Madras High Court
The Director Of College Education vs N.Beaula Rani ... First on 14 November, 2018
Bench: S.Manikumar, Subramonium Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.11.2018
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.A.Nos.1703 to 1707 of 2018
C.M.P.Nos.18832, 18835, 18966, 19013,
19018, 13669 to 13677 of 2018
1.The Director of College Education,
College Road, Chennai-6.
2.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Tirunelveli Region,
Tirunelveli - 627 007. ... Appellants
in all WAs.
vs.
N.Beaula Rani ... First Respondent
in WA.No.1703/2018
P.K.Amutha Veni ... First Respondent
in WA.No.1704/2018
D.Golda Mary Christy ... First Respondent
in WA.No.1705/2018
N.Shermila ... First Respondent
in WA.No.1706/2018
O.P.Bindhu Kala ... First Respondent
in WA.No.1707/2018
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
The Correspondent / Secretary,
Scott Christian College,
Nagercoil - 629 003.
Kanyakumari District. ... Second Respondents
in all WAs.
Common Prayer: Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, against the common order made in W.P.No.28369 to 28373 of
2017, dated 07.11.2017.
For Appellants : Mr.C.Munusamy,
Spl. Govt. Pleader (Edn.)
in all WAs.
For Respondents : Ms.R.Elizabeth, for R1 in all appeals
Mr.P.Wilson, Senior Counsel
for Mr.A.Rajesh, for R2 in all appeals
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J) Challenge in the instant writ appeals is to the common order of the writ court dated 07.11.2017 made in W.P. Nos.28369 to 28373 of 2017, by which, the writ court, allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein and directed the appellants herein/respondents in the writ petition, to approve the appointments of the non-teaching staff, namely the respondents herein, working in the Private Aided Schools, as sweepers, sanitary workers etc., and to sanction the grant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, made in the writ petitions.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ appeals are that Scott Christian College is a Christian minority, autonomous, co-
educational, aided institution established in 1893, as an Arts and Science College. It enjoys the privileges of 2(f) and 12(b) status of UGC Act, 1956 and has both government aided and self-financed courses. It has 15 UG programmes, 12 PG programmes, 10 M.Phil programmes with equal number of research centres. With autonomous status from the year 2005, the college enjoys high standards and wider acceptability. The college is re-accredited by NAAC with 'A' grade in the year 2009. The college envisages a wholesome personality for the students and aims at the all round growth of faculty and scholars in its 123 years of educational ministry.
3. Respondents have submitted that Scott Christian College is located in an area measuring 44 acres of land with 3.00 Lakh sq. feet of buildings. There are 2145 Aided students, 115 aided teaching staff and 58 Nos of aided non teaching staff, 5 Nos of water wells, 3 Acres of Herbal Garden, 2 Acres of Rose garden, play ground and indoor stadium, centenary hall, Alumni Association hall, museum, departmental labs, ladies hostel, and all the amenities in the college.
Government of India, have issued a postal stamp of 125 years of rendering educational service.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
4. Respondents have filed W.P. No.28369 to 28373 of 2017 dated 07.11.2017 seeking approval of appointments of Gardeners, Sweepers, and Scavenger respectively with effect from 13.10.2016, made by a Christian Minority Management, namely Scoot Christian College. The said appointments were made due to promotion as well as retirement vacancies, which arose on 13.10.2016 and the said appointments were made within the sanctioned posts.
5. Respondents have submitted that it is the well settled position, that insofar as appointments made in the non-teaching posts by a minority institution, prior permission for filling up of the vacancies is not mandatory, as per the judgment reported in P.Ravichandran v. State of Tamil Nadu [2013 (7) MLJ 641], Dr.S.Sukumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu [2012 (5) MLJ 670], W.A. No.92 & 93 of 2018 judgment dated 06.01.2010, W.A. No.2858 of 2010 dated 21.03.2011, W.A. No.2345 of 2011 dated 05.03.2012, W.A. No.474 of 2013 dated 03.04.2013. The said orders were implemented by the official respondents and approval of appointments were given.
6. Respondents have further submitted that G.O.Ms.No.49, P&AR Department, dated 04.05.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.219, Higher http://www.judis.nic.in 5 Education Department, dated 21.10.2013 are restricted to appointments for the post of Office Assistants, Markers, Sweepers, Cleaners, Watchmen, Watermen and Gardeners and other last grade servant posts, only for the vacancies which arose, during the period from 01.06.2008 to 31.05.2011. The said G.Os are not applicable to the case of the respondents, since the vacancies arose only after 31.05.2011. Further those G.Os already identified the vacancies of 1492 posts and that the same shall be filled up by outsourcing and entrusted, on contract basis.
7. Respondents have further submitted that the government have taken a policy decision for appointing non-teaching posts through outsourcing and the same was implemented in schools through G.O.Ms.No.115, Education Department, dated 30.05.2007. The said G.O. was challenged before this Hon'ble Court in a batch of writ petitions and ultimately it was declared as unconstitutional.
Government have not filed any appeal and implemented the said order with letter and spirit, by issuing G.O. Ms. No.64, School Education Department, dated 03.04.2018. Further, the Director of School Education, Chennai has issued a circular dated 04.04.2018 stating that the Directorate of School Education, Chennai, would grant http://www.judis.nic.in 6 approval in accordance with rule. Thus the very same principles applies to the Higher Education Department also and therefore, the authorities are bound to approve the appointments made by a minority institute.
8. Respondents have further submitted that the Government themselves have approved the appointments of non-teaching post made by the very same institution, by proceedings in Na.Ka.
No.2996/E3/2014 dated 02.02.2016 and approved the appointments, on condition that the approval is subject to audit; should not be any excess post and subject to result of the appeal preferred by the government before the Madurai Bench of Madras in W.A. (MD) No.462 of 2016. That being so, the government cannot take a different stand, according to their whims and fancies, in granting or refusing, approval to the non-teaching posts, which is a clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
9. Respondents have stated that there are more than 2,145 students studying in Schott Christian College, and it is a co-
educational institution. For proper administration of the institution, it is necessary to fill-up the non-teaching posts, more particularly, sweepers and scavengers etc. Therefore, appointments of the http://www.judis.nic.in 7 respondents is necessary to keep the institution in clean.
10. Respondents have further submitted that these non-teaching posts were already sanctioned by the Government during the year 1977. The institution is having more than 44 acres of land. For maintaining the entire institution clean, filling up of the posts is very important, and if the appointment are approved, there is no additional financial burden to the department. Thus, the respondents have filed W.P. Nos.28369 to 28373 of 2018 as stated supra.
11. After hearing both the parties, on 07.11.2017, writ court passed a common order in W.P. Nos.28369 to 28373 of 2018, as follows:
"3. The case of the petitioners is that S.A.Mercy Bai, S.Mahalingam, P.Vellan, M.Thangavel and P.Bhagavathiappan respectively who were working in the 3rd respondent's college, namely, Scott Christian College, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari were promoted as Laboratory Assistants / Retired from service / Library Assistant / Record clerk respectively, causing vacancies to the posts of Gardener / Sweeper / Scavenger respectively. Since the said vacancies have arisen on account of promotions given to various Gardener / Sweeper and retirement respectively, the http://www.judis.nic.in 3rd respondent Society, Collegiate appointed the 8 petitioners on 13.10.2016. The said appointment of the petitioners were duly approved by the collegiate committee and there upon a proposal was made on 31.10.2016 to the 2nd respondent, viz., the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli along with necessary particulars. Since the petitioners were not paid with the salary, representations were made on 20.07.2017. Again, finding no response, further reminders were also made by the 3rd respondent's Collegiate to the 2nd respondent. Inspite of the proposal made on 31.10.2016 and several reminders were submitted, the 2nd respondent has not come forward to consider the proposal to approve the appointment of gardener / sweeper, as a result, the petitioners were not paid the salary for the last one year. In view of the non payment of salary, the Sweeper / Gardener are not properly taking care of the work in the 3rd respondent / College. Therefore seeks for a direction mentioned supra.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, as and when vacancies arose against the regular & sanctioned posts relating to Non- Teaching staff in various cadres, the Aided Minority colleges concerned had filled up the same by appointing suitable hands without prior permission to fill up those vacancies and, while this practice continued till the academic year 2000-2001 with the http://www.judis.nic.in Government according approval to such appointments 9 regularly, now, by way of the present impugned proceedings, the Education Department have returned the proposals sent by the Minority Institutions, seeking approval for the appointment of Non-Teaching Staff, and such exercise is arbitrary and absolutely unwarranted.
