Madras High Court
R.Vinoth Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 January, 2017
Author: M.V.Muralidaran
Bench: M.V.Muralidaran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 18.01.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN
W.P.(MD).Nos.8790 of 2012 and 4165 of 2012 and
W.P.(MD).No.8115 of 2011 and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2011 & 1 of 2012
WP(MD)No.8790 of 2012
R.Vinoth Kumar .. Petitioner
.Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by the Secretary to
Government, Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Aruppukottai ? Taluk,
Virudhunagar ? District.
3.The Secretary,
Hindu High School,
Gopalapuram, Palayampatty ? Post,
Virudhunagar ? District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of
the 3rd Respondent's impugned order dated 08.06.2012 and quash the same and
directing the Respondents No.1 and 2 to approve the appointment of the
petitioner as Physical Education Teacher in the 3rd Respondent School and
consequentially to pay salary and all attendant and monetary benefits from
the date of his appointment and further permit him to continue the work as
Physical Education Teacher.
!For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Venkatesan
^For Respondents : Mr.Mr.K.Guru (for R1 and R2)
Additional Government Pleader
No Appearance (for R3)
WP(MD)No.8115 of 2011
R.Vinoth Kumar .. Petitioner
.Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by
The Secretary to Government, Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The Director of Teacher Education
Research and Training, College Road,
Chennai ? 600 006.
3.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai ? 6.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Aruppukottai ? Taluk,
Virudhunagar ? District.
5.The Secretary,
Hindu High School,
Gopalapuram, Palayampatty ? Post,
Virudhunagar ? District.
6.The Principal,
Sri Ramakrishna Mission,
Vidyalaya Maruthi College of Physical Education,
Sri Ramakrishna Vidyalaya ? Post,
Periyanaickenpalayam,
Coimbatore - 641 020. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 4th respondent to approve
the appointment of the petitioner as Physical Education Teacher with effect
from the date of initial appointment i.e. from 24.05.2010 and consequently
pay all arrears of salary and attendant, monetary benefits etc.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Venkatesan
For Respondents :Mr.Mr.K.Guru (for R1 to R4)
Additional Government Pleader
No Appearance (for R5 and R6)
WP(MD)No.4165 of 2012
R.Vinoth Kumar .. Petitioner
.Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by the Secretary to
Government, Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Aruppukottai ? Taluk,
Virudhunagar ? District.
3.The Secretary,
Hindu High School,
Gopalapuram, Palayampatty ? Post,
Virudhunagar ? District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd Respondent to permit him
to continue the work as Physical Education Teacher and consequently allow him
to put his signature in the Attendance Register maintained by the 3rd
Respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Venkatesan
For Respondents :Mr.Mr.K.Guru (for R1 and R2)
Additional Government Pleader
No Appearance (for R3)
:COMMON ORDER
The petitioner has filed the writ petition for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 08.06.2012 and to quash the same and direct the Respondent No.1 and 2 to approve the appointment of petitioner as Physical Education Teacher in the 3rd Respondent school and consequentially to pay all the attendant and monetary benefits from the date of his appointment and also to permit the petitioner to continue his work as Physical Education Teacher.
2.In support of the writ petition the petitioner has filed his affidavit and stated that he passed his 10th Standard on 04.06.2005, as such he completed his 12th Standard on 14.05.2007. Thereafter he applied for D.P.Ed., course with M/s. Ramakrishna Mission Vivekanandha University, Periyanayakkanpalayam, Coimbatore District. Hereafter this university will be referred as ?Educational Institution?. In the said Educational Institution, the petitioner joined the said course on 16.07.2007 and completed the same by securing 1st class on 26.04.2009.
3.In pursuance of the successful completion of the said course, he applied with the 3rd respondent for the Post of Physical Education Teacher and accordingly he was selected for the post as per law. Subsequently, as per the direction of the 3rd respondent the petitioner produced all the relevant educational certificates and he was appointed as Physical Educational Teacher on 24.05.2010 by the 3rd respondent. However, no salary was paid to the petitioner as his appointment was not approved by the 2nd respondent. In the meanwhile the 3rd respondent sent a letter to the ?Educational Institution? with the request to furnish the documents in connection with the recognition of the said ?Education Institution?. On receipt of the letter of 3rd respondent, the said ?Educational Institution? by his letter dated 28.12.2010 furnished information as required by the 3rd respondent. Moreover, the said ?Educational Institution? informed that the D.P.Ed., course was conducted by Maruthi Physical Education College with the approval in D.T.E.R.T by the State of Tamil Nadu and the said college was affiliated with the said ?Educational Institution?.
