Madras High Court
The Correspondent vs The Director Of Elementary Education on 11 April, 2018
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.04.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.1352 of 2015
and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2015
The Correspondent
St.Joseph's Middle School,
Sarugani,
Sivagangai District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai-600 006.
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Sivagangai District at Sivagangai.
3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Devakottai, Sivagangai District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating
to the impugned Staff-Fixation settled by the 2nd respondent DEEO for
the year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 dated 14.05.2013 and 22.01.2014
respectively holding one full time post of sewing mistress as surplus
and surrendered without staff, quash the same and further direct the
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
2nd respondent to approve forthwith the appointment of A.Gnana
Sahaya Mary as full time Sewing Mistress in the petitioner school from
the date of her appointment i.e. 18.07.2012 and disburse the grant-in-
aid towards her salary w.e.f the said date.
For Petitioner : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal,
Senior Counsel
For R1 to 43 : Mr.D.Muruganantham
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The prayer sought for in this Writ Petition is for a issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned Staff-Fixation settled by the 2nd respondent / District Elementary Educational Officer for the year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 dated 14.05.2013 and 22.01.2014 respectively holding one full time post of sewing mistress as surplus and surrendered without staff, quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent to approve forthwith the appointment of A.Gnana Sahaya Mary as full time Sewing Mistress in the petitioner school from the date of her appointment i.e. 18.07.2012 and disburse the grant-in-aid towards her salary w.e.f the said date.
2.The petitioner School namely St.Joseph's Middle School, is http://www.judis.nic.in 3 one among the several schools owned and administered by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sivagangai. The Diocese is a registered Society and a recognized religious minority. The Diocese owns and administers 122 recognized Educational Institutions in the revenue Districts of Sivagangai and Ramnad.
3.The school was established initially as a Primary School in the year 1903 and it was upgraded as Middle School in the year 1952. It is recognized and aided by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The school is offering education from standards 1 to 8. The medium of instruction is Tamil. It is a minority Educational Institution.
4.Though it is a co-education school, predominantly, girl students are coming to the school, as the subject Tailoring is being taught for the standards VI to VIII. Therefore, a post called Sewing Mistress was sanctioned to the petitioner’s school. It fell vacant due to the transfer of one Mrs.J.Jayarani to another school in the same Management namely, Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School, Tiruvarangam. Therefore, in the vacancy caused by her, the school appointed a fully qualified candidate namely, Mrs.A.Gnana Sagaya Mary as Sewing Mistress with effect from 18.07.2012. She joined duty on the same day and she is continuing in the school till date. http://www.judis.nic.in 4
5.On appointment, the petitioner’s school submitted the proposal to the District Elementary Educational Officer by letter dated 08.08.2012 seeking approval for the appointment of the said Mrs.A.Gnana Sagaya Mary as Sewing Mistress with effect from 18.07.2012. When the said proposal was pending, the third respondent visited the petitioner’s school on 06.11.2012 and had made an enquiry in the Service Register stating that the said Mrs.A.Gnana Sagaya Mery was appointed in the vacancy arose due to the transfer of the said Mrs.J.Jayarani. However, the proposal sent for approval of her appointment was not received by the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer. Therefore, the petitioner school once again submitted a proposal afresh to the second respondent / District Education Officer through the third respondent / Assistant Elementary Educational Officer on 07.11.2012.
6.When the said second proposal sent through the third respondent to the second respondent was pending, the second respondent passed the order dated 18.03.2013, fixing the staff for the academic year 2012 – 2013, holding that the one post of full time Sewing Mistress was surplus without a Teacher being appointed. Immediately, on 02.12.2013, the petitioner school submitted a detailed http://www.judis.nic.in 5 representation to the second respondent stating that in the post of Sewing Mistress, one Mrs. A.Gnana Sagaya Mery was appointed already and she is working and the proposal to approve her appointment also was pending before the second respondent. In the meanwhile, the third respondent, without even forwarding the proposal to the second respondent, returned the same on 28.01.2014 directing the petitioner school to produce a copy of the approved relieving order of the previous incumbent along with the staff fixation for the year 2012 – 2013.