5. The issue involved in these writ petitions for filling up of vacancies against the sanctioned strength of Non-teaching staff by the Minority Institutions is no longer res integra, for, a Division Bench of this Court, even three years ago, in P.Ravichandran v. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in [(2013) 7 MLJ 641], has settled that issue and, following the said judgment, I have also, in a batch of writ petitions, i.e., in W.P.(MD)Nos.14115 to 14119 of 2016 etc. (batch cases), (decided on 19.08.2016), ordered the official respondents therein to accord approval for filling up of the vacancies against sanctioned posts of non-teaching Staff by the Private Aided Colleges. For better appreciation, relevant portions of the order passed by me are extracted below:-
2.With regard to the legal position in respect of minority institutions, whether prior permission should be obtained before filling up any vacancy in a sanctioned Post, the Honourable Division Bench of this Court even three years ago, in P.Ravichandran v. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in (2013) 7 MLJ http://www.judis.nic.in 641, has settled the issue. It is relevant to extract 10 paragraph Nos.17 and 20 of the above said judgment:-
17. A Division Bench of Madurai Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.462 of 2006, judgment, dated 01.12.2006, considered the scope of Rule 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges(Regulation) Rules, 1976 relying upon the earlier order passed on 13.08.2006, and held that for filling up an existing post in a Private Aided College, no prior approval is necessary as any such appointment shall be subsequently approved by the Department, and at that point of time the Department would have an opportunity to consider the availability of such post and rejection of approval on the ground that no prior approval was obtained before appointment, was set aside. Same is the view taken in the following orders of this Court .
(i) W.P.No.30618 of 2005, order dated
21.09.2005;
(ii) W.P.No.28396 of 2004, order dated
29.03.2006;
(iii) W.A.Nos.92 & 93 of 2008, judgment dated 06.01.2010;
(iv)W.P(MD)No.174 of 2009, order dated 27.04.2010;
(v) W.A.Nos.140, 811/2006 & 805/2007, judgment dt. 21.10.2010;
(vi)W.A.No.2858 of 2010, judgment dated 21.03.2011;
http://www.judis.nic.in
(vii) W.A(MD)Nos.1088 of 2011, judgment dated 11 19.10.2011;
(viii) W.A.Nos.2345 of 2011, judgment dated 05.03.2012;
(ix) Dr.S.Sukumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 5 MLJ 670 rendered by one of us (NPVJ); and
(x) W.A.No.474 of 2013, judgment dated 03.04.2013.
Thus, the issue regarding seeking prior permission for filling up the vacant post in aided College within the academic year was already settled in series of decisions and all the above said orders are implemented by the respondents 1 and 2. In such circumstances, it is not open to the respondents to again and again contend that only after getting prior permission from the Director of Collegiate Education, vacant sanctioned posts can be filled up by the management.
.....
20. In the light of the above findings as well as the decisions, we conclude this judgment in the following manner:
(1) There is no requirement under the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and Tamil Nadu Private Colleges(Regulation) Rules, 1976, to seek prior permission to fill up any vacant post in an aided college, which has already been sanctioned for the academic year by the Director of Collegiate http://www.judis.nic.in Education under Rule 11(1) of the Rules.12
(2) If the appointment made by the College Committee in the sanctioned vacant post is in violation of any of the statutory provision, it is open to the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education to deny grant-in-aid to the said person appointed in the vacant post.
(3) The teaching staff appointed must be fully qualified, whose qualification is approved by the University to which the college is affiliated. Insofar as the non-teaching staff are concerned, the candidate must possess the qualification prescribed by the Government.
(4) The College Committee while filling up the vacant post, should follow the procedures stated in Rule 11(1A) to 11(4)(ii).
(5) If there is no rival candidate for any post, the appointment is bound to be approved for the purpose of payment of pay and allowances, by the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education.
The writ appeal is disposed of with the above directions. No Costs.
3.A cursory reading of the aforementioned Honourable Division Bench judgment in (2013) 7 MLJ 641, clearly shows that the issue raised in the present Writ Petitions, is no longer res integra, because the Honourable Division Bench of this court in the aforementioned judgment has also made it clear that http://www.judis.nic.in there is no requirement under the Tamil Nadu Private 13 Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and Tamil Nadu Private Colleges(Regulation) Rules, 1976, to seek prior permission to fill up any vacant post in an aided college, which has already been sanctioned for the academic year by the Director of Collegiate Education under Rule 11(1) of the Rules.
4. Therefore, the issues raised in the present Writ Petitions having been settled by this Court, I have no hesitation to accept the prayer made by the petitioners.
5. In the result,
(i) All the Writ Petitions are allowed.
(ii) The impugned orders are set aside.
(iii) The respective respondents are directed to approve the appointments of non-teaching staff in the Private Aided Schools in these cases and to sanction grant, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. Thus, the issue is well settled now that any college, either minority/private/aided or unaided, is entitled to fill up the vacancy arising on account of promotion, retirement, removal, dismissal etc., against a sanctioned post already approved by the college authorities, without even obtaining prior permission from the Government. In the cases on hand, admittedly, the writ petitioners have been appointed against vacancies relating to sanctioned http://www.judis.nic.in posts as Non-teaching staff in various cadres and 14 therefore, by following the above cited case laws, this Court, hereby directs the respective respondents to approve the appointments of the Non-teaching staff by the Private Aided colleges and to sanction the grant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. Being aggrieved by the above common order, Collegiate Education Department, Chennai, has filed the above appeals, on the following grounds:-
"1. Writ court ought to have considered that the precedent of the Court has to be read with the facts of each case as the judgment of a court cannot be applied mechanically without looking into the peculiar facts of that particular case, however disposed of cases blindly taking a decision, without indicating the fact and situation is not proper because any additional or different fact would made as world of difference between conclusion in two cases.
2. In a similar W.P.(MD) No.2410 of 2015 filed by the Holy Cross College, Nagercoil, the petitioner's college has prayed to direct the respondents to grant approval for the appointment of non-teaching staff and as these posts fell under posts that has to be filled through outsourcing. The Government had http://www.judis.nic.in 15 filed W.A.(MD)No.461 of 2016 and in the interim order dated 22.4.2016, the Hon'ble High Court had directed the respondents to grant approval to the ten non-teaching staff subject to the final orders of the Writ Appeal.
3. The posts mentioned by the petitioners are included in the posts to be filled through outsourcing on contract basis as per G.O.(Ms) No.219, Higher Education (D1) Department, dated 24.10.2013 and G.O.(Ms) No.49, Public and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 14.5.2002. In this regard, it is pertinent to point out that a SLP Diary No.22766 of 2017 has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and a stay has been obtained for the interim order dated 22.4.2016 in C.M.P.(MD) No.3254 of 2016 in W.A.(MD) No.461 of 2016 on 28.8.2017 for not considering the G.O.(Ms) No.49, dated 14.5.2002, personnel and Administrative Reforms Department directed that the work of all Group "D" Categories like Sweeper, Scavenger, Cleaner and Gardener shall be progressively outsourced and entrusted on contract basis based on the recommendations of Staff and Expenditure Reforms Commission which was the similar issue pertaining to this case.
4. Further it is submitted and stated that, the http://www.judis.nic.in posts mentioned by the petitioner are the posts 16 included in the category to be filled through outsourcing on contract basis as per the above mentioned Government orders granting approval to such posts shall cause a huge exchequer to the Government and it shall also become a bad precedent as no such posts are filled through direct recruitment in both Government and aided Private colleges after the issue of the above mentioned GOs.
5. It is submitted that as per G.O.(Ms)No.49, Public Administrative Reforms Department, dated 14.5.2002, posts belonging to D Group such as watchman, sweeper, gardener, scavenger shall be filled on contract basis through outsourcing. Further in G.O.No.219, Higher Education (D1) Department, dated 24.10.2013, the Government have clearly stated that 923 vacancies in the aided private colleges in the post of sweeper, cleaner, watchman, waterman and gardener should be filled through outsourcing on contract basis by meeting expenditure from the college fund of Government Aided Arts and Science Colleges and colleges of Education based on G.O.(Ms)No.49, Public and Administrative Reforms Department, based 14.5.2002.
6. It is further submitted that, if the judgment is complied, this will be a precedent for http://www.judis.nic.in all Government Aided colleges non-teaching staff 17 under Group D selected under contract basis on outsourcing and gate will open to file Writ Petitions and this would land-up in erroneous administration. Chaos and confusion resulting in huge exchequer to the Government unless and until the GOs are amended by the Government. The GOs are to be strictly obeyed as the petitioner's colleges are aided private colleges following Government norms and rules receiving 100% salary grant from the Government. Hence, the judgement is not willfully disobeyed but the concerned GOs are executed faithfully following the Government rules which are in force."
13. A Hon'ble Division Bench of this court vide order dated 02.08.2018 made in C.M.P. Nos.13669, 13671, 13673, 13675 and 13677 in W.A. Nos.1703 to 1707 of 2018, has granted interim stay of the common order made in W.P. Nos.28369 to 28373/2017 dated 07.11.2017.