4.The further case of the petitioner is that the said ?Educational Institution? obtained recognition from the State Government to conduct the said course at Coimbatore. Therefore, the Diploma in D.P.Ed., cannot be treated as outside states diploma course. At the same time inspite of the communication sent by the said ?Educational Institution? the appointment of the petitioner was not approved by the 2nd respondent. In the meanwhile on 04.01.2011 the petitioner sent a letter to the 1st respondent under the Right to Information Act with a request to furnish the Government Order related to the recognition of the said ?Educational Institution? on 30.01.2007. The petitioner sent another request to the 1st respondent and in turn by the letter dated 30.01.2011; the 1st respondent informed that the said ?Educational Institution? did not come under the control of the State Government. So, again on 19.01.2011 the Public Information Officer of the Director of Collegiate Education forwarded the request of the petitioner to the Public Information Officer, Tamil Nadu Physical Educational and Sports University to take further action in respect of the information sought for by the petitioner.
5.It is seen from the affidavit that on 21.01.2011, the Director of Teacher Education Research and Training sent a communication to the guardian of the petitioner stating that no Government Order is available as sought for by the petitioner. However, a direction was given to verify the details pertaining to the course studied by the petitioner from the Educational Institution itself. In this connection the petitioner has sent several representations to various authorities to verify with the course completed by the petitioner was recognition or not. However, on 11.04.2011 the Director of Teacher Education Research and Training in his communication under the Right to Information Act, stated that no Government Order was published to recognize the Diploma Course in Physical Education offered by the said ?Educational Institution? further, it is not equal with the Diploma in Physical Education provided by 1st State Government. Further, it is also informed by the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training sent a letter to the Director of School Education with the information that the course completed by the petitioner cannot be treated that the petitioner possessed the required Educational qualification to the Post of Physical Education Teacher. So, the request of the approval of the appointment of the petitioner returned. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to sent a letter on 31.08.2011 to the 3rd respondent with a request to grant time to him to furnish the necessary documents from the Educational Institution in connection with the approval of the course studied by the petitioner. It is the specific case of the petitioner that on 03.06.2011 the 2nd respondent through his letter stated that vide letter No.1153/K1/2011-1 informed that qualification possessed by the petitioner is not adequate to hold the post of Physical Educational Teacher. So, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No. 8115 of 2011 with the prayer of direction, directing the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner. However, vide the order dated 28.07. 2011 interim injunction was granted by this court on 28.07.2011.
6.In the meanwhile the petitioner received a letter No.11387/K1/2011-4 dated 03.01.2012 from the Joint Secretary, Education Department addressed to the 3rd respondent with an information that the letter No.834/K1/2011-1 dated 19.04.2011 and Government Letter No. 1153/K1/2011-1 dated 02.05.2011 are bogus but produced in order to cheat the Government. However, the case of the petitioner is that those government letters especially letter No.1153/K1/2011-1 was sent by the District Educational Officer stating that the same was received from the Secretary, Education Department. Further, it is also informed that was information pertaining to the educational qualification of the petitioner and the petitioner is not eligible to appoint as Physical Education Teacher. But the petitioner has refused that he did not submit any such Government letter on his own.
7.However, in the affidavit filed in the earlier Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.8155 of 2011 and W.P.(MD)No.4165 of 2012, the petitioner mentioned the said two letters for reference, so, it is not necessary for the petitioner to furnish any bogus letters for any reason. Therefore the petitioner sent a representation on 30.01.2012 to the 1st respondent and Chief Minister Cell with a request to conduct an enquiry in this regard.
8.The Joint Secretary, Educational Department though received the representation of the petitioner dated 30.01.2012 did not take any steps to consider the same. Further in the representation dated 30.01.2012, the petitioner made specific allegations against the District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar also. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that instead of considering the representation of the petitioner, a criminal case is registered against him as if he produced bogus government letters.
