Madras High Court
P.Jeyamary vs The Secretary To Government Of Tamil ... on 21 December, 2018
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
1
BEFORE THE MADRAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.12.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD).No.18768 of 2014
P.Jeyamary .... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Fort. St.George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
Chennai – 6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Thoothukudi.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Thoothukudi.
5.The Correspondent,
Cadwell Higher Secondary School,
Thoothukudi.
6.The Manager,
High/Higher Secondary Schools,
CSI Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese,
Cadwell School Campus,
Thoothukudi. .... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India
for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
pertaining to the order passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.901/A2/14, dated 07.08.2014 and to quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to approve the petitioner’s
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
appointment as BT Assistant (History) in the 5th respondent school from
the petitioner’s date of appointment on 30.07.2010 and to pay all the
service and monetary benefits within stipulated time.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy for R1 to R4
Special Government Pleader
No appearance for R4 and R6
ORDER
The petitioner was appointed as a B.T Assistant (History) on 30.07.2010 by Caldwell Higher Secondary School, Tuticorin, represented by the fifth and the sixth respondent in place of one Mrs Vimala Princess Sundarabai, a Secondary Grade Teacher who retired on 31.5.2010 on attaining superannuation.
2.The fifth respondent therefore, applied for approval of the petitioner as a B.T Assistant (History) with the fourth respondent. As there was no response, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20261 of 2013 to direct the 4th respondent to dispose his representation.
3.Consequent to the aforesaid order, the impugned order was passed by the fourth respondent rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to be appointed as B.T Assistant (History) in the said school in place of Mrs.Vimala Princess Sundarabai on the ground that on her retirement her place was surplus.
4.In the impugned order, it has been observed by the fourth respondent that the petitioner cannot be appointed as B.T Assistant http://www.judis.nic.in 3 (History) in the said school as there were surplus teachers.
5.The impugned order further states that the fifth respondent herein was aware of the fact of the students' strength on 01.06.2010 and even if the post fell vacant due to retirement of Tmt.Vimala Princess Sunderabai on 31.05.2010, the petitioner has been deliberately appointed knowingly that the Secondary Grade Teacher that fell vacant from 01.06.2010 was rendered surplus.
6.It further states that the academic year ended 31.05.2010 and therefore the staff fixation for the said year cannot be applied for the succeeding academic year. It is under these circumstances the present writ petition has been filed.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the order dated 04.09.2013 passed in W.A. (MD) Nos.956 and 957 of 2013, wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that the government cannot deny approval of the appointment of the concerned teachers who were admittedly appointed prior to staff fixation. There the Court referred to an earlier decision in W.P.(MD).No.13244 of 2009 and yet another decision of this Court in W.P (MD) 14080 of 2010 wherein it has been held that staff fixation could not be given retrospective effect.
8.The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of this court in W.P.No.26395 of 2008, dated 14.2.2011 in the case of St.Joseph’s Higher Secondary School Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu wherein it was held that the legal principles are very clear that for giving effect to a http://www.judis.nic.in 4 particular order of the Government for a particular School year, it is not the whims and fancies of the respondents to interpret in a manner contrary to the Rules and Government Orders. Therefore, staff fixation cannot be given retrospective effect to an earlier date.
9.According to G.O.Ms.No.525, dated 29.12.1997, the staff fixation for every school year based on the student strength has to be done from 1st June to 31st July and it will take effect from 1st August of every year. The staff fixation whether for the academic year 2009-2010 or the academic year 2010-11 allows the absorption of the Petitioner as a B.T. Assistant (History) .
10.The respondents No.1-4 have resisted the petition and has stated that Mrs.Vimala Princess Sundarabai herself was a surplus teacher and therefore appointment in place of a surplus teacher who retired on 31.5.2010 based on the student ratio for the academic year 2010-2011 cannot be allowed.
