N.VISWESHWARA RAO's case (Cited supra)
21. It is true that the Division Bench of this Court, while considering the validity of G.O.Ms.No.1138 Labour and Employment Department dated 25.09.1978 has upheld the G.O., by dismissing the writ petition. However, in view of the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in K.B.N.VISWESHWARA RAO's case, the sustainability of the G.O has to be considered only in the light of the latest judgment of the Apex Court. Both the impugned Orders are only administrative in character. When the provisions of the Acts and Rules, governing the private educational institutions, stipulate a particular mode of procedure to be adopted for appointment, the question remains as to whether directions that are contrary to those provisions could be issued by the Government by way of administrative instructions.
22. It is well settled law that administrative instructions cannot override the provisions of the Acts and the Rules. In so far as the ?College Rules?, Rule 11(4)(i) provides a mode for appointment, including a mode of calling applications through Press and calling for a list of candidates from the Employment Exchange. When the Rules specifically enables the College Committee also to call for applications through Press, issuance of administrative orders depriving such rights cannot be sustained. Though the power of the State Government to issue directions as the funding authority cannot be disputed, such power cannot be stretched enabling the Government to issue directions overriding the provisions of the Acts and the Rules. In fact, Section 10(2) of ?the Colleges Act? entitles the State Government to withhold permanently or for any specified period the whole or part of any grant referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of any private college which does not comply with any of the provisions of this Act or any rules made or directions issued thereunder in so far as such provisions, rules or directions are applicable to such private colleges. The said section only empowers the State Government to issue directions only in conformity of the Acts and the Rules and not otherwise.
23. Coming to the private schools, Rule 15(4)(i) of "the Schools Rules"
provides a mode enabling the school committee to make appointments. Appointment to the category of teachers shall be made by promotion among the qualified teachers in that school and if no qualified or suitable candidate is available in that school, then the School Committee can appoint any other persons employed in any other school, provided that they are fully qualified to hold the post of teachers. It can also resort to make appointments through direct recruitment. The impugned proceeding is consequential to the G.O.Ms.No.1138 Labour and Employment Department dated 25.09.1978. The said impugned proceedings are communicated to all the Educational officers, directing to strictly follow the directions contained in the G.O., before approving any appointments in the private educational institutions, with further warning that in the event of any violations, disciplinary proceedings will be initiated against such officers. In effect, by the said proceedings the right of the School Committee to recruit teachers, following rule 15(4)(i) of "the School Rules" is curtailed. The object of both the Acts is also to give statutory rights to the Rules. When the Rules are framed by the very State Government, by exercising the Rule making power, issuance of directions, that are inconsistent with the Rules cannot be sustained. In fact, by virtue of the powers under Section 14(2)(i) of "the Schools Act", it is of the Government, which could withhold the grant to the schools which does not comply with the provisions of the Act or any Rules made or directions issued thereunder in so far as such Provisions, Rules or directions are applicable to such private schools. Power to withhold the grant does not vest with the Director of School Education, who has issued the impugned proceedings. When we find that the very G.O itself is invalid, it must be held that the consequential impugned proceedings are also invalid. Hence, the impugned order and the proceedings, therefore in our considered view would certainly override the provisions of Rule 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of "the College Rules" and Rule 15(4)(i) of "the School Rules" and as such, they are invalid and are unsustainable in the eye of law.
24. From the above analysis, the following conclusions would emerge. The State Government is empowered to issue instructions in the capacity of funding authority to the private colleges and the schools receiving grants and such instructions cannot override the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is mandatory on the part of the educational institutions receiving grants to notify the vacancies to the respective employment exchanges. The educational institutions are also empowered to call for the applications from other modes like newspaper publication, advertisement, media, calling for applications by notifying the same in the notice board, consider all the applications and select the best of the candidates from among them without there being any preference to the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange.
25. Learned single Judge in the judgment under appeal dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the impugned order is not inconsistent with the Rules as they are supplement to the Rules. While Rule 15 (4)(i) and 15(4)(ii) of "the School Rules" enable the School Committee to follow a particular mode of recruitment, including promotion and by direct recruitment, by the impugned proceedings the very right of the School Committee to select the best of the candidates in the manner prescribed under the Rule is taken away. Hence, the impugned proceedings cannot be considered as of supplementing the Rules. For the above reasons, we are unable to agree with the findings of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the order of the learned single Judge is set aside.
