Madras High Court
L.Hema vs The State Of Tamilnadu
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: S.Srimathy
W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON: 28.04.2022
DELIVERED ON: 07.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.12962 of 2018
L.Hema ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District – 629 001.
4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Rajakamangalam at Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District – 629 001.
5.The Secretary,
The Parish Council,
St.Andrew's Church,
Mela Manakudi and Post,
Kanyakumari District – 629 602.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/23
W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018
6.The Correspondent,
St.Andrew's Primary School,
Manakudi-Thurai-629 602,
Mela Manakudi and Post,
Kanyakumari District.
7.Rev.Fr.L.Antony Alcander,
The Director of Thiruppumunai
Bishop's House, Post Box 17,
Nagercoil – 629001,
Kanyakumari District.
8.A.Mary Angel Berbeth
9.C.Ancy Nishanthini,
Secondary Grade Teacher,
St.Andrew's Primary School,
Manakudi-Thurai-629 602,
Mela Manakudi and Post,
Kanyakumari District.
10.The Chief Educational Officer,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents
(R-10 is suo motu impleaded vide Court order dated .07.2022 passed in W.P.
(MD).No.14304 of 2018)
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the District
Elementary Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the petitioner as
Secondary Grade Teacher in the sixth respondent School namely, St.Andrews
Primary School, Manakudi-Thurai, Kanyakumari District from 05.06.2008 to
31.05.2012 and disburse grant-in-aid towards her salary and other monetary
benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/23
W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Xavier Rajini
For R-1 to R-4 : Mr.V.Omprakash,
Government Advocate(Civil Side)
For R-5 : Mr.G.Karthick
For R-6 to R-9 : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the District Elementary Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade teacher in the sixth respondent school from 05.06.2008 to 31.05.2012 and disburse grant-in-aid towards her salary and other monetary benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the sixth respondent school is a Private Aided Minority School and it is administered by the fifth respondent Parish Council of St. Andrew's Church, Mela Manakudi, Kanyakumari District. The fifth respondent Parish Council is maintaining a waiting list for registering the names of the candidates, who are only from the Parish of Manakudi aspiring for employment in the sixth respondent school and another school. The candidates would be appointed based on their seniority in the waiting list. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/23 W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018 petitioner had registered her name in the waiting list maintained by the fifth respondent in the year 2004. The 9th respondent, namely, C.Ancy Nishanthini, registered her candidature in the waiting list in the year 2005.
3. The sixth respondent school appointed one B.Jeyoni Leena Suji, being in Serial No.1 in the waiting list, on 07.02.2005 in the vacancy caused due to the death of the then incumbent, Mrs.D.Xavier Mary. The subsequent candidates in Serial Nos.2 and 3 relinquished their rights in seeking appointment in view of obtaining job in the Government service. The petitioner was appointed in the school on 05.06.2008 and C.Ancy Nishanthini / 9th respondent was appointed in the year 2011. Thereafter, the sixth respondent school has not appointed any person in view of shortage of students strength.
4. According to the petitioner, one post of Secondary Grade teacher fell vacant in the sixth respondent school on 01.04.2008 due to the retirement of the then incumbent, namely, Mrs.R.T.Mary Mabel on 31.03.2008. In that vacancy, A.Josephine Simon was promoted as Headmistress. Since the petitioner is in Serial No.1 in the seniority by post, the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 05.06.2008. At the time of the petitioner's appointment, one Rev.Fr.J.Arul Anand was the Correspondent of the sixth respondent school and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/23 W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018 the President of the fifth respondent Parish Council. The appointment order would be issued to the candidates only after obtaining approval from the District Elementary Educational Officer and hence, the sixth respondent school has not issued the copy of the appointment order to the petitioner.