7.In response to the same, the petitioner school resubmitted the proposal on 03.02.2014 along with a copy of the relieving order of the erstwhile staff with the copy of the staff fixation for the year 2012 – 2013. Once again, the third respondent, without forwarding the proposal to the second respondent, returned the same on 04.04.2014, stating that the defect pointed earlier, was not complied with.
8.When the matter stood thus, the second respondent, again issued an order of staff fixation for the year 2013 – 2014 by proceedings dated 22.01.2014, holding that one post of full time Sewing Mistress is surrendered as surplus without teacher. This order was passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner school. http://www.judis.nic.in 6 Though on 18.07.2012 itself the proposal was made seeking approval of appointment of the said A.Gnana Sagaya Mery as Sewing Mistress, the District Elementary Educational Officer in the said two orders fixing the staff pattern for the years 2012 – 2013 and 2013 – 2014 stating that the post was rendered surplus and therefore, it was surrendered. Therefore, challenging the staff fixation for the said two academic years as well as the returning of the proposal of approval for the appointment to the post of Sewing Mistress, the petitioner school has approached this Court with the aforesaid prayer in this Writ petition.
9.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who would submit that the petitioner school is one of the oldest school in that locality. Though the school is a co-education school, girl students are joining in the school in the standard VI to choose the subject Tailoring which is one of the compulsory subject and that is the reason, the Government already decided to sanction one post of Sewing Mistress in the petitioner school. For several years, Teachers were working in the Sewing Mistress post and when the said incumbent was relieved from the petitioner school, the said A.Gnana Sagaya Mery was appointed on 18.07.2012 and the proposal was twice submitted to the second respondent through the third respondent. It is very unfortunate, the second respondent had fixed the staff strength for the http://www.judis.nic.in 7 years 2012 – 2013 and 2013 – 2014, wherein, the said post of Sewing Mistress was declared as surplus and accordingly, it is stated that it was surrendered.
10.In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would make a submission that the post of Sewing Mistress is a single post and therefore, it cannot be dispensed with. He would also submit that once a Teacher is appointed in a sanctioned vacancy and subsequently, even for good reason, the post is declared surplus and surrendered, the appointment already made, cannot be refused to be approved and the same shall be approved and therefore, if need be, depending upon the students strength, redeployment exercise can be entertained.
11.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that a Division Bench of this Court has underlined the importance of the subject Tailoring being one of the important Vocational Training, which would be more helpful for the girl students in their later point of time.
12.By making the said submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:
http://www.judis.nic.in 8
(a)2012 (4) MLJ 198 (S.Sasitha Banu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its Secretary to Government and others)
(b)A Division Bench judgment made in W.A. (MD)No.1207 of 2016 in the matter of State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by Secretary to Government, School Education Department and others Vs. S.Ranganayagi and another dated 23.08.2016
(c)W.A.(MD)No.725 of 2016 in the matter of State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by Secretary to Government, School Education Department Vs. Kovil Mandi Estino and another dated 03.01.2017
(d)W.A.(MD)No.1295 of 2016 in the matter of Directorate of Elementary Education, Chennai and others Vs. the Correspondent, St.Javions Middle School, Tuticorin District.
By relying upon these decisions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that impugned orders, fixing the staff strength for the two academic years i.e., 2012 – 2013 and 2013 – 2014 and the consequential return memo, of course, unmindful of the staff strength or otherwise without any reason by the third respondent, are palpably wrong and therefore, the said orders are liable to be set aside by this http://www.judis.nic.in 9 Court.
13.Per contra, Mr.D.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, would submit that after Right to Education Act came into effect, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued Government Orders fixing the staff as per the directions issued under the said Act and accordingly, the staff strength have been fixed. Even prior to the said Act came into effect, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.100, according to which, a minimum strength of 100 students is required, then only, a Craft Teacher can be sanctioned to a school. Insofar as the petitioner school is concerned, the student strength for academic year 2012 – 2013 as on January 2012, based on the input cited by the middle school for the classes VI to VIII, was only 92.
