Madras High Court
Rachel Jannet vs The District Elementary Educational ... on 25 January, 2019
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on Delivered on
30.01.2019 01.04.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
W.P.(MD)No.12598 of 2017
Rachel Jannet
Secondary Grade Teacher,
R.C.Elementary School,
Nambithalaivanpattayam,
Kalakkad Range,
Tirunelveli District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
O/o. District Elementary Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
O/o. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Kalakkad, Tirunelveli District.
3. The Correspondent,
R.C.Elementary School,
Nambithalaivanpattayam,
Kalakkad Range, Tirunelveli District.
*4. The Manager,
R.C.School,
Tuticorin Diocese, Tuticorin. ...Respondents
* R4 is Suo motu impleaded vide court order dated 25.01.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 2 nd
respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in his
proceedings in O.Mu.No.303/A1/2017 dated 10.04.2017 and quash the
same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents 1 & 2
to approve the petitioner's appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher in the
3rd respondent school with effect from 15.03.2017 with all service and
monetary benefits within the time limit that may be stipulated.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathi,
Special Govt. Pleader for RR 1 & 2
: Mr. L.P.Maurya for R3
: Mr.John Kennedy for R4
ORDER
The challenge in the Writ Petition is to the proceedings of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kalakkad, dated 10.04.2017, in and by which, the said officer had returned the proposals for approval of the appointment of the petitioner as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the 3rd respondent School.
2. According to the petitioner, he had completed Diploma in Teacher Education in March 2004 and was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher http://www.judis.nic.in 3 in the 3rd respondent School on 15.03.2017, in the vacancy that arose due to the superannuation of Ms.A.Sahaya Roseline on 31.01.2017. The 3rd respondent School had sought for approval of the said appointment from the authorities and the proposals were forwarded to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent by the order impugned in the Writ Petition had returned the proposals on the ground that the school in question forms part of a Corporate Management functioning under the Tirunelveli - Tuticorin Roman Catholic Diocese and that there were number of surplus teachers in the other Schools functioning under the same management and therefore, new appointments made without redeploying the teachers, who are found to be surplus in other schools cannot be approved.
3. According to the petitioner, the approval of appointment cannot be refused on the ground that there being surplus teachers in other Schools under the same Management. Each School should be treated as independent unit with reference to surplus teachers. Therefore, the petitioner would seek a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 10.04.2017 and to direct the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in the 3rd respondent School, with effect from 15.03.2017 with all service and monetary benefits.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
4. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit. While justifying the reasons assigned in the impugned order for refusing approval of the appointment, the 1st respondent would further contend that the Management of the Schools namely, The Roman Catholic Diocese of Tirunelveli and Tuticorin had willingly violated the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.231 School Education dated 11.08.2010 and therefore, the petitioner cannot seek approval of his appointment. He also pointed out that the approval was not denied on the ground of lack of Educational qualification, but, it is denied on the ground that it was well opened to the Management to have redeployed surplus teachers in other Schools under the same Management.
5. I have heard Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs.S.Srimathi, learned Special Government Pleader (Education), appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Mr.L.P.Maurya, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and Mr.John Kennedy, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
6. In view of the fact that the approval had been refused on the ground that the surplus teachers in other Schools under the same Corporate Management namely, The Roman Catholic Diocese of the Tirunelveli and http://www.judis.nic.in 5 Tuticorin, should have been redeployed in the Schools were vacancies arose. The Manager of the Roman Catholic Schools Tuticorin Diocese, Tuticorin, was impleaded Suo-moto as the 4th respondent, Mr.John Kennedy, appears for the 4th respondent.
7. Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner was appointed in a sanctioned vacancy and therefore approval cannot be denied. He would also draw my attention to an order of mine dated 08.01.2019 made in WP No.24791 of 2018, wherein I have followed the Division Bench judgment in Rasheetha Banu v. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Chennai 600 009, and others, reported in 2012 (4) MLJ 198, and concluded that the approval cannot be rejected on the ground of surplus teachers being available in other Schools. It was open to the authorities to redeploy the teachers working in private management also.
8. The learned Special Government Pleader would however contend that in view of G.O.Ms.No.231 School Education dated 11.08.2010, the Schools or the teachers do not have vested right to seek approval, if it is found that there was surplus teachers under the same Management. The question of redeployment of surplus teachers working in Aided Minority Institutions is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in The http://www.judis.nic.in 6 Director of Elementary Education v. B. Infanse and another, had an occasion to consider the question of availability of surplus teachers in other Schools as a ground for rejection of approval of appointments made in Schools where there were existing sanctioned vacancies.