11.It was submitted that the Secondary Grade Teacher post held by Tmt.Vimla Princess Sundarbai was rendered surplus from 01.06.2010 consequent of her retirement on 31.05.2010 and the post was no longer considered as eligible sanctioned post and hence the fourth and fifth respondent have no right to fill up the surplus post in the guise of their minority status.
12.It was submitted that the since fifth and sixth respondents have appointed the petitioner without approval and have to pay monthly http://www.judis.nic.in 5 salary from the funds of the management to the petitioner as long as they extract work from her. It is for the petitioner to claim her monthly salary from her employers i.e from fifth and sixth respondents instead of claiming from the 4th respondent.
13.It was submitted that the number of eligible posts fixed for the year 2009-2010 is valid for the period from 01.06.2009 to 31.05.2010 alone and since the post was rendered surplus from 01.06.2010, it should not be filed up prior to the re-fixation of staff strength for the year 2010-2011.
14.It was further submitted that since the post that fell vacant on 01.06.2010 and was rendered surplus from 01.06.2010, it was surrendered to the second respondent as vacant. A vacant post that was rendered surplus from 01.06.2010 could be considered only as vacant even after the teacher retired.
15.It was submitted that the management of the minority school has no right under minority status to upgrade a secondary grade teacher post as BT Teacher post.
16.Government authority alone has power to upgrade a sanctioned post as higher post. As per G.O.Ms. No.144, School Education dated 04.07.2008, permanent vacancy of secondary Grade Teacher post in 6, 7 and 8 standard alone can be upgraded by the third respondent in the required subject and the third respondent is not authorised to upgrade a surplus post as well as post in the incumbent.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
17.The question of filling up the post with BT Teacher would arise only if the vacancy after the upgrade existed. Hence the appointment of the petitioner was illegal.
18.Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1-4 submitted that as per the staff fixation dated 14.9.2010 signed on 5.10.2010, there was approval of only 11 post for the secondary grade teachers for the academic year 2010-11 and therefore the appointment of the petitioner cannot be approved in any event as the petitioner was a surplus teacher.
19.Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1-4 further submitted that the staff fixation fluctuates during each academic year depending upon the number of students admitted in an academic year and therefore even otherwise in view of the fall in the strength of the students during the academic year 2010-11, approval to the petitioner’s appointment cannot be granted.
20.Learned counsel further submitted that staff fixation is a non- binding for appointment of teachers in minority schools and referred to G.O (MS) No. 144 dated 4.7.2008 and G.O (MS) No. 1820 dated 24.11.1984.
21.The learned counsel submitted that even as per G.O (MS) No. 525 dated 29.12.1997, the petitioner could not claim approval. It was submitted that the ratio for determining the staff selection is 1:40 and that there were only 231 students in the school for the academic year 2009-2010.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7
22.The learned Special Government Pleader also referred to G.O. Ms.No.231 and therefore submits that the referred G.O.Ms. No.525 based on which earlier decision was passed is no longer relevant.
23.On the date of the appointment on 31.7.2010, though the new academic year 2010-2011 had started, only the previous years staff fixation was there. The staff fixation for the current academic year was signed only on 05.10.2010.
24.I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of either side. I have also considered the judgments cited during arguments. I have also perused relevant Government Orders, judgement rendered in the context of appointment of teachers in private schools.
25.The question that arises for consideration is whether, the petitioner could be appointed as against the staff fixation that was in force for the previous academic year or appointment on 31.07.2010 would be subject to approval for the current academic year at on 05.10.2010.
26.As per the decision of the division bench of this court in W.A (MD) Nos. 956 and 957 of 2013 staff fixation cannot be given retrospective effect.
27.The Power of authorities has been clearly set out in Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 and Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973.