5. The sixth respondent school was eligible to have 5 teachers for the academic year 2008-2009 as per the staff fixation order. The following teachers, namely, A.Josephine Simon (Headmistress), A.Mary Angel Berbeth, C.Maria Virgin, B.Jeyoni Leena Suji and L.Hema (petitioner) were working in the sixth respondent school. The sixth respondent school submitted a proposal to the District Elementary Educational Officer requesting to approve the appointment of the petitioner. However, the official respondents did not approve the petitioner's appointment for the reason that the school has not obtained prior permission from the Director of Elementary Education before appointing the petitioner in the sanctioned vacancy and there were various surplus posts available in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Kottar. Since the District Elementary Educational Officer has not approved the appointment of the petitioner, the Correspondent and the Headmistress have instructed the petitioner to sign in the separate “Master Attendance Register” from 05.06.2008 to 31.05.2011 and the same is in the custody of the sixth respondent. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/23 W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018
6. The allegation by the petitioner against the sixth respondent is that now the sixth respondent is informing that no documents are available in the school and the same is false and the school is committing fraud. From 01.06.2011 to 31.05.2012, the petitioner was permitted to sign the common “Masters Attendance Register”. The petitioner submitted various representations to the District Elementary Educational Officer on 15.03.2009, 12.12.2009, 06.06.2010, 02.02.2011, 25.11.2011 and 13.04.2012 requesting to approve the appointment and disburse the grant-in-aid towards her salary, since the sixth respondent school is a minority school, prior permission to fill up the sanctioned vacancy is not necessary.
7. The petitioner contended that similar to the petitioner, the third respondent / the District Elementary Educational Officer has not approved the appointment of B.Jeyoni Leena Suji as Secondary Grade Teacher in the sixth respondent school with effect from 07.02.2005 and she left the school on 15.07.2009 for the reason that she was appointed in the Government School. The sixth respondent has not appointed anybody in the vacancy caused due to the resignation of B.Jeyoni Leena Suji. She had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.22946 of 2017 for a Mandamus to direct the respondents therein https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/23 W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018 to approve her appointment and pay salary from 07.02.2005 to 14.07.2009 and the same is still pending.
8. According to the petitioner, one post of Secondary Grade Teacher fell vacant in the sixth respondent school on 01.06.2011 due to the retirement of Mrs.A.Josephine Simon (Headmistress) on 31.05.2011. In that place, the sixth respondent appointed the 9th respondent, namely, C.Ancy Nishanthini, on 01.06.2011. The third respondent has not approved the appointment of the 9th respondent in view of the pending approval of the petitioner and the school has not issued any appointment order to the 9th respondent also. Since the petitioner's appointment was not approved, the fifth respondent Parish Council appointed the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in another school, namely, Little Flower High School, Manakudi, Kanyakumari District with effect from 01.06.2012 and the petitioner's appointment was approved by the District Educational Officer, Nagercoil. The petitioner was relieved from service in the sixth respondent school on 31.05.2012. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to get approval of her appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher from 05.06.2008 to 31.05.2012, since the petitioner was appointed against the promotion vacancy. In spite of several representations, the petitioner's appointment was not approved. The petitioner approached the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/23 W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018 official respondents and on enquiry, it was intimated that the official respondents have not received any proposal from the sixth respondent school for approval of the petitioner's appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 05.06.2008. The official respondents also intimated that the sixth respondent created concocted documents of appointment order to the 9th respondent, C.Ancy Nishanthini, as if she has been appointed with effect from 01.04.2008 in the vacancy caused due to the retirement of the then incumbent, Mrs.R.T.Mary Mabel (Headmistress) on 31.03.2008 / promotion vacancy of A.Josephine Simon as Headmistress and submitted proposal to the District Elementary Educational Officer in the year 2016 and the District Elementary Educational Officer has approved the appointment of the ninth respondent with effect from 01.04.2008 and disbursed the grant-in-aid towards her salary.