14. Respondents herein have filed a detailed counter affidavit and vacate stay petitions, reiterating the facts stated in the writ petition and on the basis of the common order in W.A. (MD) No.931 of 2018 dated 12.07.2018 passed by another Hon'ble Division Bench of http://www.judis.nic.in 18 the Madurai Bench of this court, Mr.P.Wilson, learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent-College in all the writ appeals, contended that, when in W.A.(MD)No.931 of 2018 the Directorate of Collegiate Education Madras, has candidly admitted that appointments of Sweeper, watchman, gardener and scavenger, would be approved, a contrary stand is taken, in the instant appeals. He also submitted that the ground that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted stay of the common order in C.M.P. (MD) No.3254 of 2016 in W.A.(MD) Nos.461 and 462 of 2016 dated 28.08.2017, is no longer available, to the appellants, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 12.10.2018 has dismissed the SLP (C) No.22766/2017, filed against the common order made in W.A.(MD)Nos.461 and 462 of 2016, dated 22.04.2016. He further submitted that when Government have issued orders in G.O. (Ms) No.64 School Education Department dated 03.04.2018, the same yardstick should be applied to Collegiate education. Attention of this court was also invited to an order of a learned single judge on the same lines in M.P. (MD) Nos.2, 2, 2 of 2015 in W.P. (MD) No.22533 to 22535 of 2015 dated 16.12.2015. For the above said reasons, he prayed to dismiss the writ appeals.
http://www.judis.nic.in 15. Mr.C.Munusamy, learned Special Government Pleader 19 (Education), made submissions, reiterating the grounds.
Heard Mr.C.Munusamy, learned Special Government Pleader (Education), representing the appellants, Ms.R.Elizabeth, learned counsel for the 1st respondent in all the writ appeals and Mr.P.Wilson, learned senior counsel, for the 2nd respondent-College, in all the writ appeals.
16. G.O.(Ms)No.49, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, 14.05.2002, is extracted hereunder:-
GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU ABSTRACT "The Staff and Expenditure Reforms Commission" - Recommendation on "outsourcing of Services of certain employees in Government Department" - Orders issued.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (F) DEPARTMENT G.O.(Ms) No.49 Dated: 14.05.2002 G.O.Ms.No.467, Finance (CMPC) Department, dated 26.11.2001 ORDER:
"The expenditure on salaries, allowances, and administrative expenses have grown enormously in the http://www.judis.nic.in recent past, and have posed considerable burden on the 20 finances of the State Government. The Government have therefore constituted the Staff and Expenditure Reforms Commission to examine the scope for curtailing avoidable expenditure in administration. The Commission has submitted an interim report to Government. One of the recommendations of the Commission relates to outsourcing of services like sweeping, scavenging, cleaning, watch and ward, etc., The Commission has recommended that the work of all Group "D" category staff like Sweeper, Scavenger, Cleaner, Gardener, Office Assistant, etc., may be progressively outsourced and entrusted on contract basis.
2. The Government have examined the above recommendation of the Staff and Expenditure Reforms Commission and have decided to accept the same with a minor modification.
3. The Government accordingly direct that the work of all Group "D" categories like Sweeper, Scavenger, Cleaner and Gardener shall be progressively outsourced and entrusted on contract basis. The Public Department in Secretariat, the Heads of Department and the District Collectors are entrusted with the responsibility of finalising the tenders for engaging one or more Agencies to cater to the requirements of various offices in defined area. This order is however, not applicable to the post of Office Assistant. While outsourcing the services ordered above a condition may imposed in the tender to ensure that the existing http://www.judis.nic.in NMR/Consolidated Wage/Daily Wage employees are to 21 be given preference in employment by the Contractor to protect the interests of such persons.
4. This order issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department, vide its U.O.No.1466/FS/P/2002, dated 26.04.2002.
(By order of the Governor) P.SHANKAR Chief Secretary to Government"
17. G.O.(Ms).No.219, Higher Education (D1) Department, dated 24.10.2013, is extracted hereunder:-
"ABSTRACT Collegiate Education - Aided Colleges - Filing up of vacancies in the post of Office Assistant Marker and "D"
Category posts - Permission accorded - Orders issued.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Higher Education (D1) Department G.O.(Ms) No.219 Dated: 24.10.2013 Thiruvalluvar - Aandu 2044 Vijaya Varudam, Aippasi 7 Read:
1. G.O.(Ms)No.49, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 14.5.2002.
2. From the Director of Collegiate Education Letter No.17509/G3/2008, dated 9.9.2008, 28.9.2010, 07.12.2010 and 9.2.2011.
3. Government letter No.22011/D1/2008-14, dated 20.7.2011.
4. From the Director of Collegiate Education http://www.judis.nic.in 22 Letter Na.ka. No.17509 / G3/2008, dated 24.1.2013.
********** ORDER:
In the letters second read above, the Director of Collegiate Education had requested orders of the Government to permit her to fill up the vacancies of 1282 non-teaching posts viz, Office Assistant - (573), Marker - (64), Sweeper - (259), Watchmen - (182), Gardener - (121) and Cleaner - (83) as on 22.8.2008 in Government Aided Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges of Education.
2. In the letter third read above and Government had requested the Director of Collegiate Education to furnish the details of number of non-teaching staff to be filled up based on the students strength, number of sanctioned posts, number of posts filled up and number of vacancies in the sanctioned post.
3. In the letter fourth read above the Director of Collegiate Education has furnished the details of vacancies in the posts of Office Assistant, Marker, Sweeper, Cleaner, Watchman, Waterman and Gardener in Government Aided Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges of Education during the period 1.6.2008 to 31.5.2011 as follows:-
S.No. Posts Total 1 Office Assistant 486 2 Gardener 127 3 Waterman 126 4 Sweeper 373 5 Cleaner 97 http://www.judis.nic.in 6 Watchman 200 23 S.No. Posts Total 7 Marker 83 Total 1492
She has requested orders of the Government to permit her to fill up the above posts in Government Aided Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges of Education.
4. In the Government Order first read above orders were issued that work of all group 'D' categories like Sweeper, Scavenger, Cleaner and Gardener in the Government Department shall be progressively outsourced and entrusted on contract basis.
5. The Government have examined the proposal of the Director of Collegiate Education, in para 3 above in the light of the Government Order first read above and have decided to accord permission to the Director of Collegiate Education to fill up the vacancies in the post of Office Assistant, Marker, Sweeper, Cleaner, Watchman, Waterman and Gardener in Government Aided Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges of Education. Accordingly, the Government accord permission to the Director of Collegiate Education to fill up the following posts that have fallen vacant during the period from 1.6.2008 to 31.5.2011:-
i) 243 vacancies in the posts of Office Assistant
ii) 83 vacancies in the posts of Marker by meeting the salary cost from the Sports Funds of Aided Colleges and http://www.judis.nic.in
iii) 923 vacancies in the post of Sweeper, 24 Cleaner, Watchman, Waterman and Gardener through outsourcing and on contract basis, by meeting the expenditure from college fund of Government Aided Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges of Education based on the orders issued in G.O.(Ms)No.49, Personnel and Administrative Reforms department, dated 14.5.2002.
6. This order issues with the concurrence of Finance department, vide its U.O.No.59166/Edn-I/13, dated 22.10.2013 and U.O.No.61053/CMPC/13, dated 24.10.2013.
(By order of the Governor) Apurva Varma Principal Secretary to Government"
18. Madurai Bench of this court in C.M.P. (MD) Nos.3254 and 3255 of 2016 in W.A. (MD) Nos.461 and 462 of 2016 dated 22.04.2016, to which one of us is a party (Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.Manikumar), ordered as hereunder:
"Writ Appeals are filed against the order passed in W.P(MD)No.2410 of 2015, dated 05.03.2015, and W.P(MD)No.3315 of 2015, dated 10.03.2015. Along with writ appeals, the appellants have filed CMP(MD)Nos.3254 and 3255 of 2016, seeking stay of the order of the writ court, till the disposal of the writ appeals.
2.In W.P(MD)No.2410 of 2015, the Secretary, Holy Cross College (Autonomous), Nagercoil, Kanyakumari http://www.judis.nic.in District, the respondent herein, has sought for the 25 following prayer:-
''To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceeding issued by the 3rd respondent Joint Director in A.Thi.Mu.No.14830/E3/2014 dated 02.01.2015, quash the same and further direct the 3rd respondent Joint Director to approve forthwith the appointment of 24 non-teaching staff (Name List annexed) in the petitioner's college and disburse the grant-in-aid towards their salary and allowances with effect from the date of their appointment viz., 01.12.2014.''
3.The order impugned therein was the rejection of approval of appointment of 24 non-teaching staff in Holy Cross College, on the ground that such appointments were made, without obtaining prior permission from the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai.
