Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(g) The grievance of the petitioner is that in Scott Christian Higher Secondary School, Nagercoil, which is one of the schools established and administered by the Corporate Management, four secondary grade teacher posts fell vacant on 1.6.2005 on account of retirement/promotion of teachers previously working therein and taking note of the availability of teachers in the subjects, petitioner appointed four Middle Grade Graduate Teachers (Science). The said appointments are made due to the need for science teachers in the middle school sections of the school and when the proposals were submitted for approval before the 4th respondent, the same was returned by stating that as per the second respondent's proceeding dated 26.10.2004, the subject roaster should have been followed by the management viz., Maths, Science and English and the petitioner management having not followed the subject roaster, the proposal for approval are returned for which the petitioner management submitted a reply on 19.7.2006 before the 4th respondent and stated that taking note of the need of the School, the four middle grade graduate teachers (Science) were appointed to handle 12 sections of middle school as there are one graduate Maths teacher two graduate Social Science teachers and five secondary grade teachers handling English and Maths. However, the 4th respondent is not entertaining the request submitted by the petitioner Management and not approving the appointment of the said four middle grade graduate teachers (Science) appointed in Scott Christian Higher Secondary School, Nagercoil from 2.6.2005, 5.7.2005 and 6.7.2005 respectively. Since the appointments are not approved the petitioner is challenging the proceedings of the second respondent dated 26.10.2004 in which subject rotation is fixed by the second respondent.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the impugned circular of the Director is valid as the same are issued to follow the subject roaster and if the same is followed the Schools will have teachers for all subjects and the educational need of the school will be better served. The learned Counsel also argued that it is only a clarification issued by the second respondent and no amendment is issued to the Rules or Government Orders referred to earlier.

10. The Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant) Rules, 1977, which is applicable to the minority schools in the state of Tamil Nadu, namely Rule 8 also states that the qualification for appointment of teachers in Minority Schools shall be as specified in Annexure-III appended to the rules. Annexure-III prescribes similar qualification to various categories of teachers as stated in Annexure-V of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974.

11. As rightly argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, hitherto the concerned managements sent proposal for the conversion of posts and the second respondent used to grant permission to convert the post from one subject to the other needy subject. Learned Counsel also submitted that by proceeding Mu.Mu. No. 137700/W6/88 dated 8.2.1989, the second respondent at the request of the Management, granted permission to the St. Francis Higher Secondary School, Vavarai, Kanyakumari District, to convert the post of the PG Assistant (Geography) into PG Assistant (Commerce). Similarly, by proceeding Thi.Mu. No. 89903/W6/98 dated 16.3.1999, at the request made by the management of the St. Mary Higher Secondary School, Colachal, the second respondent granted permission to convert the post of PG Assistant (Zoology) into PG Assistant (Commerce). From the above proceedings it is clear that the need of the particular subject teacher in a School will be ascertained by the concerned management and if any conversion of post is required, the concerned management will submit a proposal based on the workload and the second respondent after verifying the same, used to grant permission. But, by the impugned circular, the second respondent has directed the management to fill up the vacant posts by subject roaster without ascertaining the real need of the school with regard to the subject teacher. Hence the impugned circular is unreasonable and based on no material. It may be true, for a new school, when posts are sanctioned, the second respondent is justified in giving a subject roaster to fill up the posts, but cannot insist the Schools, where teachers are already working in different subjects.

13. The impugned order is also in violation of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and Rules, wherein it is not stipulated anywhere that the particular school should follow the subject roaster. Even G.O.Ms.NO.125 dated 12.11.2003, which is governing the appointment of Middle Grade Graduate Teachers in standards 6 to 8, nowhere states that subject-wise roaster should be followed. In the absence of anything contained in the said Government Order, the second respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned circular and if at all subject roaster is to be followed by the management, it is the government who is competent to issue the subject roaster in accordance with Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973.