14.The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that the said student strength was further reduced to 84 for the year 2013 – 2014. He also would submit that currently, the students strength of the petitioner’s school is only 64. Therefore, consistently for all these years, the students strength of the petitioner’s school especially from standard VI to VIII have been reduced drastically and at no point of time the petitioner’s school has achieved the students http://www.judis.nic.in 10 strength of 100 or more than 100. Therefore, the petitioner’s school is not entitled to have the Special Teacher in the subject Tailoring. Therefore, there was every justification on the part of the 3rd respondent to keep the staff strength for the years 2012 – 2013 and 2013 – 2014 by which, one post of Sewing Mistress available at the petitioner’s school, since it was not required, as no incumbent was there and accordingly, the same was surrendered.
15.The learned Additional Government Pleader would also submit that since the surplus Teachers taken from the petitioner’s school could be utilized by way of sanctioning the said post to some other school, which is in need of having a Teacher in Craft and therefore, by taking the surplus teacher from the ineligible school, the Department will sanction the same to a needy school, thereby, providing Teacher for the students, where it is needed, and hence, this exercise cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that there is every justification on the part of the respondent, especially the third respondent, in fixing the staff strength for the petitioner’s school for the years 2012 – 2013 and 2013 – 2014, as the statistics steadily proved that the petitioner’s school is losing students strength year by year. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader submits http://www.judis.nic.in 11 that there is no requirement of interference from this Court in the impugned orders.
16.I have Considered the said rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.
17.As already pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the students strength of the petitioner’s school for standards VI to VIII for the year 2012 – 2013 was only 92, which was subsequently reduced into 84 in the year 2013 – 2014 and as of now, it is only 64.
18.There may be Government Order in G.O.M.S.100 prescribing the minimum students strength for having a Craft Teacher.
19.The petitioner's school is one of the oldest school having started in the year 1903 and for long years, the post of Sewing Mistress was sanctioned to the petitioner’s school where the incumbent was working and taking classes for the girl students of VI to VIII standards.
http://www.judis.nic.in 12
20.It is submitted that the sewing is one of the compulsory subject for girl students of the standards VI to VIII. Only for the special subject of Teaching sewing, the girl students, who are nearby locality, which is in complete rural background, are joining in the petitioner’s school.
21.Further, the said post of Sewing Mistress as has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is a single post and the subject Sewing is being compulsory for the girl students, without a single Teacher, one cannot expect that the students will be taught the said subject, which is being compulsory in nature and also for taking the said subject, especially girl students who are in majority coming to the petitioner's school, the special teacher is required.
22.Based on the student-Teacher ratio, the fixation of the staff strength can be done by the authorities concerned, strictly, only for Teachers of general nature, such as, Secondary Grade Teachers, B.T. Assistants or P.G. Assistants. As far as Special Teachers are concerned i.e., in the present case, the Sewing Mistress, the Special Teachers only one number is sanctioned mainly because that single Teacher, who teach the special subject to the students, who take the http://www.judis.nic.in 13 said subject ,which is a compulsory subject to that students.
23.Moreover, as it has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the sanctioned post of Sewing Mistress, the earlier incumbent, who was working, since was transferred to some other school, the said Mrs.A.Ganana Sagaya Mary was appointed on 18.07.2012 and the proposal for approval of such appointment was sent on 08.08.2012 with all required documents. Though such a proposal was made, when the third respondent visited the petitioner’s school on 06.11.2012, he made the following observation in his report, which reads thus:
“,d;W g[dpj n$hrg; cjtp bgWk; eLepiyg; gs;sp
Mz;lha;t[ bra;ag;gl;lJ. Ma;tpd; nghJ ,g;gs;spapy; Mrphpah; gzpapl
tpguk;> eLepiyg; gs;sp jiyik Mrphpah;-1> gl;ljhhp Mrphpah; gzpaplk;-1> ,ilepiy Mrphpah; gzpaplk;-6> ifj;bjhHpy; Mrphpah; gzpaplk;-1. midj;J gzpaplq;fSk; epug;gg;gl;L cs;sd. Jiyik Mrphpiaahf rnfh.br.bry;tuhzp 10.08.10 Kjy; gzpg[hpe;J tUfpwhh;. md;dhhpd; khWjy; fUj;JU ,Jtiu bgwg;gltpy;iy. md;dhh; ,ilepiy fy;tp myfpypUe;J bjhlf;ff; fy;tpj; Jiwapd; fPH; ,aq;Fk; ,g;gs;spf;F khWjypy; te;Js;shh;. ifj;bjhHpy; Mrphpia jpUkjp.b$auhzp> 17.07.12 md;W ,ilepiy fy;tpj;Jiwapd; fPH; bray;gLk; jpUtuq;fk; R.C. Cah;epiyg; gs;spf;F khWjypy; brd;Ws;shh;. md;dhhpd; khWjy; xg;g[jy; fUj;JU khtl;lj; bjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyUf;F ghpe;Jiu bra;ag;gl;L cs;sJ. mg;gzpaplj;jpy; jpUkjp. A. Qhd rfha nkhp ifj;bjhHpy; Mrphpiaahf gs;sp eph;thfj;jpduhy; epakdk; bra;ag;gl;L cs;shh;. Epakd xg;gj[ y; fUj;JU ,Jtiu mYtyfj;jpy; bgwg;gltpy;iy”.