4.Adverting to the rival submissions and following a decision of this Court in C.Manikandan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary and others, reported in (2012) 4 MLJ 918, by order dated 05.03.2015, the Writ Court quashed the order, dated 02.01.2015, of the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli, and directed the Holy Cross College, to re-submit the proposals to the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and on receipt of such proposal, the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, has been directed to pass orders, in the light of the directions http://www.judis.nic.in issued therein.26
5.W.P(MD)No.3315 of 2015, has been filed by the Secretary, Holy Cross College (Autonomous), Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, the respondent herein, for the following prayer:-
''To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceeding issued by the 3rd respondent Joint Director in A.Thi.Mu.No.14846/E3/2014 dated 02.01.2015, quash the same and further direct the 3rd respondent Joint Director to approve forthwith the appointment of 19 non-teaching staff (Name List annexed) in the petitioner's college and disburse the grant-in-aid towards their salary and allowances with effect from the respective dates of their appointment viz., 23.06.2014.''
6.Having regard to the rival submissions and placing reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in P.Ravichandran vs. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to the Government, Higher Education, Chennai, reported in (2013) 7 MLJ 641 and Dr.S.Sukumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to the Government, Higher Education, Fort St.George, Chennai, reported in (2012) 5 MLJ 670 and of the decision in W.P(MD)No.3193 of 2015 dated 09.03.2015, by order dated 10.03.2015 in W.P(MD)No.3315 of 2015, the Writ Court quashed the impugned proceedings therein, and consequently, directed the Holy Cross College, to re-submit their proposals to the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli.
http://www.judis.nic.in
7.Decisions in the aforesaid writ petitions are 27 challenged in Writ Appeal(MD)Nos.461 and 462 of 2016, respectively.
8.Assailing the correctness of the orders made in the abovesaid writ petitions, Mr.B.Pugalenthi, learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that payment of grant is subject to Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1978; that as per Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, the college concerned has to send a statement to the authorities as prescribed in sub-section 2 of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and that as per sub-section 2 of Section 10 of the Act, the Government may withhold permanently or for a specified period, the whole or part of any grant, in respect of any private college, if any directions and conditions specified by the Government and the Director from time to time are not complied with or contravened.
9.It is also his submission that prior approval of the Director of Collegiate Education is accorded, based on the financial consideration contemplated under Rule 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976. Added further, it is his submission that the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, in his proceedings Roc.No.61098/G3/98, dated 23.10.1998, has issued a circular to all the aided colleges in the State, instructing them that no teaching posts should be filled up, without obtaining prior approval of the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai. It is his further submission that the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, has issued http://www.judis.nic.in instructions in Na.Ka.No.009350/G3/2003, dated 28 08.03.2003, that no appointment shall be made without getting prior approval from the Director of Collegiate Education. The impugned orders are also assailed, on the ground that the workload of the particular department will not remain constant, liable to change from year to year and therefore, it is for the competent authority to ascertain as to whether the vacant posts have to be filled up or not.
10.Learned Special Government Pleader further contended that the decision in P.Ravichandran vs. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to the Government, Higher Education, Chennai, reported in (2013) 7 MLJ 641 and relied on by the learned single Judge, is on appeal in SLP.No.887/15, wherein, notice has been ordered to the respondent therein. According to him, all the above factors have not been considered by the Writ Court. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolawana Gram Vikas Kendra vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2010 1 SCC 133.
11.Per contra, inviting the attention of this Court, to the proceedings, dated 24.06.2015, of the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli, 3rd appellant herein, Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the Holy Cross College/respondent, in both the writ appeals, submitted that though in respect of appointment of teaching staff are concerned it is stated in the said proceedings that as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, prior permission of the Director http://www.judis.nic.in of Collegiate Education has been sought for and as soon as 29 such permission is received, those posts will be filled-up, contrary to the directions issued by the writ court, the said proceedings further states that since orders have been issued in G.O.Ms.No.49 P & AR(F) Department, dated 14.05.2002, that lower grade posts [Basic Service] in non- teaching posts should be filled up by way of “out- sourcing”, those posts could not be filled up, by way of regular appointment.
12.Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that pursuant to the above proceedings, dated 24.06.2015, vide proceedings Na.Ka.No.3337/E3/2015, dated 30.01.2016, the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, has addressed a letter to the Secretary of the Holy Cross College, approving appointments of 19 teachers in various departments. Similarly, vide proceedings Na.Ka.No.2996/E3/2014, dated 02.02.2016, the Joint Director has addressed another letter to the Secretary of Holy Cross College, approving appointments of 14 non teaching staff. In so far as 10 persons working in Basic Services, such as Sweepers, Gardeners, Marker and Watchmen, their appointments have not been approved. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in W.A(MD)No.888 of 2015 etc batch of writ appeals, dated 21.07.2015, has referred to the Government orders restricting filling-up of the non- teaching staff falling within the categories of Basic Service and rejected the contentions of the department.
13.We have heard the submissions of the learned http://www.judis.nic.in counsel for both the parties and perused the materials on 30 record.
14.The main contention of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants is that as per Rule 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976. prior permission of the Director of Collegiate Education is necessary to fill up both the teaching and non-teaching staff in a private aided college and in the case on hand, the respondent college, without obtaining prior permission from the Director, in contravention of the conditions and directions issued in this regard, has made appointments and this aspect has not been considered by the writ court.
15.However, Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the respondent College, contended that the above said issue is no longer res integra, in view of the decision of a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in P.Ravichandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, Chennai and others, reported in (2013) 7 MLJ 641 and the Writ Court, following the above said decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench, has allowed the writ petition.
16.By way of reply, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the Government has preferred SLP to Appeal against the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in P.Ravichandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, Chennai and others, reported in (2013) 7 MLJ 641, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on 13.04.2015, has granted liberty to the http://www.judis.nic.in respondent therein to file counter affidavit within a 31 period of four weeks. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that the issue is now pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In support of his contention, the learned Special Government Pleader relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolawana Gram Vikas Kendra vs. State of Guajarat – (2010) 1 SCC 133, wherein, at paragraphs 7, 8 and 9, it has been held as follows:
“7.In our considered view, we do not view this to be interference in the selection process. It would be perfectly all right for a minority institution to select the candidates without any interference from the Government. However, the requirement of this prior approval is necessitated because it is for the Government to see as to whether there were actually posts available in the said institution as per the strength of students and secondly, whether the candidates, who were sought to be appointed, were having the requisite qualifications in terms of the rules and regulations of the Education Department. That is precisely the stand taken by the State of Gujarat before us in its counter affidavit.
8.Para 3 of the said affidavit reads as under:
“Minority institutions are free to select their teaching and non-teaching staff. No government officer or the representative of the Board was appointed in the Selection Committee of the minority institution. There is no interference by the Government in the administration of the schools. However, NOC is required to be obtained to verify whether there is a vacancy of a teacher of a http://www.judis.nic.in particular subject as per the workload fixed by the 32 Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board specially when the Government is providing grant-in-aid and that he possesses minimum required qualification for the post he is appointed.” From the reading of aforementioned Para 3, it is clear that all that the Government wants to examine is as to whether the proposed appointments were within the framework of the Rules considering the workload and the availability of the post in that institution and secondly, whether the selected candidates had the necessary qualifications for the subjects in which the said teachers were appointed. The same applies to the non-teaching staff also.
9.In view of this clear stand taken by the State Government, we cannot pursue ourselves to hold tht the aforementioned Circular amounts to any unconstitutional interference in the internal working of the minority institution. In that view, we would choose to dismiss these appeals.”
17.As contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, though the issue as to whether prior permission is required to be obtained by the management of private aided college, before filling of vacancies, from the competent authorities is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, material on record discloses that, in the meantime, pursuant to the orders of the writ court, the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3460/U3/2015, dated 24.06.2015 and in the consequential proceedings (i) in http://www.judis.nic.in Na.Ka.No.3337/U3/2015, dated 30.01.2016; and (ii) in 33 Na.Ka.No.2996/U3/2014, dated 02.02.2016, has granted approval to the appointment of 19 teaching staff and 14 non-teaching staff, however, subject to certain conditions. The conditions imposed in the matter of granting approval to 19 teaching staff, in the proceedings dated 30.01.2016, are that
(i)If the particulars given by the Secretary of the College are found to be incorrect, the proceedings, dated 30.01.2016, will stand automatically cancelled.
(ii)The present approval is subject to audit.
(iii)There should not be any excess teacher.
(iv)This approval is subject to the result of the appeal preferred by the Government before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.A.SR.No.22232/2015. [W.A.(MD)No.462/2016]
18.Likewise, the conditions imposed in the matter of granting approval to 14 non-teaching staff, in the proceedings dated 02.02.2016, are that
(i)If the particulars given by the Secretary of the College are found to be incorrect, the proceedings, dated 02.02.2016, will stand automatically cancelled.
(ii)The present approval is subject to audit.
(iii)There should not be any excess non-teaching staff.
(iv)Approval is granted for appointment and to receive grant in aid, based on the particulars given by the Secretary of the College. In case, it is found that the particulars given by the College are incorrect, apart from the fact that the present proceedings would stand http://www.judis.nic.in automatically cancelled, the entire responsibility will be 34 on the administration of the college and the excess grant- in-aid should be refunded to the Government by the College.