9. The contention of the petitioner is that the ninth respondent, C.Ancy Nishanthini, was appointed on 01.06.2011 in the retirement vacancy of Mrs.A.Josephine Simon (Headmistress) on 31.05.2011 and she has not worked in the school from 01.04.2008 to 31.05.2011. At the time of submitting proposal to the District Elementary Educational Officer in the year 2016 requesting to approve the appointment of the ninth respondent, the seventh respondent, Rev.Fr.L.Antonly Alcander, was the Correspondent of the sixth https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/23 W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018 respondent school and the eight respondent was the Headmistress of the school, who is close relative to the ninth respondent / C.Ancy Nishanthini.
10. It is also the contention of the petitioner that taking advantage of the petitioner's relieving order from the sixth respondent school, the seventh and eight respondents have misused their official capacities as Correspondent and Headmistress respectively and concocted the appointment order indicating that the ninth respondent was appointed with effect from 01.04.2008 in the retirement vacancy of Mrs.R.T.Mary Mabel (Headmistress) on 31.03.2008 / promotion vacancy of A.Josephine Simon as Headmistress and submitted proposal and got approval of appointment and received salary from 01.04.2008. The petitioner has worked in the sixth respondent school from 05.06.2008 to 31.05.2012, but the ninth respondent has received the salary for the said period with the connivance of the respondents 7 and 8 based on the fabricated documents. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
11. The sixth respondent / the Correspondent has filed a counter stating that the Writ Petition is not maintainable because the appointment of a teacher by the management of the minority school is not within the purview of judicial https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/23 W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018 review. The Writ Petition is also hit by delay and laches, since the Writ Petition is filed after 10 years of appointment of the ninth respondent. The petitioner has herself admitted that no appointment order was issued to her. The writ petitioner never worked in the sixth respondent school and no records are available with the answering respondent as well as with the official respondents. The allegation of fraud is strongly denied. The petitioner was appointed on 01.06.2012 and it is incorrect to say that she was relieved from the sixth respondent school as she never worked in the sixth respondent school. The allegation in the affidavit contradicts the claim of the petitioner and the writ petitioner herself has stated that no proposal was sent from the sixth respondent for appointment. Since there are disputed facts which cannot be adjudicated in the Writ Petition, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and the sixth respondent prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
12. The third respondent / the District Elementary Educational Officer has filed a counter stating that the Writ Petition is filed with delay and it is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches. It is stated that the fifth respondent is a private school governed under the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private School (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private School (Regulation) Rules, 1974. The petitioner herself claims that she was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/23 W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018 working without any appointment order. When no appointment order was issued, no proposal for approval could be made by the management. The petitioner is trying to project as if the school manager has forwarded the proposal for grant of approval and further contended that the third respondent would not approve her appointment from the date of 05.06.2008. No such approval was made by the management and hence, the question of rejecting the proposal on the ground that the management has not obtained prior permission would not arise. The management concerned alone is authorized to submit a proposal for approval. Based on the petitioner's representation, approval cannot be granted. It is further stated by the official respondents that the said B.Jeyoni Leena Suji had filed a Writ Petition with a prayer to approve her appointment for the period from 07.02.2005 to 14.07.2009 and her case is no way connected to the issue in this Writ Petition. As per the available records, the fifth respondent has sent a proposal seeking for approval of the petitioner's appointment with effect from 01.06.2012. The said proposal was considered and the petitioner's appointment was approved from 01.06.2012 as the Secondary Grade Teacher in the Little Flower High School, Manakudi, Kanyakumari District. It is also contended by the official respondents that there is no proof at all for the petitioner's service with effect from 05.06.2008 to 31.08.2011. Specifically, there was no proposal from the management for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/23 W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018 approval. Hence, the official respondents are unable to consider the petitioner's prayer for approval and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