28.It may be useful to refer to the history behind the issue of the GO.Ms. No.525 dated 29.12.1997 based on which the case arguments http://www.judis.nic.in 8 were advanced. The relevant portion of G.O.No.525 read thus:
“Taking note of the changes in teaching methodology, improved availability of teaching and learning materials, a reappraisal of the teacher pupils ratio has been made. Consultations educationalists were also held to obtain a clear picture of the norms that would be conducive for defective teaching: 5. In the light of discussions and deliberations held the Higher Lower Officials Norms Committee has suggested the following recommendations for sanction of posts in Schools.
I. Elementary Schools (Standards I to IV):
A. Teaching-pupil ration of 1: 40 will be followed. Minimum of 2 secondary grade teachers upto a strength of 80 will be sanctioned. In respect of new schools, first post will be created in the first year and second post in the second year. One of the two posts will be in the grade of Headmaster.
B. For every additional strength of 40, one post of secondary grade teacher will be sanctioned i.e., the third post at 100, the fourth post at 140, the fifth post at 180 and so on.
C. Regarding the bifurcation of a standard, additional sections will be created when the strength exceeds 60 and so on in slabs of 40. II. Middle Schools (Standards VI to VIII):
A. The teacher-pupil ratio of 1: 40 will be followed. The same norms suggested for elementary schools will be followed. One of the post will be in the grade of middle school Headmaster. B. When a Middle School in upgraded as High School, the post of Middle School Headmaster will be converted into High School Headmaster. In respect of Elementary School, one of Headmaster will be sanctioned as per existing orders.
III. High Schools (Standards IX & X):
A. The Teacher-Pupil ratio of 1: 40 will be followed. On this basis the following norms will be followed:
Average Attendance No. of Posts.
Upto 80 1. Headmaster and
2. B.T. Assistants.
A third post will be given when the strength exceeds 60 and additional sections will be permitted in the slab of 40. http://www.judis.nic.in 9 B. Eligibility for language teachers will be as follows:
Total of sections in No of Language Standards VI to X teacher post iii. 11 and above 3 C. When the strength in classes VI to X in High Schools exceeds 250, one post of Physical Education Teacher will be sanctioned and for every additional strength of 300, one additional post of physical education teacher will be sanctioned subject to a maximum of 3. IV. Higher secondary Schools : (11th & 12th Standards) : A. The norms will be a post Graduate Teachers for a Higher Secondary School with a minimum of two group as follows:
i. For 2 groups... 6 post Graduate Assistant
ii. For English ... 1 post Graduate Assistant
iii. For Tamil ... 1 post Graduate Assistant
B. Additional post of post Graduate Assistant will be sanctioned based on work-load i.e. 24 hours of teaching per week. C. Regarding bifurcation of a standard, additional section will be formed when the strength exceeds 60 and so on in the slab of 40 as in the case of High Schools.
D. For vocation stream, 2 posts of teachers (full time) will be sanctioned irrespective of the number of courses. E. The post graduate Assistant for languages in the main stream will handle the language classes of vocational stream students also.
F. For schools with a strength of over 400, one post of physical Director will be given by upgradation of existing post of physical Education Teacher.
(6) The Government have considered the recommendations of the High Power Official norms committee in details and have decided, to accept the revised norms mentioned in para 5 above into.
A. Third post will be given when the strength exceeds 60 and additional sections will be permitted in the slab of 40. B. Eligibility for language”
29.The entire history was summarised in W.A.No.1236 of 2001 between Govt of Tamilnadu and others Vs. St.Alosius Higher http://www.judis.nic.in 10 Secondary School, Madurai. It may be useful to reproduce few passages from the aforesaid judgment which read as under:-
0. Since 1980 number of new schools were established which made it difficult for Government to support these schools with grants particularly with its financial and budgetary constrains. While giving recognition to opening new schools/upgradation of the schools, they were informed that no State aid would be extended. Most of these Managements, after accepting recognition without aid, started filing Writ Petitions before the High Court claiming sanction of teaching grant for all the The Government OfTamilnadu vs St. Aloysius Higher Secondary ... on 23 December, 2010 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/524978/ 3 posts in their schools. In view of the pressure from the institutions for sanction of grants and number of Writ Petitions filed, Government studied the entire issue in depth with reference to availability of resources. In order to provide teaching grant to the schools opened up to 1987-88 and also to formulate revised norms, orders were issued in G.O.Ms.No. 340 Education dated 01.04.1992 which is superseded the earlier norms teacher pupil ratio at 50:1.
