Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.The Learned Special Government Pleader drew our attention to various Government Orders and according to him, the Learned Single Judge did not properly consider and apply those Government Orders and if it was done, he would have come to the right conclusion that prior permission for conversion of post is required before making appointments even if the said Institution was a Minority Institution. The Learned Special Government Pleader, drew our attention to G.O.(Ms)No.79, School Education Department dated 14.06.2002, which ordered that from 2002-2003 academic year, whenever a vacancy arises in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher teaching classes 6 to 8, the post would be converted to that of Middle Grade Graduate Teacher in a phased manner and B.Ed., qualified teachers would be appointed in the Secondary Grade teacher scale but with one increment. Since there are two types of B.Ed., teachers, namely, one taking classes 9 and 10 and another taking classes 6 to 8, one with B.T. Scale and another with Secondary Grade scale, in order to avoid confusion, the Government passed G.O.(Ms).No.100, School Education dated 27.06.2003. It would state that B.Ed., graduates shall be appointed to teach classes 6 to 10 and that whenever vacancies arise in Secondary Grade post, it will be filled up with B.Ed., graduates in a phased manner and that they shall teach Maths, Science and English. Thus, the said Government Order envisaged three types of teachers, namely, Secondary Grade Teachers for classes 1 to 5, B.T. Assistant teachers for classes 6 to 8 and P.G. Assistant teachers for classes 11 and 12. They shall be appointed on consolidated pay with effect from 01.06.2003. The said Government Order created about twelve thousand posts and distributed it to various schools. Accordingly, vide G.O.(Ms).No.125, School Education dated 12.11.2003, Rules were issued. The candidates thereafter appointed on consolidated pay were brought to time scale of pay with effect from 01.06.2006. Thereafter, G.O.(Ms).No.244, School Education Department, dated 22.09.2007 was passed to the effect that B.T. Assistant (Tamil) posts are concerned, 2/3rd shall be promoted from the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and the rest 1/3rd shall be recruited by direct recruitment. Similarly, Secondary Grade teacher post teaching classes 6 to 8 converted to B.T. Assistant posts shall be filled up not only with Maths, Science and English subjects, but also other subjects. Thereafter, G.O.(Ms).No.144, School Education Department dated 04.07.2008 was passed extending G.O.(Ms).No.244 dated 22.09.2007 to aided schools also.

14.The Learned Special Government Pleader, relying upon the above said rule, contended that the Second Respondent Institution ought to have obtained prior approval before making appointment of the First Respondent in the converted post of B.T. Assistant.

15.Per contra, M.Joseph Thatheus Jerome, Learned Counsel for the First Respondent submits that for a Minority Educational Institution like that of the Second Respondent, there is no necessity to obtain prior permission from the concerned Statutory Authorities for conversion of the Secondary Grade post to B.T. Assistant post before making appointments to the B.T. Assistant post. According to the Learned Counsel, the First Respondent is well qualified to obtain appointment as B.T. Assistant (Social Science) with the Second Respondent Institution. The Learned Counsel further submits that the Appellants have not disputed the qualification and eligibility of the First Respondent to hold the said post in the Second Respondent Institution. The Appellants have rejected the proposal of the Second Respondent school to regularize the appointment of the First Respondent only on the ground that prior permission is required for conversion of the post prior to the appointment of the First Respondent in the Second Respondent Institution. Being a Minority Institution, and the First Respondent being otherwise well qualified and eligible to hold the post, the Appellant's rejection of the proposal submitted by the Second Respondent violates Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India, as the impugned proceedings dated 19.05.2014 and the consequential proceedings dated 21.09.2014 interferes with the smooth functioning of the Second Respondent Minority Institution.

?11.In view of the above consistent decision of this Court on the issue, we are of the view that the issue is no more res integra. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 1st respondents/teachers, approval has to be granted only from the date of appointment and not from a later date, namely, from the date on which permission for post conversion was granted.

12.Contention by the appellants that the returned proposals were not challenged by the management and hence it has to be treated as accepted and hence the teachers have no right to question the same cannot be accepted. It has to be seen that ultimately, it is the teachers who are affected. Therefore, even if the management has not taken up the cause, the aggrieved teacher has every reason to question the retuned proposals. The educational authorities ought to have considered that the very object of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Rules made thereunder are to protect the interests of the teachers and students. Therefore, right of the teacher cannot be said to be extinguished. Power of the educational authorities to issue directions to fill-up the posts on conversion cannot be questioned. At the same time, the schools should be given latitude to fill-up the required posts. If Maths and other subject teachers are already working in a school, the management should have the right to fill up the posts with other subjects, if there is a need for filling up the posts with the required subjects.?

21.The Learned Counsel for the First Respondent also relied upon the judgment dated 29.01.2014 in W.P.(MD)No.17562 of 2012, (S.Anthuvan Christi Raj Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu), rendered by one of us (M.VENUGOPAL, J.), to highlight the point that the date of approval of the conversion of post by the Appellants relates back to the date of appointment of the First Respondent in the Second Respondent Institution.

22.Admittedly, the Second Respondent Institution is a Recognized Minority Institution and therefore, Article 30 of the Constitution of India applies and they have a right to establish and administer Educational Institutions of their choice. The Appellants have also not disputed the eligibility of the First Respondent to hold the B.T. Assistant (Social Science) post in the Second Respondent Institution. The only bone of contention raised by the Appellants is that without prior permission for conversion of post from the Appellants, the Second Respondent Institution cannot make appointment of the First Respondent as B.T. Assistant (Social Science) in the Second Respondent Institution.