13. The petitioner had filed a reply to the counter, wherein, it has been stated that this Court has the power of judicial review in the matter of appointment and administration of minority educational institutions in order to check the mal-administration of minority schools. The then Correspondent Rev.Fr.J.Arul Anand, who was serving as the Correspondent of the sixth respondent school, has appointed the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher on 05.06.2008, vide letter dated 04.06.2008, in the promotion vacancy of A.Josephine Simon. It is stated that the appointment of the said B.Jeyoni Leena Suji and the petitioner were not approved by the third respondent. In view of non-approval, the sixth respondent directed the petitioner and the said B.Jeyoni Leena Suji to sign in the separate masters attendance register. The said B.Jeyoni Leena Suji was relieved on 14.07.2009 in view of getting appointment in Government School and nobody was appointed in the said vacancy. Mrs.A.Josephine Simon had attained superannuation on 31.05.2011 and in that vacancy, the ninth respondent was appointed by Rev.Fr.L.Antony Alcander, who was serving as the Correspondent of the sixth respondent school on 01.06.2011. The petitioner signed a separate “Masters Attendance Register” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/23 W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018 from 05.06.2008 to 31.05.2011 and the same is with the sixth respondent school. Since 01.06.2011, the petitioner, being the third teacher in the school, was permitted to sign in the common “Masters Attendance Register” by the sixth respondent school from 01.06.2011 to 31.05.2012. At that time, the ninth respondent signed in the separate “Masters Attendance Register”. Only 3 teachers signed in the common “Masters Attendance Register” from 01.06.2011 to 31.05.2012 and they are A.Mary Angel Berbeth (HM/eighth respondent), C.Maria Virgin (approved teacher) and L.Hema (petitioner).
14. It is stated that the ninth respondent was appointed on 01.06.2011 and she was not present in any of the photographs till the retirement function of Mrs.A.Josephine Simon on 31.03.2011. The petitioner's appointment cannot be denied and the same was indicated by the colleagues of the petitioner in the said school and the Councilor of Rajakamangalam Panchayat Union by way of statement. One C.Maria Virgin has also indicated that the petitioner had worked in the sixth respondent school. The eighth respondent is the relative of the ninth respondent and she has fabricated all the documents. It is reliably understood that the sixth and eighth respondents have destroyed all the documents, i.e., separate “Masters Attendance Register” and common “Masters Attendance Register” from 05.06.2008 to 31.05.2012 in order to escape from https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/23 W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018 their mistakes and now they are saying that there are no documents regarding the employment of the petitioner. If the school is not having any documents, it is not known how the District Elementary Educational Officer has approved the appointment of the ninth respondent with effect from 01.04.2008 without verifying the records, i.e., attendance register and school mirror etc.
15. The petitioner has submitted photographs, affidavits and attendance register as valid documents and the same were not disputed. The sixth respondent school being a minority educational institution should not be allowed to mal-administration and misappropriate the Government funds on collusion with the officials. Hence, the petitioner prayed to allow the Writ Petition directing the respondents to pay salary for the said period.
16. Heard Mr.S.Xavier Rajini, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.Omprakash, learned Government Advocate (Civil Side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, Mr.G.Karthick, learned counsel for the fifth respondent and Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for the respondents 6 to 9 and perused the records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/23 W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018
17. When the Writ Petition was taken up for hearing, this Court suggested the parties to settle amicably. The respondents offered for paying the salary alone but they were not inclined to give the continuity of service to the petitioner. Therefore, this case was taken up for further hearing.
18. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed by the then Correspondent, namely, Rev.Fr.J.Arul Anand and the said appointment order was produced before this Court. The petitioner has produced affidavits and the statements filed by her colleagues, namely, B.Jeyoni Leena Suji, wherein, it has been stated as under:
“ehd; kzf;Fbj;JiwapYs;s Gdpj
me;jpiuahH njhlf;f gs;spapy; ,ilepiy
Mrphpiaahf gzpGhpe;J te;Njd;. ehd; jw;NghJ
jpUg;G+H khtl;lk; njhOT+H mQ;ry;>
fTz;ld;ghisak; gQ;rhaj;J Adpad;
njhlf;fg;gs;spapy; ,ilepiy Mrphpiaahf
gzpGhpe;J tUfpNwd;. vdf;F kzf;Fb Nfhtpy;
njUtpy; trpf;Fk; [hz; nfgpd; kidtp L.N`kh
vd;gtH kzf;Fbj;Jiw Gdpj me;jpiuahH
njhlf;fg;gs;spapy; 05.06.2008 Kjy; ,ilepiy
Mrphpiaahfg; gzpGhpe;J te;jhH vd;gJ ed;F
njhpAk;. L.N`kh vd;gtUila ,ilepiy MrphpaH
gzpaplk; murhy; Vw;gspf;fg;glhjjhy;> mtH
gzpahw;wpa fhyj;jpw;fhd Cjpaj;ijg;
ngwhkNyNa kzf;Fbj;JiwapYs;s Gdpj
me;jpiuahH njhlf;f gs;spapy; gzpahw;wp te;jhH.