i. Not being satisfied with the new norms issued in G.O.Ms.No.340 Edn. dated 01.04.1992, certain institutions moved the High Court and obtained interim orders against the new norms. However, Government obtained interim stay from Supreme Court with the result that G.O.Ms.No.340 Edn. dated 01.04.1992 became applicable to all private aided schools.
ii. Fearing deployment of teachers who would be rendered surplus as per the new norms, Management of several aided schools represented to the Government to revise the norms issued in G.O.Ms.No.340 Edn. dated 01.04.1992. Government constituted a High Power Official Norms Committee in G.O.4(D) No.1, Education dated 16.08.1995 with the Secretary to Government, Education, Science and Technology Department and others to formulate and suggest the revised norms for sanction of teaching posts to aided schools. On the basis of the recommendations of High Power Official Norms Committee, G.O.Ms.No.525 School Education dated 29.12.1997 was issued fixing the staff strength that Elementary schools, High schools and Higher Secondary Schools with effect from 01.06.1998.
iii. After the constitution of High Power Official Norms Committee to suggest the norms for teacher pupil ratio for various kinds of educational institutions, the Director of School Education/Director of Elementary Education [Appellants 2 and 3] sent the impugned http://www.judis.nic.in 11 Circulars to all the Chief Educational Officers (CEO) and District Educational Officers (DEO) dated 25.04.1994 and 20.05.1994 respectively. The said Circulars requested the CEO/DEO and Inspector of Girls School to inform the Headmasters of the respective school not to fill up the vacancies arising out of resignation, death, voluntary resignation (both teaching and non- teaching vacancies) till the amended regulations were framed by the Government relating to the teacher pupil ratio. The said Circulars were in force from 01.06.1994 to 31.05.1995 and those Circulars were impugned in the Writ Petitions.
30.Aided schools challenged the said Circulars on the ground that the proceedings of the Appellants 2 and 3 in Na.Ka.No.54568/D2/94 dated 25.4.1994 and Na.Ka.No.7070/Tho.ka.J1/93 dated 20.05.1994 arbitrary, illegal and void and violative of Article 41, 45 and Article 21 and 30(2) of Constitution of India.
31.The learned single Judge held that by the imposition of the ban on filling up of vacancies of teachers violated the fundamental rights of the pupils to get education.
32.Learned single Judge held that when statute confers right of Management to get grant from the Government, it is not open to the Director of School Education to place embargo on the appointment of teachers resulting in denial of statutory right to provide educational institutions.
33.The learned single Judge quashed the impugned Circulars on the following grounds:-
i) Orders was passed in violation of the provisions of the Constitution of India providing free education up to middle class level.
http://www.judis.nic.in 12
ii) Orders are in violation of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act.
iii) Orders were issued by the Director of School Education, but the Government has not issued the said order When there are sanctioned posts of teachers, it is not open to the Director of School Education to issue a general instruction to the effect that even the sanctioned post should not be filled up till the Government takes the decision on the determination of teacher and pupil ratio.
34.Answering the issue, Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held that the Government has got the authority and legal right to maintain high standards in education and to enhance the quality of education. For achieving this object, the circulars dated 25.04.1994 and 20.05.1994 were issued for the limited extent of getting a report from the high powered committee constituted, interalia to evaluate the teacher – pupil ratio.