http://www.judis.nic.in 14
24.Therefore, it is the clear finding of the third respondent that the said Mrs.A.Ganana Sagaya Mary was already appointed as Sewing Mistress at the petitioner’s school and according to the third respondent, the proposal was not sent to him. But the fact remains that the proposal was already sent on 08.08.2012 by the petitioner’s school directly to the second respondent. Therefore, in order to overcome the said observation made by the third respondent, once again, the proposal was resubmitted on 07.11.2012 to the second respondent through the third respondent. However, the third respondent has not forwarded the same with his recommendation to the second respondent for approval.
25.In the mean time, the staff fixation order, which is impugned herein for the year 2012 – 2013 has been passed on 14.05.2013 by the second respondent, wherein the post of Sewing Mistress has been shown as surplus without a Teacher being appointed.
26.Had the proposal received by the third respondent, immediately, is forwarded to the second respondent for approval, the second respondent would not have passed an order dated 14.05.2013 by fixing the staff strength for the year 2012 – 2013 observing that the post of Sewing Mistress was kept vacant.
http://www.judis.nic.in 15
27.On noticing the said defect, which is crept in because of miscommunication, the petitioner’s school had once again sent a clarification letter and that was also not taken care while fixing the staff strength for the year 2013 – 2014 by order dated 22.01.2014.
28.In the meanwhile, the proposal for approval of a Teacher was returned by the third respondent himself seeking some rectification, which was also complied with by the petitioner’s school subsequently, ie., on 03.02.2014. However, the proposal seems to have once again been returned on 04.04.2014 by the third respondent, this time, no specific reason was given by them.
29.All these communications would go to show that there had been some miscommunication between the office of the third and second respondents, as many a time, when the proposal was sent, resubmitted and clarified by the petitioner’s school, it seems that the same has not been taken into account by the respondents, because those communications had been taken into account by the respondents by the fixation made through the impugned order for the years 2012 – 2013 and 2013 – 2014, such a reason to state that the post was vacant, no one appointed could not have been given as a prime reason http://www.judis.nic.in 16 for declaring the post of Sewing Mistress as surplus.
30.Apart from these factual matrix, the legal position is clear, in this issue, as the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the aforesaid four decisions.
30(i).In respect of the first decision ie., 2012(4) MLJ 198 (cited supra), the learned counsel has relied upon this decision on the ground that once the incumbent is appointed in a sanctioned post at the time of the appointment, what was the position should be taken into account and if at all subsequently the student strength get reduced, the excess appointment, if it is identified, can be redeployed. This position has been re-produced by the learned Judge of this Court in the aforesaid judgment at paragraph Nos. 6 to 8, which are extracted hereunder:
“6.The issue to be decided in this Writ Petition is as to whether the petitioner was appointed in a sanctioned post. Admittedly, on 1.4.1998, the post of Secondary Grade Teacher became vacant and the petitioner was appointed in the sanctioned post. The only objection raised is that the fifth respondent school was not declared as a Minority Institution. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the Civil Suit filed by the fifth respondent school was dismissed and the Judgment and Decree passed by http://www.judis.nic.in 17 the Lower Court was reversed in the appeal filed by the fifth respondent school, which was confirmed in the said Second Appeal filed by the department. The Government also sanctioned arrears of salary payable to the petitioner. The fall in strength of the students took place in the year 2003-2004, which cannot be a ground to reject the approval of appointment of the petitioner from 1.4.1998.