26. In the result, both the writ petition and the writ appeal are allowed. No costs.?
17. A Hon'ble Full Bench came to be constituted, when a reference was made on 01.11.2007, by observing that there is a conflict between the two Hon'ble Division Bench judgments in State of Tamil Nadu vs. The Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Managers' Association, reported in 1995 Writ L.R. 499 and Nehru Memorial College, Puthanampatti, by its Secretary. Ponnambalam vs. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai and others, reported in 2003 Wril L.R. 31.
18. Though in the case on hand, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appointment is neither through employment exchange, nor by paper publication, even after the dismissal of W.P.No.6365 of 1997, continuously payment of salary has been made till 2010, until the audit has made an objection. It is well known that as per the statutory provisions, it is the duty of Secretary, Balaiahmarthandam Higher Secondary School, Aavaraikulam, Tirunelveli District, to send proposals for grant of pay and other allowances. No sooner proposals are received, and if the District Elementary Educational Officer or the District Educational Officer, within whose jurisdiction, the school is situated, is satisfied that appointments have been made against sanctioned vacancies, the qualifications, for the post to which, salary is claimed, he has to grant the same, are fulfilled and if the appointment is in accordance with law.
19. In the case on hand, though the initial appointment has been made, subject to the interim order in W.P.No.6365 of 1997, the said writ petition has been dismissed on 22.04.1998, following an order in W.P.No.355 of 1997 dated 03.04.1998, filed by the Association of Management of Hindu Educational Institution, Tamilnadu, rep. by Secretary vs. State of Tamilnadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Education Department, Madras.
20. Material on record discloses that when the decision in W.P.No.355 of 1997 was challenged in W.A.No.696 of 1998, the decision in W.P.No.355 of 1997 itself, has been modified, details of which, are extracted in the foregoing paragraphs. Though the petitioner in W.P.No.6365 of 1997 has not filed any appeal, the procedure to be followed in making appointments in private aided colleges/private schools and the decision made by the Division Bench in W.A.No.696 of 1998, applies in equal force, to all the institutions, similarly placed. The procedure directed to be followed in the matter of appointments in aided schools cannot vary, merely because any one of the petitioners affected by the common order in W.P.No.6365 of 1997 and others, has not filed appeal.
21. That apart, in the case on hand, representing the appellants before the Writ Court, it has been fairly submitted by the learned Government counsel that the Full Bench decision in State of Tamil Nadu vs. S.S.Somasundram, reported in 2008 (3) MLJ 492, is squarely applicable to the facts of the case.
22. Appointments have been made in the year 1997. Now 17 years have elapsed. It is too late in the day to contend that the school has not followed the procedure for appointment. Even assuming that the school authorities have committed a mistake in not following the procedure, the educational authorities ought to have intervened immediately. Proposals sent from the date of initial appointment and even after the dismissal of the writ petition in the year 1998, have been approved and salary to both the teachers have been paid for nearly 17 years. Before the Writ Court, when the appellants have fairly conceded to the applicability of the Hon'ble Full Bench decision, it would not be justifiable to approbate and reprobate. It could be seen from the records that even from 1998 onwards, for nearly 13 years, till 2011, the teachers have been paid salary continuously, without any objection from the the education department.
23. Now suddenly, they are directed to be terminated and their salary, directed to be withheld. It is not out of context to mention that even if a misconduct is committed by a Government servant, Courts have set aside the disciplinary proceedings initiated after a long lapse of time, as it would cause prejudice to the Government servant. Having paid the salary from 1997 to 2011, continuously, and particularly, when appointments have been made against the sanctioned vacancies, and when the writ petitioners were fully qualified to the posts, to which, they were appointed, directions issued in the year 2011 to terminate their services, on the ground that the procedure in making their appointment has not been followed, would greatly prejudice the interests of the teachers. Inordinate delay on the part of the educational authorities has not been explained.
24. For the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the view that there are no material grounds to interfere with the common order made by the Writ Court. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to comply with the orders passed by the Writ Court. Time granted is four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
(S.M.K.J) (V.S.R.J)
17.09.2014
NB2
To
1) The Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Department of Education, Chennai-9.
S.MANIKUMAR, J.
AND V.S.RAVI, J.
NB2
2) The Director of Secondary Education, College Road, Chennai-9.
3) The District Educational Officer, Cheranmadevi (Educational District), Tirunelveli-1.
WRIT APPEAL(MD)Nos.1031 and 1032 of 2014 and Connected Miscellaneous Petitions 17.09.2014