Government cannot refuse sanction on the ground of want of fund.

(This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide Na.Ka.No.71738/D1(1)/2002, culminating in his order dated 27.4.2005, quash the same and direct the second respondent to sanction the petitioner's post as B.T.Assistant in the 5th respondent school, with effect from 2.7.1993.)

By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order of the second respondent dated 27.4.2005 and direct the second respondent to sanction the petitioner's post as B.T.Assistant in the 5th respondent School with effect from 2.7.1993.

3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows.

(a) Petitioner was appointed as B.T.Assistant in the 5th respondent School from 2.7.1993, which is an Aided Minority School. Petitioner passed M.A. and B.Ed degrees. Petitioner is fully qualified to hold the post of B.T. Assistant as per Annexure V of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Rules, 1974, and the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grants) Rules, 1977. The staff grant and maintenance grant of the 5th respondent School is fully paid by the Government and the sanction of post in the 5th respondent School is governed by the norms issued by the Government from time to time. According to the affidavit, in the 5th respondent school, one Headmaster, one Tamil Pandit, two B.T. Assistants, 7 Secondary Grade Teachers, one Physical Education Teacher and 2 office assistants posts are sanctioned.

(b) Petitioner states that she was appointed in the 5th respondent school on account of the requirement of additional post of B.T. Assistant due to the increase in students strength. According to the petitioner, the appointment was intimated to the respondents 2, 3 and 4 by the 5th respondent through their periodical statement regarding the strength of staff. The 5th respondent school is entitled to get additional sanction of one B.T. Assistant post as per the Teacher-Pupils ratio norms prescribed by the first respondent. The 5th respondent School repeatedly approached the 2nd and 4th respondents for additional sanction of posts so as to claim salary of the petitioner. Since no response was forthcoming from the 4th respondent, the 5th respondent sent a representation on 22.11.2000 and requested the second respondent to sanction the B.T.Assistant post and two secondary grade teachers posts. In the said representation, the 5th respondent stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.525 School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997, the 5th respondent school is eligible to be sanctioned additional B.T.Assistant and two secondary grade posts. The said Government Order prescribed the ratio of 40 students for one teacher.

(c) According to the petitioner, she is working in the 5th respondent school without salary from 1993 and she is married and having two children. Petitioner averred in the affidavit that a legal notice was issued on 4.2.2002 to the 2nd and 4th respondents requesting them to approve the appointment of petitioner as B.T. Assistant in the 5th respondent School and in spite of issuance of counsel notice, no steps having been taken, petitioner filed W.P.No.16044 of 2002 before this Court and prayed for a direction to the second respondent to sanction one B.T. Assistant post in the 5th respondent School on the basis of the representation of the 5th respondent dated 22.11.2000 so as to enable the petitioner to get her post approved and get salary. This Court by order dated 8.5.2002 directed the second respondent to consider the representation of the management dated 22.11.2000 on merits and pass orders within a period of six weeks.

(d) According to the petitioner, when the proposal was under active consideration of the second respondent, 6th respondent prevented the petitioner from r