9.Further, the petitioner also filed another Writ Petition in W.P. (MD).No. 4165 of 2012 to direct the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioner to continue to work as physical education teacher and the same is pending. In the meanwhile as the impugned letter dated 08.06.2012 is passed, he is constrained to file the present writ petition. When the order of dismissal is perused the same has disclosed that the petitioner produced bogus government letter No. 834/k1/2011-1 dated 19.04.2011. The dismissal order would further say that as the appointment of the petitioner was not approved by the District Educational Officer and in view of the charges against him, he was placed under dismissal. However, the case of the petitioner is that he is no way liable or responsible for the production of the alleged bogus government letters. So he filed instant Writ Petition to set-aside the impugned order of dismissal.
10.Per contra the 2nd respondent District Educational Officer filed the counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was appointed as physical education teacher in the 3rd respondent school on 24.05.2010 without getting prior permission from the 2nd respondent. Further, it is made it clear that as the course completed by the petitioner was not recognized at the relevant time, the appointment of the petitioner was not approved. However, the 3rd respondent is the management High school covered under the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private School Regulation Act and Rules. At the same time the government letter No. 834K/2011-1 dated 19.04.2011 and another government letter No. 1153 K/2011-1 dated 02.05.2011 were found to be bogus. Further, the appointment of the petitioner is not eligible to get approval as the claim of the petitioner as not maintainable and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
11.I heard Mr.V.R.Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the writ petitions and Mr.K.Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 in WP(MD)Nos.4165 and 8790 of 2012 and respondents 1 to 4 in WP(MD)No.8115 of 2011 and perused all the materials available on records. No representation on behalf of the third respondent in WP(MD)Nos.4165 and 8790 of 2012 and No representation on behalf of the respondents 5 and 6 in WP(MD)No.8115 of 2011.
12.The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed by the 3rd respondent only after the perusal of the certificates produced by him. Moreover it is not disputed by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner studied at Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda University instead of Sri Ramakrishna Mission Vidhalaya Maruthi Collage of Physical Education. Even now the said institution is permitted to run but without approval of the Ministry of Human Resource and Development. Once the 1st respondent permitted the said ?Educational Institution? to continue its function, this court has no hesitation to hold that the grievance of the petitioner is to be considered positively. Moreover, the counsel for the petitioner by producing the copy of the judgement passed in Calendar Case No. 11 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, by way of typed set of papers. It came of know that a full-fledged trial was conducted as against the petitioner for the allegation of producing bogus government letters. However, the petitioner was acquitted and no evidence is produced as to whether any appeal is preferred or not against the judgment of acquittal. So, in the consideration of this court, the judgement passed in the aforesaid calendar case has attained its finality. Since the judgement of acquittal is directly answered the charges made against the petitioner as if he is produced bogus certificate, this court considered it is a fit case to Quash the impugned order of dismissal. Moreover, it is the primary duty of the 1st respondent to ascertain the genuineness of the ?Educational Institution? as per law before the same started its function or permitted to start its function. Under the above discussion this court has no other opinion except to pass the following order.
13.In the result:
(a) this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 08.06.2012;
(b) the 3rd respondent is hereby directed to submit a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 for the approval of the appointment of the petitioner as a physical Education teacher from the date of his initial appointment dated 24.05.2010 and for all consequential benefits within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(c) the respondent 1 and 2 are hereby directed to consider the representation given by the 3rd respondent, the secretary, Hindu High School, Gopalapuram, Palayampatty Post, Virudhunagar District, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation sent by the 3rd respondent, by giving personal hearing to the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent and pass appropriate orders for approval of appointment and for all consequential benefits.
14.In view of the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.8790 of 2012, these Writ Petitions in WP.(MD)Nos.8155 of 2011 and 4165 of 2012 are closed.
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by The Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The Director of Teacher Education Research and Training, College Road, Chennai ? 600 006.
3.The Director of School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai ? 6.
4.The District Educational Officer, Aruppukottai ? Taluk, Virudhunagar ? District..