34.A Full Bench of this Court in Director of Elementary Education, Chennai and others vs. S.Vigila in 2006 (5) CTC 385 has held that the ratio of teacher depends upon the students strength and in each individual standard, an additional section is required to be created only when the students strength in the standards become 60 or more. In Paragraph No. 23 of the said Judgment, it is held thus:-
"23. Keeping in view the various relevant aspects, we feel that G.O.Ms.No.525, dated 29.12.1997 should be interpreted in the following manner:
(1) The ratio of students-teacher strength as indicated in the G.O. should be primarily considered by taking each individual standard/section as a unit.
(2) The minimum strength of teachers required obviously should not fall below the number of Standards/Section in a school. In other words, if http://www.judis.nic.in 13 there are five standards, obviously the minimum number of teachers should be five, out of which one would be the Headmaster. (3) If the students' strength in a particular Standard exceeds 60, at that stage, an additional section is required to be created requiring the sanction of a second teacher and the strength reaches 100, the post of a third teacher is required.
(4) Even after maintaining the aforesaid ratio by taking into account the students' strength of each individual standard and additional section, as the case may be, by keeping in view the teacher-students ratio 1:40 of the entire school if the teachers strength is required to be increased, the same has to be allowed, but in no case, the teachers' strength should be less than the number of standards including the additional sections. If more teachers are thus sanctioned keeping in view the over all strength of the school, the authorities of the school should create additional section in respect of any particular Standard according to the need and convenience keeping in view the standard of education. This requirement is not only in respect of Aided Schools or Government Schools, but also in respect of any Private Recognized School. In other words, this ratio is to be maintained for any school which required recognition.
(5) It would be obviously open to the Government to formulate appropriate norms in consonance with the above observation and provisions of the Constitution."
36.Thus, the Government can formulate appropriate norms for fixing the teacher-student ratio of 1:40.
37.G.O.No.109 has declared that G.O.525 is made applicable to Elementary, Middle, Higher Secondary schools and all kinds of managements i.e., including schools under Public management.
38.The conditions of service and payment of salaries to teachers in private schools are governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974. It prescribes qualifications, conditions of service for teachers. http://www.judis.nic.in 14
39.Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant), 1977 contemplates approval for appointment of teachers is mandatory before receiving any grant and therefore, minority institutions cannot demand release of grant even before the approval is granted for appointment of teachers by the competent authorities.
40.Rule 6(2) states that payment of monthly grant shall be made only in respect of qualified and admissible teachers actually employed in minority schools whose appointments have been approved by the concerned authorities according to the number of posts sanctioned to the institutions concerned.
41.Rule 8 deals with qualification for appointment of teachers in minority schools as specified in Annexure III appended to these rules. As per Explanation (3) to Annexure III, the Director of School Education shall be the authority competent to evaluate and accept other qualification for the purpose of appointments.
42.As per Rule 15 of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974 ,Minority institutions and private schools have to get prior permission for filling up vacancies. Payment of grant shall be made only in respect of qualified and admissible teachers actually employed in minority schools whose appointments have been approved by the concerned authorities.
43.In Kolawana Gram Vikas Kendra v. State of Gujarat and others] (2010) 1 SCC 133, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held http://www.judis.nic.in 15 that Circular dated 06.10.1988 issued by the State of Gujarat will not give effect to any appointment in teaching and non-teaching posts without prior approval from the State Government or the competent authority. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 7 observed 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.
44.The State has an obligation to ensure that the benefit of quality teaching reaches all children for all subjects, namely Tamil, English, Mathematics, Science and Social studies. The children studying in Std. VI to VIII are expected to be provided quality teaching by B.Ed. Graduate teachers in all subjects in a wholesome manner to ensure that the children attain educational excellance to keep in step with others in the State. Hence keeping this in view the Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 144, School Education, dated 4.7.2008 fixing the subject roster for appointment of B.Ed. Teachers in standards VI to X, treating it as one unit.
45.Staff fixation is arrived based on strength of the students in an academic year and since Schools in the private sector are dependent on government grant, they have an onerous task to appoint teachers http://www.judis.nic.in 16 based on the norms and based on the requirement. Based on the details furnished the authorities accord approval and arrive at the staff fixation.