L.N`kh gzpGhpe;j 2008-2009> 2009-2010> 2010-2011> 2011-2012 Mfpa ehd;F fy;tpahz;Lfspy; Kjy;
%d;W fy;tpahz;LfSk; nghJthd MrphpaH tUifg; gjpNtl;by; ifnahg;gkplhky; jdpahf xU tUifg; gjpNtl;by; mtH ifnahg;gkpl gs;sp epHthfj;jpdH Vw;ghL nra;jpUe;jdH.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/23 W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018 jpUkjp.Md;rp eprhe;jpdp vd;gtH kzf;Fbj;Jiw Gdpj me;jpiuahH njhlf;fg;
gs;spapy; 01.06.2011 Kjy; ,ilepiy Mrphpiaahf gzpapy; NrHe;J jw;NghJ tiu mNj gs;spapy;
gzpahw;wp tUfpwhH.
,e;epiyapy; kzf;Fb rpWkyH caHepiyg;gs;spapy;> ,ilepiy MrphpaH gzpaplk;
xd;W fhypahf ,Ue;jhYk;> mg;gzpaplk; murhy;
Vw;gspf;fg;gLtjw;fhd tha;g;G ,Ue;jjhYk;> mq;F 01.06.2012 Kjy; L.N`kh ,ilepiy Mrphpauhf gzpapy; NrHe;J gzpGhpe;J tUfpwhH.
kzf;Fbj;Jiw Gdpj me;jpiuahH njhlf;fg;gs;spapy; L.N`kh 05.06.2008 Kjy;
31.05.2012 tiu ,ilepiy Mrphpauhf gzpGhpe;j jdJ gzpfhyj;ij jw;NghJ kzf;Fb rpWkyH caHepiyg;gs;spapy;> ,ilepiy MrphpaH gjtpapy;
gzp %g;gpy; ,izf;f Nfhhp jkpof fy;tpj;Jiwf;F kD xd;W mspj;Js;shH vd;w tptuk; vdf;F njhpAk; vd;W cWjp$WfpNwd;.”
19. Likewise, one V.Johnson, who had served as Councilor of 16th Ward of Rajakamangalam Panchayat Union, one Victorial, who was serving as Noon Meal Assistant, one Maria Korratti, who was working as Noon Meal Organizer, one C.Maria Virgin, who was working as Secondary Grade Teacher had filed statements in the non-judicial stamps. They have stated that the petitioner has worked in the sixth respondent school and she was directed to sign the separate register maintained for the teachers, who were not approved by the educational authorities.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/23 W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018
20. The petitioner has also produced photographs, where the students and the teachers of the school are present and also a farewell ceremony photograph was enclosed. In order to distinguish the earlier photographs, the petitioner has filed a photograph, where the ninth respondent was also seen in the photograph, which was taken in the year 2012, which would indicate that the ninth respondent was appointed only in the year 2011 and not prior to that.
21. The official respondents were directed to produce the available records within the department where they have produced the appointment order issued to the ninth respondent. It is seen from the appointment order that the appointment order was issued by the subsequent Correspondent, namely, Rev.Fr.L.Antony Alcander. If the ninth respondent is appointed in the year 2008, then the appointment order ought to have been issued by the previous Correspondent, namely, Rev.Fr.J.Arul Anand. From this, it is evident that the claim of the petitioner that the ninth respondent was not appointed in the year 2008 is true.