7.The issue involved in this Writ Petition was already considered by a Divisional Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1263 of 2001, dated 22.1.2004. In the said Judgment, it is held that if a person is appointed in a sanctioned post, the approval of appointment cannot be rejected and if there is fall in strength and the post become surplus, after granting approval of the post, the said teacher along with post could be transferred/deployed to a needy school. The said Judgment of the Division Bench was followed in W.P. (MD)No.11353 of 2008, dated 11.9.2009. As against the said order dated 11.9.2009, the department preferred W.A.(MD)No.703 of 2009. A Division Bench of this Court, by Judgment dated 1.2.2011, dismissed the said Writ Appeal.
8.Applying the said Judgments to the facts of the present case and having regard to the un-disputed fact that the Government has issued G.O.(2D), School Education Department, dated 1.2.2011, conferring minority status on the fifth respondent school from the academic year 1990-1991 and directed that the http://www.judis.nic.in 18 appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 1.4.1998 shall be approved and arrears of salary payable to the petitioner was directed to be paid, in my considered opinion, there can be no impediment for the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 1.4.1998”.
30(ii).In the Division Bench judgment made in Writ Appeal (MD)No.1207 of 2016 dated 23.08.2016, the Division Bench, in a similar circumstances, has considered and observed that the importance of vocational training to be given to the girl students, which shall be greatly helpful at the later part of their life. The relevant portion of the said observations made by the Division Bench is extracted hereunder:
11.Therefore, we have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever to dismiss the Writ Appeal. We may take this opportunity to add one other reason. Admittedly, there are large number of girl students pursuing various courses in the school concerned. May be their strength may have fallen short of the number of 250 prescribed, as necessary for sanction of a post. But however, the State, as a wise policy, has sanctioned such posts to the schools, so that, the vocational skills can by imparted to the girl students.
http://www.judis.nic.in 19 In the instant case, the vocation training sought to be imparted related to tailoring an avocation which better suits the girl students, to enhance their employment capabilities in the later part of life.
12.Therefore, the object of the State to promote the welfare and wellbeing of the girl child is a paramount consideration in case of this nature.
30(iii).In the recent Division Bench judgment made in W.A. (MD)No.1295 of 2016 dated 05.03.2018, it is observed that if it is a single post, which has been sanctioned, the same cannot be dispensed with. The relevant portion of the order in the said judgment, as it has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is extracted hereunder:
“4.The issue involved in this Writ petition was as to whether the respondents / appellants were justified in refusing to approve the appointment of the respondent Tmt.Kokila as Sewing Mistress in the respondent school. The reason for rejection of the application is by placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.168 School Department dated
13.09.2006. In the said Government Order, a direction was issued that while sanctioning the post of full time Craft Instructors, the Government had specifically mentioned that there should be at least 5 sectons in 6-8 classes having workload of not less than 18 periods in the higher elementary schools. Pre-vocational instructors, http://www.judis.nic.in 20 who were working during 1960-63 were allowed to continue without reference to the work periods. Similarly, the teachers appointed as Pre-vocational instructors during 1963-64 to 1973-74 were permitted to continue, when the schools had less than 5 sections in 6-8 classes. However, this made after the year 1973-74. By referring to the said Government order, it was contended that the said Tmt.Kokila was appointed in a retirement vacancy in the year 2009 and the same cannot be approved as there were no 5 sections in 6-8 classes in the respondent school.
6.Therefore, we opined that the stipulations of 5 sections in 6-8 classes was considered to be directory and not mandatory and that is why the Government took such a stand not only in respect of 10 middle schools, but also other similar cases. The Government order came to be issued in 2006 and the appointment of Tmt.Kokila was in the year 2009. Above all, there is only one post and therefore, the department cannot insist upon the course being conducted and simultaneously not sanction the post. Apart from that, increasing the number of sections in a class is not at the sole discretion of the management of minority institution. Be it an aided non-minority institution or minority institution or for that matter a government institution, it has to abide by the Rules and Regulations, which stipulate a students strength of minimum 40 and that strength has to be assessed in August every year for the purpose of assessing the staff strength.