(v)This approval is subject to the result of the appeal preferred by the Government before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.A.SR.No.22228/2015 [W.A.(MD)No.461/2016].
(vi)Since the posts below Office Assistant, namely Sweeper (5), Gardener (2), Marker (1), Watchman (2), totally 10 posts, are to be filled through outsourcing, as per G.O.Ms.No.219, Higher Education (D1) Department, dated 24.10.2013, referred to in the proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.10518/F2/2015, dated 27.01.2016, the proposals sent for approval of those posts are returned with a direction that salary should be made for those appointees only by the College.
19.Perusal of the above proceedings of the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, makes it clear that the Department has implemented the orders of the writ court, in respect of 19 teaching staff and 14 non-teaching staff, except 10 posts fall under basic service, subject to certain conditions. Pending appeals, when the Department has chosen to approve appointments of 19 teaching staff and 14 non-teaching staff, the Department could have granted temporary approval to the remaining 10 staff fall under basic service also, on the same conditions. This action on the part of the department, prima facie, shows discrimination in http://www.judis.nic.in granting approval in respect of one category of employees 35 and not granting approval in respect of another set of employees, in whose favour also the writ court has passed orders.
20.Though in the proceedings dated 24.06.2015, the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli, has stated that lower grade posts could not be filled-up on regular basis and it could be filled-up through outsourcing, as per G.O.Ms.No.49, P&AR(F) Department, dated 14.05.2002, the only reason given by the department for not granting approval to the 10 staff members, who fall under basic service, in condition No.(vi) of the order dated 02.02.2016, is that as per G.O.Ms.No.219, Higher Education (D1) Department, dated 24.10.2013, those posts are to be filled by outsourcing but, in this case, they have been appointed by the college on regular scales of pay. Since the said G.O.is of the year 2013, this Court had no occasion to test the validity of the said G.O. in its earlier decisions, referred to in the order of the learned Single Judge. Leaving it open for consideration at the time of final hearing of the appeals and taking into consideration the proceedings of the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli, dated 30.01.2016 and 02.02.2016, referred to supra, in which approval has been given to 19 teaching staff and 14 non- teaching staff, subject to certain conditions, we are of the view that the same treatment should also be given to the remaining 10 non-teaching staff, namely Sweepers, Gardener, Marker and Watchmen, on the same terms and conditions. Accordingly, we issue the following http://www.judis.nic.in directions, pending disposal of the writ appeals.
36(i)The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli, is directed to grant approval to the appointment of 10 staff members, who fall under basic service, as mentioned in Condition No.6 of his proceedings, dated 02.02.2016, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(ii) It is made clear that the terms and conditions, on which approval has been granted to 14 non-teaching staff, vide the proceedings of the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli, in Na.Ka.No.2996/U3/204, dated 02.02.2016, mutatis mutandis will apply to the approval of Sweepers (5), Gardeners (2), Marker (1) and Watchmen (2).
(iii)It is also made clear that the approval so granted is subject to the result of the writ appeals.
21.These petitions are ordered, accordingly. Post the writ appeals for final hearing, after summer vacation."
19. Said order has been challenged by the Government in SLP in Diary No.22766 of 2017, dated 28.08.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, ordered thus:-
"Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on special leave petition.
There will be a stay of the impugned judgment and order dated 22nd April, 2016, passed http://www.judis.nic.in 37 by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
The file of SLP (C)No..... CC 21952/2014 be circulated along with the present petition, on the next date."
20. Thereafter, when the matter came up for hearing on 12.10.2108, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 12.10.2018, dismissed the SLP (C) No.22766/2017 filed against the common order made in C.M.P. (MD) Nos.3254 and 3255 of 2016 in W.A. (MD) Nos.461 and 462 of 2016 dated 22.04.2016. Thus the common order has reached finality. Therefore, as rightly contended by Mr.P.Wilson, learned senior counsel for the 2nd respondent-College in all the writ appeals, State can no longer contend that there is a stay of the common order made in C.M.P. (MD) Nos.3254 and 3255 of 2016 in W.A. (MD) Nos.461 and 462 of 2016 dated 22.04.2016. Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Diary No.22766 of 2017, dated 12.10.2018, is extracted hereunder:-
"Delay condoned.
The special leave petition is dismissed."
21. In W.A. (MD) No.931 of 2016 dated 12.07.2018, when similar contentions have been made by the Directorate of Collegiate Education, Chennai, learned Government Pleader appearing for the http://www.judis.nic.in 38 State has fairly admitted that approval for the appointments made by Rajapalayam Rajus College, Rajapalayam, would be granted. Relevant paragraph of the order made in W.A. (MD) No.931 of 2016 is reproduced.
"7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants/respondents fairly submitted that the approval would be granted to the writ petitioner-college with all benefits and he has also fairly submitted that the ratio laid down in the judgment reported in (2012) 4 MLJ 918 (cited supra) applies to the present case."
22. As rightly contended by Mr.P.Wilson, learned senior counsel for the 2nd respondent-College in all the writ appeals, it is not open to the Directorate of Collegiate Education, Chennai to make contrary submissions, in the instant appeals, more so, when SLP (C) No.22766/2017 has been dismissed. At this juncture, it is also to be noted that the contention of the respondents that orders made in P.Ravichandran v. State of Tamil Nadu [2013 (7) MLJ 641], Dr.S.Sukumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu [2012 (5) MLJ 670], W.A. No.92 & 93 of 2018 judgment dated 06.01.2010, W.A. No.2858 of 2010 http://www.judis.nic.in dated 21.03.2011, W.A. No.2345 of 2011 dated 05.03.2012, W.A. 39 No.474 of 2013 dated 03.04.2013, have been implemented and approval granted has not been disputed.
23. Thus it could be seen from the above, Directorate of Collegiate Education, Chennai has taken a contrary stand before the Hon'ble Benches of this court, even after the dismissal of SLP and still, refuse to approve the appointments, thus making either the colleges or the appointees to file writ petitions. Even after repeated orders of this court, the Directorate of Collegiate Education, Chennai, filed writ appeals.
24. Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.115, School Education Department, dated 30.05.2007, which reads thus, SUMMARY School Education – Filling up of the Non-teaching Staff Vacancy in Government Aided High School and Higher Secondary School – Orders released.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHOOL EDUCATION (D2) DEPARTMENT G.O.Ms.No.115 Dated: 30.5.2007 Read: 1. Director of School Education, Chennai – 600 006 Na.Ka.No.30072/D(4)/06 dated 11.12.2006 and 71599/D(E4)/99 dated 16.4.2007.
2. Government Order (1D) No.37, School Education Department dated 8.2.2007.
http://www.judis.nic.in 40 ORDER:
As per the Government Order released in Ref.No.2 the permission was granted to fillup the post of Non-teaching Staff in Government High and Higher Secondary Schools.
i. All the vacancy to the post of Junior Assistant may be filled up.
ii. In the vacant post of Watchman, 50% of the vacancy may be filled up by (outsourcing) TEXMO. iii. All the vacancies in the post of Sweeper and Sweeper may be filled up by the out sourcing. iv. There is no need for filling up the vacancy in the post of Gardener and Waterman.
v. In all the vacancies in the post of Office Assistant, 50% vacancy may be filled up. Another 50% may be filled up after re-consideration.
2. The Director of School Education in Ref.No.1 letter informed that the following vacancies in the Non-teaching post in the State Government Aided Schools.
Post Vacant Post Junior Assistant 164 Office Assistant 281 Watchman 176 Scavenger 29 Sweeper 40 Scavenger cum Sweeper 7
3. In this situation, on the basis of the Government Order permitting the filling up of Non-teaching staffs vacancies in the Government High and Higher Secondary Schools, similarly, the vacant in the Non-teaching Staff in the Government Aided High and Higher Secondary Schools are permitted to fill up as above http://www.judis.nic.in said and this orders are issued.41
I. The 164 Junior Assistant vacancies as informed may be filled up in the Government Aided High and Higher Secondary Schools.
II. So far as to the post of Office Assistant is concerned, in the informed 281 vacancies, 50% i.e., 140 vacancies, the permission is granted to fill up. While filling up these vacancies as per the Rules now followed, at first as per the students strength the eligible vacancies is fixed, and if that fixed vacancy is more than 140 then that 140 post may be filled up.
III. As far as the vacancies in the post of Watchman, Scavenger, Sweeper and Scavenger-cum-Sweeper to be filled up, similarly to the Government Schools, the Government Aided School also permitted to fill up these posts by the outsourcing subject to the condition that the expenses should be meet out by the concerned schools.