22. On perusal of the photographs enclosed along with the Writ Petition, it is evident that the petitioner was working in the year 2009-2012, where a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/23 W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018 group photo indicates the petitioner and four other teachers along with the students. On a valedictory function for Mrs.Josephine Simon held on 31.03.2011, all the teachers as well as the said Councilor are seen in the photographs. In the group photo, the ninth respondent is not there. From this, it is evident that the petitioner's claim that she has worked from 2008 till 2012 is an acceptable version of the petitioner and the same is true.
23. It is seen from the counter filed by the Correspondent of the school, namely, A.Kildos, S/o.Anthony Pillai, wherein it has been stated in paragraph 6 as under:
“The contents of Para 12 and 13 are incorrect.
And no records are available with the answering respondent as well as with the official respondents.” The Correspondent has every right to state what are the documents, the school is possessing. Strangely, it is stated that the official respondents are also not having any records. From this, it is evident that the school is trying to over reach the issue. The school is trying to conceal the fact that the petitioner was working during the said period. An adverse inference ought to be drawn from this statement of the Correspondent. The fact remains that the official respondents are having records and it is enough to conclude that the claim of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/23 W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018 the petitioner that she was working during that period is correct and the claim of the private respondents that the ninth respondent was working during that period is false.
24. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the available records with the writ petitioner, where a summary of the teachers and the students as on 31.07.2008 and 04.08.2008 were produced. In the said summary, it has been stated that the total teachers allotted to the school is 4 and only 3 teachers are working. The claim of the petitioner is that the said 3 teachers are A.Mary Angel Berbeth, C.Maria Virgin and L.Hema (petitioner). On perusing the records, this Court is convinced that the petitioner is one of the teachers working in the school during that period and it is evident that the ninth respondent has not worked during the said period.
25. The contention raised by the sixth respondent is that the school is not having any records to show that the petitioner was appointed, but the sixth respondent has produced all the relevant records, as if the ninth respondent was appointed. These two statements are contradicting each other. When the sixth respondent is claiming that no records are available, it is not known how the records are available for the appointment of the ninth respondent. From this, it https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/23 W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018 is also evident that the school is trying to conceal the employment of the petitioner for the reasons best known to them.
26. The contention raised by the respondents is that the petitioner has not impleaded the Chief Educational Officer as one of the respondents, since the Chief Educational Officer is the authority to determine if there is any mistake in disbursing the grant-in-aid to the minority institutions. Under Rule 6(4), the authority has the power to look into the case if the grant-in-aid was misused or any fraud is played and the authority is the Chief Educational Officer. Therefore, this Court suo motu is impleading the Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District as the tenth respondent.
27. Based on the above observations, it is evident that the petitioner has worked from 05.06.2008 to 31.05.2012 in the sixth respondent school and the petitioner is entitled to get the salary which was already received by the school and disbursed to the ninth respondent. The petitioner is also entitled to continuity of service and other service benefits and hence, the said period shall be considered for all purposes. Therefore, the respondents 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are directed to pay the salary that is applicable to the petitioner for the period from 05.06.2008 to 31.05.2012 and confer all service benefits within a period of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/23 W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018 eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the respondents 5 to 9 are not paying the salary within a period of eight (8) weeks, interest is applicable after eight (8) weeks.
28. The newly impleaded tenth respondent, the Chief Educational Officer, is directed to take action against the respondents 5 to 9 for misusing the grant-in-aid. If required, the tenth respondent shall initiate action to close the school for mal-administration.
29. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
07.07.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Lm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21/23
W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018
To
1.The Secretary,
State of Tamilnadu,
Department of School Education,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District – 629 001.
4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Rajakamangalam at Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District – 629 001.
5.The Chief Educational Officer,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22/23
W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018
S.SRIMATHY, J.
Lm
Order made in
W.P.(MD).No.14304 of 2018
07.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23/23