http://www.judis.nic.in 21
7.Therefore, the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 13.09.2006, if read in tandem with the guidelines stipullated for increasing the number of sections, then, this stipulation of having 5 sections in 6-8 classes can at best be read as directory and not mandatory. Further, it is relevant to point out that the decision in the case of N.Regi Mallika referred supra has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A. (MD)No.16 of 2011 dated 25.01.2011. In the said appeal, the Division Bench referred to an earlier order in W.P.(MD)No.7218 of 2008 dated 04.08.2009, which was implemented by the department. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that there is another judgment of the Division Bench in the case of State Vs.S.Renganayaki (W.A.(MD)No.1207 of 2016), wherein,identical issue was considered in respect of high school and the appeal was dismissed and the same was implemented in G.O.Ms.No.132 dated 27.04.1998”.
31.On perusal of these judgments of this Court, the point emerged before this Court is that the fixation of staff strength based on the student strength will have a prospective effect and therefore, the post is sanctioned and approved. During the approved time, if the post is filled up by a qualified incumbent, the teacher appointed shall be approved and thereafter, if the teacher is found to be excess, based http://www.judis.nic.in 22 on the student strength, subsequently, decision may be taken by the authority to redeploy the Teacher. Also, it further emerges that if it is a single Teacher, that too, in a specialized subject, the same cannot be straight away dispensed with, as without the single teacher in the specialized subject no one will be there to impart training on the particular subject.
32.Another position emerges from the said judgments cited above is that imparting of vocational training to the students, especially, the girl students in the subject Sewing is important and the paramount consideration is to give employment opportunity to the women in the later point of time and that is the reason vocational training to the girl students should be given importance.
33.Considering all these principles as emerged from the judgments cited supra, if the same are put in the facts and circumstances of this case, it can be easily concluded that the petitioner’s school is having the necessary strength for the purpose of having one special teacher as Sewing Mistress, even though the over all students strength may be less than the prescription made by the Government under the relevant Government Order. Such reduction in strength may exist to the authorities to reduce the staff strength in http://www.judis.nic.in 23 general teacher area, such as, Secondary Grade Teacher and B.T. Assistants, but, not the special teacher, because the special teacher in Sewing subject is the single post and also the said subject is one of the compulsory subject for the girl students, who are studying VI to VIII at the petitioner’s school.
34.Therefore, the reason cited by the respondents for fixing staff strength at the petitioner’s school, primarily stating the reduction in student strength may not be applicable to the present circumstances of the case, as the Teacher post, which is in question now, has been reduced or taken away, is a special teacher, that too, a single person, who takes classes for the said standards as special subject.
35.Looking from any angle, the action taken on the part of the respondents, as reflected in the impugned order taking away the portion of Sewing Mistress from the petitioner’s school is not justifiable. Unless the authorities come to a conclusion that there is no student available in the petitioner’s school, taking the compulsory subject of Sewing, the said post of Sewing Mistress cannot be taken away.
36.In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold http://www.judis.nic.in 24 that the impugned order fixing the staff strength by declaring the said post of Sewing Mistress as an excess post is unjustifiable and therefore, it is liable to be interfered with.
37.In the result, this Writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i)The impugned order is set aside;
(ii)In view of the impugned order having been set aside, the proposal sent by the petitioner’s school on 08.08.2012 and subsequently, on 07.11.2012 for the appointment of the said Mrs. A.Gnana Sagaya Mary in the post of Sewing Mistress at the petitioner’s school shall be taken into account and such proposal shall be considered and orders to that effect approving the appointment shall be made by the third respondent;
(iii)Once such appointment is approved by the authorities, the incumbent, who has been appointed as Sewing Mistress and taking classes in the petitioner’s school, shall be entitled to claim the salary for the said post from the date of her appointment;
(iv)All the aforesaid directions as indicated above shall be undertaken by the respondent especially, the second respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
(v)Since the proposal has already been returned by the http://www.judis.nic.in 25 second respondent, the same is to be once again be resubmitted by the petitioner school within a period school within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and only on receipt of the same, the second respondent shall do the needful as indicated above, within the time frame set out therein.
38.With the above directions, the Writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
11.04.2018
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
gns
To
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai-600 006.
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Sivagangai District at Sivagangai.
3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 26 R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
gns W.P.(MD)No.1352 of 2015 11.04.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in