4. This order is released after the consent from the Finance Department in A.Sa.No.1430/ES/P/07 dated 27.4.2007."
25. Thereafter, the Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.203, School Education Department, dated 23.07.2010, which is extracted hereunder:
jkpH; muR RUf;fk;
gs;spf; fy;tp ? muR cjtpbgWk; cah;epiy-nky;epiyg; gs;spfspy; fhypahf cs;s Mrphpauy;yhj gzpapl';fis epug;g[jy; ? 16/04/2010 md;W eilbgw;w khdpaf; nfhhpf;ifapd; nghJ http://www.judis.nic.in khz;gk[ pF gs;spf;fy;tp mikr;rh; mth;fspd; mwptpg;g[ ?42
Mizfs; btspaplg;gLfpd;wd/ ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????
gs;spf; fy;tpj;(o1) Jiw murhiz (epiy) vz;/203 ehs; 23/07/2010 jpUts;Stuhz;L ? 2041.
Mo 7/ gof;fg;gl;lit:
1/ gs;spf;fy;tp ,af;Fehpd; foj e/f/vz;/87216-o1-,4- ehs; 04/12/2009.
2/ 16/04/2010 md;W eilbgw;w khdpaf; nfhhpf;ifapd; nghJ khz;g[kpF gs;spf;fy;tp mikr;rh; mth;fspd; mwptpg;g[/ ????????
Miz:-
16/04/2010 md;W eilbgw;w khdpaf; nfhhpf;ifapd; nghJ muR epjpa[jt[bgWk; cah;epiy-nky;epiyg; gs;spfspy; fhypahf cs;s 952 Mrphpauy;yhj gzpapl';fis epug;g eltof;if nkw;bfhs;sg;gLk; vd;W khz;g[kpF gs;spf;fy;tp mikr;rh; mth;fshy;; mwptpff; g;gl;lJ/ 2/ muR c[jtpbgWk; cah;epiy-nky;epiyg; gs;spfspy; fhypahf cs;sjhf Kjyhtjhf fojj;jpy; gs;spf;fy;tp ,af;Feuhy; bjhptpf;fg;gl;l 952 Mrphpauy;yhj gzpapl';fspy;. fhtyh; (Watchman), njhl;lf;fhuh; kw;Wk; bgUf;Fgth; (Gardener cum Sweeper). jz;zPh; bfhzh;gth; (Waterman). njhl;lf;fhuh; (Gardener). bghUf;Fth; (Sweeper). Jg;g[uthsh; (Scavenger). jz;zPh; bfhzh;gth; kw;Wk; bgUf;Fgth; (Waterman cum Sweeper). Jg;g[uthsh; kw;Wk; njhl;lf;fhuh; (Scavanger cum Gardener). bghUf;Fgth; kw;Wk; njhl;lf;fhuh; (Sweeper cum Scanvanger). jz;zPh; bfhzh;gth; kw;Wk; njhl;lf;fhuh; (Waterman cum Gardener) kw;Wk; fhtyh; kw;Wk; bgUf;Fgth; (Watchman cum Sweeper) Mfpa. ,izg;g[-Iy; gl;oayplg;gl;Ls;s 467 gzpapl';fis btspahl;fisf; bfhz;L (Out Sourcing) bjhlh;e;J epug;gpf;bfhs;s mDkjp tH';fyhk; vd;Wk;. kPjKs;s ,izg;g[-II y; gl;oayplg;gl;Ls;s 485 gzpapl';fSf;F mit epug;gg;gl;l ehs; Kjy; KGneu Cjpa tpfpjj;jpy; muR khdpaj;Jld; mDkjp tH';fyhk; vd;Wk; KobtLf;fg;gl;L mt;thnw muR MizapLfpwJ/ http://www.judis.nic.in 3/ ,t;thid epjpj;Jiwapd; mYty; rhh;gw;w Fwpg;g[ 43 vz;/39197-epjp (fy;tp-II)-2010 ehs; 15/07/2010y; bgwg;gl;l xg;g[jYld; btspaplg;gLfpwJ/ (MSehpd; Mizg;go) k/Fw;whyp';fk;.
muR Kjd;ikr; brayhsh;/
26. Government have issued Letter No.8884/D1/2011-12, dated 09.07.2012, which is as follows:
fojk; vz;/8884-o1-2011?2. ehs; 09/07/2012 mDg;ge[ h;
jpU/br/bry;tuhR. vk;/V/.
muR Jizr; brayhsh;/ bgWeh;
gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Feh;. brd;id?6/ Iah.
bghUs; gs;spf; fy;tp ? cjtp bgWk; gs;spfs;
? muR cjtp bgWk; gs;spfSf;F Vw;bfdnt mDkjpf;fg;gl;Ls;s Mrphpauy;yhnjhh; gzpapl';fspy;
jw;nghJ fhypahft[s;s gzpapl';fis epug;gpf; bfhs;Sjy; ? murpd; mDkjp ntz;oaJ ? rhh;g[/ ghh;it 1/ muRf; fojk; vz;/11462-o2-2006?1.
ehs; 26/5/2006 2/ muRf; fojk; vz;/4049-o1-2011?1. ehs; 24/3/2011 3/ j';fsJ fojk; e/f/vz;/63538-o1
-,4-2011. ehs; /03/2012 ?????
ghh;itapy; fz;l j';fsJ fojj;jpd; kPJ ftdk; <h;f;fg;gLfpwJ/ 2/ muR cjtpbgWk; gs;spfSf;F Mrphpah; kw;Wk; Mrphpauy;yhnjhh; gzpapl';fSf;F bjhlh;e;J khdpak; http://www.judis.nic.in 44 tH';FtJ my;yJ mtw;wpw;fhd g[jpa bewpKiwfs; tFg;gJ Fwpj;J muRf;F chpa ghpe;Jiuapid mspf;f VJthf ty;Yeh; FG xd;wpid mikj;J Ma;t[ bra;a jw;nghJ murhy; eotof;if vLf;fg;gl;L tUk; epiyapy;. ,jpy; vLf;fg;gLk; ,Wjp Kotpw;nfw;g. muR cjtpbgWk; gs;spfSf;F murhy; mDkjpf;fg;gl;L. mg;gs;spfspy; fhypahf cs;s Mrphpauy;yhj gzpapl';fis epug;gpf; bfhs;s mDkjpg;gJ Fwpj;J gpd;dh; KobtLf;fyhk; vd muR fUJfpwJ/ vdnt. nkw;fhQqk; bghUs; bjhlh;ghd j';fsJ nfhhpf;if Fwpj;J jw;nghJ ghprPypf;Fk; mtrpak; vHtpy;iy vd;gijj; bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwd;/ j';fs; ek;gpf;ifa[s;s.
muR Jizr; brayhsUf;fhf/
27. The above Government Orders and Government Letter, were challenged in a batch of W.P.Nos.11481 of 2006, etc., before the Madurai Bench of this Court and vide common order, dated 15.03.2016, the same were quashed. Operative portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:
"(ii) Impugned G.Os. namely, G.O.(Ms). No.115, Schoold Education Department, dated 30.05.2007 and G.O.(Ms) No.203, School Education Department, dated 23.07.2010 and Government letter No.8884/D1/2011-2, dated 09.07.2012 are quashed.
(iii) The impugned orders of the DEOs/DEEOs refusing to approve of the appointments of various non-
http://www.judis.nic.in teaching posts in these writ petitions are set aside and 45 the official respondents are directed to approve of those appointments of the non-teaching staff in the Private Aided Schools concerned in these writ petitions and to sanction grant.
(iv) Wherever writ of Mandamus is sought for a direction is issued to the respondents to approve of the appointments of the non-teaching staff in the Private Aided Schools and to sanction grant.
(v) The official respondents are directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
28. After the decision of the Madurai Bench of this Court, quashing the above proceedings and directions given to approve the appointments made in the aided schools, the Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.64, School Education (SE6(1)) Department, dated 03.04.2018, directing the competent authorities to grant approval in the school education department and further directions have been issued. G.O.Ms.No.64, School Education (SE6(1)) Department, dated 03.04.2018, is extracted hereunder:-
jkpH; muR RUf;fk;
gs;spf; fy;tp ? muR cjtpbgWk; gs;spfs; ? brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w kJiuf; fpisapy; bjhlug;gl;l tHf;F ePjpg;nguhiz http://www.judis.nic.in kD vz;/11481-2008 kw;wk; gpw bjhFg;g[ tHf;Ffspd; kPJ 46 btspaplg;gl;l 15/3/2016k; ehspll; jPh;gg; hizapid bray;gLj;Jjy; ? cjtp bgWk; gs;spfspy; mDkjpf;fg;gl;Ls;s Mrphpauy;yhnjhh; gzpapl';fspy; epakdk; bra;ag;gl;lth;fspd; epakd';fSf;F xg;g[jy; mspj;jy; ? Miz btspaplg;gLfpwJ/ ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????