9. The Division Bench after referring to various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court had held that availability of surplus teachers in Schools under the same Management cannot be a ground to reject or refuse approval of appointments made in Schools where there were vacancies in the sanctioned posts. The same principles were reiterated by the same Division Bench in The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education v. The Correspondent, RC Middle School, Savariarpuram, Asirvathapuram (via), Tuticorin District. Another Division Bench of this Court in The Director of Elementary Education v. The Correspondent, St.Joseph’s RC Primary School, Palakurichy 621 308, Tiruchirappalli District, reported in 2018 (1) Writ L.R.421, had held that it is open to the Department of School Education to redeploy surplus teachers in Schools under the same Management. It is not for the School Management to redeploy surplus teachers, though under a Corporate Management.
10. While doing so, the Division Bench also concluded that if it is for http://www.judis.nic.in 7 the authorities to show that the Schools in question have got surplus teachers. In the absence of any evidence to show that the School in which the appointment is sought to be made has surplus teachers, the authorities will not be justified in refusing approval.
11. No doubt, the learned Special Government Pleader would vehemently contend that whenever an attempt is made by the authorities to redeploy surplus teachers the same is thwarted either by the Schools or by the surplus teachers or by the teachers, by approaching this Court and obtaining stay orders. That by itself cannot be a ground for the authorities to refrain from taking steps redeploy surplus teachers and not allowing the Managements to make appointments in Schools where there are sanctioned vacancies.
12. The learned Special Government Pleader would further contend that the surplus teachers in various Schools particularly, Aided Schools are causing a huge impact on the financial burden on the State and the State is forced to pay them salaries without any work. Therefore, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, any fresh appointment should be prohibited until the surplus teachers are redeployed in various Schools.
13. I have considered the rival submissions.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8
14. The law regarding appointment of teachers by Schools under the same Management where there are surplus teachers in other Schools is well settled. This Court has repeatedly held that while it is open to the Authorities to redeploy surplus teachers, the Authorities cannot refuse approval on the ground that there are surplus teachers in other Schools under the same Management. The pronouncements of this Court are by Division Benches and as such, they are binding on me. However, one cannot lose sight of the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader on the question of financial burden on the State. No doubt, the State is bound to pay salaries to the teachers, who have been appointed in regular sanctioned vacancies. But at the same time, the State cannot be expected to retain those teachers as surplus teachers and pay them salary without extracting any work from them. It is common knowledge that the State's resources are very limited and any wasteful expenditure must be scrupulously avoided.
15. I am therefore, of the considered opinion that issue regarding surplus teachers must be addressed on top priority by the authorities concerned. In view of the pronouncements of the Division Benches of this Court, referred to supra, I do not think that the order impugned in the Writ Petition could be up held. Therefore, the Writ Petition has to be necessarily http://www.judis.nic.in 9 allowed, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to approve the appointment of the petitioner since the same is under an existing sanctioned vacancy.
16. Before parting with this case taking note of the fervent plea made by the learned Government Pleader that I am deem it fit to issue the following directions:
(i) The Director of School Education shall ascertain the number of surplus teachers in all Aided Schools all over the State and take steps to redeploy the teachers in places wherever there is a requirement.
(ii) The Authorities undertake fixation of staff strength with the students strength as on 31st August 2019 as the basis. The staff fixation is completed by end of October 2019.
(iii) The respondents shall undertake the exercise of redeployment of the teachers who are rendered a surplus as per the staff fixation for the year 2019-2010 immediately after completion of the staff fixation and complete the same by the end of the academic year 2019 – 2010.
http://www.judis.nic.in 10 The report regarding staff fixation and redeployment shall be filed in this Court by first week of June 2020.
17. In fine the Writ Petition is stands allowed. The order impugned in the Writ Petition is quashed and there will be a direction to respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner, if it is otherwise in order, the said exercise shall be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
01.04.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
jv
Note: Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Director of School Education forthwith.
To
1. The District Elementary Educational Officer, O/o. District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, O/o. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kalakkad, Tirunelveli District.
3. The Correspondent, R.C.Elementary School, Nambithalaivanpattayam, Kalakkad Range, Tirunelveli District.
4. The Manager, R.C.School, Tuticorin Diocese, Tuticorin.
http://www.judis.nic.in 11 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
jv Predelivery order in W.P.(MD)No.12598 of 2017 01.04.2019 1/2 http://www.judis.nic.in