46.Pursuant to amendment to the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, G.O.Ms.No.125, School Education, dated 12.11.2003 was issued. Therefore, B.Ed. Teachers were appointed for std. VI to X after 1.6.2003 in Middle school, High school and Higher secondary schools under all types of management in the subjects Mathematics, Science and English.
48.Pursuant G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 27.06.2003, G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 12.11.2003 and G.O.Ms.No.144 dated 4.07.2008, only B.Ed. Teachers should be appointed for Standards. VI, VII and VIII in all types of Middle schools, High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools.
49.As there was confusion as to whether the petitioner’s appointment was as against the surplus vacancy or not, the learned Counsel for education department was asked to furnish the details.
50.The vacancy position in the staff fixation during the respective academic year for 6th to 8th standard for comparison are as follows:-
For the academic year For the academic year
2009-2010 2010-2011
9-1 (surplus) + 10 (8+2) + (1 surplus)
2
11-1 (surplus) 10 + (1 surplus)
10 10 +(1 surplus)
http://www.judis.nic.in
17
51.For the academic year 2009-2010, the staff fixation dated 10.11.2009, 6th to 10th standard were considered together as a block along with 9th and 10th standard and therefore post of one History Teacher for 9th and 10th standard was considered as surplus and surrendered.
52.Therefore, position of Mrs.Vimala Princess Sundarabai cannot be held to be excess as per staff fixation dated 10.11.2009. Though the petitioner was appointed in place of Mrs.Vimala Princess Sundarabai, question of the petitioner being appointed against surplus post surrendered during the previous academic year may not arise. Appointment should be considered based on the actual requirement for the current academic year namely 2010-11 and the norms.
53.The appointment has to not only satisfy the norms but also the actual requirement of the school for the teacher in the relevant discipline of history.
54.It is unlikely, the Mrs.Vimala Princess Sundarabai was herself a surplus teacher as observed above.
55.The real issue therefore is whether the school had a teacher to teach the students the discipline of history after Mrs.Vimala Princess Sundarabai retired.
56.If there was already a teacher to teach history in middle school, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be approved unless there was a vacancy as per the norms.
57.If not, appointment of the petitioner cannot be questioned http://www.judis.nic.in 18 though it would have impacted the continuance of other teachers in excess of the norms.
58.Either way, the management has to deal with the salary and allowance arising out of the appointment made in excess. However, this requires a detailed consideration on facts.
59.Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be partly allowed by way of remand before the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent shall call for the records from the 5th and the 6th respondent and examine whether the said school had indeed exceeded the norm as per G.O.Ms.No.525, dated 29.12.1997 or not.
60.If the said school had exceeded the norm, the 4 th respondent shall see whether the school had a teacher to teach the discipline of history to the students in the middle school after Mrs.Vimala Princess Sundarabai retired in whose place the petitioner was appointed.
61.If the school had indeed appointed the petitioner despite availability of history teacher, it is for the management to pay the salary to the petitioner.
62.If on the other hand, if the school did not have a history teacher other than the petitioner for teaching the middle school students, the 4th respondent shall approve the appointment of the petitioner and order payment of salary together with arrears.
63.If such approval results in excess of the norms, the 4 th respondent shall recover the amount from the management of the said http://www.judis.nic.in 19 school by way of adjudgment in which case, it is for the school to absorb such deduction from its funds.
64.Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.901/A2/14, dated 07.08.2014 is quashed and the case is remanded back to the 4th respondent.
65.The 4th Respondent shall pass a speeking order within a period of 6 weeks from the date of communication of this order after hearing the petitioner, 5th and 6th respondents. No costs.
21.12.2018
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
TM
http://www.judis.nic.in
20
C.SARAVANAN,J.
TM
To:
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Fort. St.George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
Chennai – 6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Thoothukudi.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Thoothukudi.
W.P.(MD).No.18768 of 2014
21.12.2018
http://www.judis.nic.in