gs;spf; fy;tpj;(gf6(1) Jiw
murhiz (epiy) vz;/64 ehs; 03/04/2018
jpUts;Sth; Mz;L ? 2049
ncwtpsk;tp tUlk;.g';Fdp 20
gof;fg;gl;lit:
1/ murhiz (epiy) vz;/212. gzpahsh; kw;Wk; eph;thfr; rPh;jpUj;jj; (gp) Jiw. ehs; 29/11/2001/ 2/ murhiz (epiy) vz;/14 gzpahsh; kw;Wk; eph;thfr; rPh;jpUj;jj; (gp) Jiw. ehs; 07/02/2006/ 3/ muRf; foj vz;/11462-o2-2006?1. gs;spf; fy;tpj; Jiw. ehs; 26/05/2006/ 4/ muR foj vz;/8884-o1-2011?2. gs;spf; fy;tpj; Jiw. ehs; 9/7/2012/ 5/ murhiz (epiy) vz;/115. gs;spf; fy;tpj;Jiw. ehs; 30/05/2007 6/ murhiz (epiy) vz;/189. gs;spf; fy;tpj;(o1) Jiw. ehs; 29/07/2009/ 7/ murhiz (epiy) vz;/203. gs;spf; fy;tpj;(o1) Jiw. ehs; 23/07/2010/ 8/ khz;g[kpF brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w kJiuf; fpisapy; bjhlug;gl;l tHf;F ePjpg;nguhiz kD (vk;/o) vz;/11481-08 kw;Wk; gpw bjhFg;g[ tHf;Ffs; rhh;e;J gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l jPh;gg; hiz ehs; 15/03/2016/ 9/ gs;spf;fy;tp ,af;Fehpd; fojk; e/f/vz;/33112-o1-,4- 2013. ehs; 05/12/2013. 03/03/2014. 30/04/2014. 08/05/2015. 27/04/2016 kw;Wk; 15/6/2017/ ????????
Miz:-
nkny Kjyhtjhfg; gof;fg;gl;l murhizapd;go mj;jpahtrpa gjtpfshd Mrphpah; (Teacher). kUj;Jth; (Doctor). fhtyh; (Police) Mfpa gzpap';fis jtph;j;J gpw gzpapl';fis epug;g tpyf;fpf; bfhs;sg;gl;lJ/ ,jid bjhlh;e;J. muRg; gs;spfspy; Vw;gLk; Mrphpah; kw;Wk; Mrphpauy;yhnjhh; http://www.judis.nic.in fhypg;gzpapl';fisa[k; muR cjtpbgWk; gs;spfspy; cs;s 47 Mrphpah; fhypg; gzpapl';fisa[k; epug;gpf; bfhs;s mDkjpf;fg;gl;lJ/ nkYk;. nkny K:dw; htjhfg; gof;fg;ll; fojj;jpy;. muR cjtpbgWk; gs;spfspy; Mrphpauy;yh gzpapl';fs; epug;gt [ jw;F tpjpf;fg;gl;lj; "jizahizia tpyf;fpf; bfhs;s ntz;oa mtrpak; vHtpy;iy" vdj; bjhptpff; g;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkny Ie;jhtjhfg; gof;fg;gl;l murhizapy;. muR cjtp bgWk; cah;epiy kw;Wk; nky;epiyg; gs;spfspy; fhypahft[ss ; Mrphpauy;yh gzpapl';fis mjhtJ 184 ,sepiy cjtpahsh; gzpapl';fisa[k.; 140 mYtyf cjtpahsh; gzpapl';fisa[k; epug;gpl Mizaplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkny Mwhtjhfg; gof;fg;gl;l murhizapy;. xU cjtpahsh; Tl ,y;yhj 147 muR cjtpg;bWk; gs;spfspy; xg;gspg;g[ bra;ag;gl;l 147 ,sepiy cjtpahsh; fhypg; gzpapl';fila[k;. mt;thnw 237 gs;spfspy; 237 mYtyf cjtpahsh; fhypg; gzpapl';fisa[k; epug;gpl Mizaplg;gl;lJ/ nkny VHhtjhfg; gof;fg;gl;l murhizapy;. Mrphpauy;yhj gzpapl';fSs; ,ilepiy gzpfshd fhtyh;. njhl;lf;fhuh; nghd;w 467 gzpapl';fis btspahl;fisf; bfhz;Lk; (Out sourcing), ,sepiy cjtpahsh;. Ehyf Kjyhd 8 gzpapl';fs; mjhtJ () bkhj;jk; 485 gzpapl';fSf;F mit epug;gg;gl;l ehs; Kjy; KGneu Cjpa tpfpjj;jpy; muR khdpaj;Jld;
mDkjpaspjJ ; Mizaplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ 2/ nkw;fz;l epiyapy;. nkny Ie;jhtjhfg; gof;fg;gl;l murhizia vjph;j;J muR cjtp bgWk; cah;epiy kw;Wk; nky;epiyg; gs;spfspd; eph;thfj;jhy; khz;gk[ pF brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w kJiuf; fpisapy; bjhlug;gl;l bjhFg;g[ tHf;fpd; kPJ nkny vl;lhtjhfg; gof;fg;gl;l jPh;g;ghizapy; fPH;f;fz;lthW jPhg; ;gspf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ:-
"XXX (ii) Impugned G.Os. namely, G.O.(Ms). No.115, Schoold Education Department, dated 30.05.2007 and G.O.(Ms) No.203, School Education Department, dated 23.07.2010 and Government letter No.8884/D1/2011-2, dated 09.07.2012 are quashed.
(iii) The impugned orders of the DEOs/DEEOs refusing to approve of the appointments of various non-teaching posts in these writ petitions are set aside and the official respondents are directed to approve of those appointments of the non-teaching staff in the Private Aided Schools concerned in these writ petitions and to sanction grant.
(iv) Wherever writ of Mandamus is sought for a direction is issued to the respondents to approve of the appointments of the non-teaching staff in the Private Aided Schools and to sanction grant.
http://www.judis.nic.in
(v) The official respondents are directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within a period of six weeks from the date of 48 receipt of a copy of this order.
3/ ,jidaLj;J gs;spf;fy;tp ,af;Feh; nkny xd;gjhtjhfg; gof;fg;gl;l foj';fspy;. brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w kJiuf;fpisapy; Mrphpauy;yh gzpaplj;jpy; gzpahw;Wk; mYtyh;fshy; bjhlug;gl;l tHf;Ffspd; bkhj;j vz;zpf;if 219?y;. ,Jehs;tiuapy; 189 Mrphpauy;yhj gzpahsh;fSf;F kl;Lk; rhh;e;j epakd mYtyh;fshy; epakd xg;g[jy; tH';fg;gl;Ls;sjhft[k;. kPjKs;s 30 Mrphpauy;yhj gzpahsh;fSf;F xg;g[jy; msf;fg;glhky; epYitapy; cs;sJ vd;Wk;. ,ijj;jtpu 30/10/2013 epytug;go muR cjtp bgWk; gs;spfspy; cs;s Rkhh; 2413 Mrphpauy;yhnjhh;
fhypg;gzpapl';fis epug;gt
[ jw;fhf gs;sp eph;thfj;jhy;
bjhlug;gl;l tHf;Ffspy;. rhh;e;j gzpahsh;fSf;F rhjfkhf jPhg; ;ghizfs; bgwg;gl;L. rhh;e;j khtl;lf;fy;tp mYtyh;fshy; epakd xg;g[jy; mspf;fg;gl;l gzpapl';fs; nghf kPjk; ,Jjhs; tiuapy; Rkhh; 716 fhypg;gzpapl';fs; cs;sjhft[k;. ,f;fhypg;gzpapl';fspy; me;je;j gs;spfspd; eph;thf';fspd; K:yk; epug;gg;gl;Ls;sJ/ vdpDk; Mrphpauy;yhnjhh; gzpapl';fis epug;g jilahiz mkypy; cs;sjhy;. epakdj;jpw;F rhh;e;j khtl;lf;fy;tp mYtyh;fshy; Vw;gzpf;fg;glhky; epYitapy; cs;sJ vdt[k;. ,jdhy; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tHf;F bjhlug;gl;L tHf;Ffs; epYitapy; cs;sjhft[k; bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ nkYk;. muR cjtpbgWk; gs;spfspy; Mrphpauy;yhnjhh; gzpapl';fis cldoahf epug;gntz;oaJ mtrpakhfpwJ vd;Wk; gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Feh; bjhptpjJ ; s;shh;/
4. nkw;fz;l epiyapy; gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Fehpd; fUj;JUtpid Vw;W. nkny vl;lhtjhfg; gof;fg;gl;l. brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w kJiuf; fpisapy; bjhlug;gl;l tHf;F ePjpg;nguhiz kD vz;/11481-2008 kw;Wk; gpw bjhFg;g[ tHf;F rhh;e;J 15/3/2016y; tH';fg;gl;l jPhg; ;ghizapid bray;gLj;Jk;bghUl;L. muR cjtpbgWk; gs;spfspy; Mrpuauy;yhj gzpapl';fis epug;gt [ J rhh;e;J muR ftdKld; ghprPypj;J fPH;f;fz;lthW MizapLfpwJ :?
(i) muR epjpa[jtp bgWk; cah;epiy-nky;epiyg; gs;spfspy; Mrphpauy;yhj gzpapl';fis epug;gt [ J Fwpj;J gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;FeUf;F bjspt[iu tH';fpa muRf; foj vz;/11462-o2- 2006?1. ehs; 26/05/2006 kw;Wk; muR foj vz;/8884-o1-2011?2. ehs; 09/07/2012 Mfpatw;iw ,uj;J bra;J muR MizapLfpwJ/ http://www.judis.nic.in (ii) khz;g[kpF brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wk;. tHf;F 49 ePjpg;nguhiz kD (vk;/o) vz;/11481-2008 kw;Wk; gpw bjhFg;g[ tHf;F rhh;eJ ; 15/3/2016?k; ehspl;l jPh;gg; py; bjhptpj;Js;sthW. muR epjpa[jtp bgWk; gs;spfspy; mDkjpaspf;fg;gl;l Mrphpauy;yh gzpapl';fspy; (sanctioned posts) epakdk; bra;ag;gl;lth;fspd; epakd';fSf;F xg;g[jy; mspf;f chpa mYtyUf;F mwpt[Wj;jp muR MizapLfpwJ/
(iii) muR epjpa[jtp bgWk; cah;epiy-nky;epiyg; gs;spfspy; xg;g[jyspf;fg;gl;l Mrphpauy;yh gzpapl';fis khzth;fspd; vz;zpf;iff;nfw;g mDkjpf;fg;gl;l tpjpKiwfspdg; o kjpg;gPL bra;J. kpFjpahd gzpapl';fis jpUk;g vLj;Jf; bfhs;sg;gl;L. mg;gzpapl';fis. mg;gzpapl';fspyl jw;nghJ gzpg[hpth;fs; Xa;t[ bgw;w gpd;dh; ,uj;J bra;ag;gl ntz;Lk; vd;gij cWjpbra;a[khW gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;FeUf;F mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwJ/
(iv) Mrphpauy;yhj gzpapl';fis epug;gt [ jw;Fk;.
jFjptha;e;j-chpa mjpfhuk; gilj;j mYtyhplk; mDkjp bgWk; tpjkhf jkpH;ehL m';fPfhuk; bgw;w jdpahh; gs;spfs; (xG';Fg;gLj;Jk;) tpjpfs; 1974,y; jpUj;jk; bra;a[k; bghUl;Lk;. nkYk; xg;g[jy; mspf;fg;gl;l gzpapl';fs; kjpg;gPlL; tHpKiwfspd;go kpFjpahf ,Uf;Fk;epiyapy; my;yJ murhy; mt;tg;nghJ tFf;fg;gLk; tHpKiwfis kPWk;epiyapy; mg;gzpapl';fis jpUk;g vLj;Jf; bfhs;Sk; tpjkhft[k; nkw;fz;l tpjpfspy; jpUj;jk; bra;ag;gLk; bghUl;L jf;f fUj;JUtpid mDg;gk[ hW gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;FeUf;F mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwJ/
(v) E}yfh;. E}yf cjtpahsh;. njhl;lf;fhuh; kw;Wk; ePh; bfhzh;gth; nghd;w gzpapl';fs; muR gs;spfSf;nf xg;g[jyspff; g;glhj epiyapy;. muR epjpa[jtp bgWk; gs;spfspYs;s nkw;fz;l gzpapl';fis jpUk;g vLj;Jf; bfhz;L. mg;gzpapl';fspy; jw;nghJ gzpghpg[th;fs; Xa;t[ bgw;w gpd;dh; my;yJ gjtp cah;t[ bgw;w gpdd ; h;. mg;gzpapl';fs; fhypahFk;gl;rj;jpy; mg;gzpapl';fSf;F tH';fgl;l xg;g[jy; jpUk;gg; bgw ntz;Lk; vd;Wk;. xg;g[jy; mspf;fg;gl;l ,g;gzpapl';fis jpUk;gg; bgWtJ rhh;e;J. gs;spapd; bgah;. gjtp Mfpatw;iw Fwpg;gplL ; . mg;gzpapl';fspy; jw;nghJ gzpg[hpgth; Xa;t[ bgw;w gpdd ; h; my;yJ gjtp cah;t[ bgw;w gpdd ; h; fhypahFk;gl;rj;jpy; ,g;gzpapl';fspd; xg;gspg;gpid jpUk;gg; bgwt[k;. gzpaplg';fspy; gzpg[hpgth; Xa;t[ bgw;w ehs; Kjy; ,jid eilKiwg;gLj;j ntz;Lk;/ ,jw;bfd murstpy; Miz http://www.judis.nic.in btspapl ntz;o jf;f fUj;JUtpid muRf;F mDg;gp 50 itf;FkhWk; gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;FeUf;F mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwJ/ 5/ ,t;thiz epjpj;Jiwapd; m/rh/vz;/16284- epjp(fy;tp?II)-18. ehs; 2/4/2018?,y; bgwg;gl;l ,irt[ld; btspaplg;gLfpwJ/ (MSehpd; Mizg;go) gpujPg; ahjt;.
muR Kjd;ikr; brayhsh;/
29. As rightly contended by Mr.P.Wilson, learned senior counsel for the 2nd respondent-college in all the writ appeals before us, when the Government have issued G.O. Ms.No.64, School Education (SE6(1)) Department, dated 03.04.2018, directing approval of appointments of non-teaching staff in the Aided schools in School Education Department, the same yardstick applies to the aided colleges also.
The respondents are similarly placed persons and the only difference is that they are appointed in aided colleges, whereas persons covered in G.O.Ms.No.64, School Education (SE6(1)) Department, dated 03.04.2018, have been appointed in aided schools. The issue as to whether equally placed persons should be treated alike without any discrimination even in service matter is no longer res integra. Useful reference can be made to the following decisions, http://www.judis.nic.in 51
(i) In Prem Chand Somchand Shah v. Union of India reported in (1991) 2 SCC 48, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 8 held thus, "8. As regards the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 the position is well settled that the said right ensures equality amongst equals and its aim is to protect persons similarly placed against discriminatory treatment. It means that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Conversely discrimination may result if persons dissimilarly situate are treated equally. Even amongst persons similarly situate differential treatment would be permissible between one class and the other. In that event it is necessary that the differential treatment should be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question."
(ii) In Govind Ram Purohit v. Jagjiwan Chandra reported in 1999 SCC (L & S) 788, at paragraph 3, the Hon'ble Suprme Court held thus:
http://www.judis.nic.in 52 "3. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that whereas the petition had been filed by only Respondent 1, the High Court while finally concluding the matter has given a direction to promote all those who were senior to the appellants even though they were not parties to the petition. Once the High Court had placed a particular interpretation on the Rules, the benefit of that interpretation had to go to all those who qualified under the seniority-cum-merit rule.
There was no point in waiting for each and every person to file a petition. Therefore, we do not see any reason why we should entertain such a technical plea when the High Court has done substantial justice to all concerned."
(iii) In State of Karnataka v. N.Parameshwarappa reported in 2003 (12) SCC 192, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph 8, held thus:
"8........ we do not find any reasonable justification to confine the relief to only such of the teachers who approached the court and having regard to the fact that relief related to the revision of scales of pay, every one of that class of teachers who approached would be entitled to the benefit, notwithstanding that they have not approached the court. We are in equal agreement with the Division Bench in denying the payment of interest at compounded rates which, in our http://www.judis.nic.in 53 view, cannot be justified at all on the facts and circumstances of the case wherein a serious and genuine doubt existed about the applicability of the government order dated 30-3-1990, as raised in the proceedings."
(iv) In State of U.P. v. Dayanand Chakrawarty reported in 2013 (8) Scale 74 : (2013) 7 SCC 595, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there cannot be any discrimination in treating equally placed persons on same footing, for all purposes.
(v) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others reported in 2015 (1) SCC 347, wherein, the Apex Court dealt with the issue as to the entitlement of benefit of judgment in rem with an intention to benefit all similarly situated persons irrespective of whether they had approached the Court or not. It is held therein that when a particular set of employees is given relief by Court, all other identically situated persons should be treated alike by extending the same benefit, since not doing so would amount to discrimination and be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
http://www.judis.nic.in In the result, all the writ appeals are dismissed. Interim orders 54 stand vacated. However, we direct the appellants 1 and 2, to comply with the order of the writ court, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No Costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.Ps are closed.
(S.M.K., J.) (S.P., J.)
14.11.2018
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
dm/asr
http://www.judis.nic.in
55
S.MANIKUMAR,J.
and
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
asr/dm
W.A.Nos.1703 to 1707 of 2018
and
C.M.P.Nos.18832,18835, 18966, 19013, 19018, 13669, to 13677 of 2018 14.11.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in