Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 1291
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HULUVADI G.RAMESH and RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, JJ.
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and others – Appellants
Versus
K.Mathukumar and others – Respondents
W.A.No.1394 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014
Decided On : 13-06-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. T.N. Rajagopalan, Special Government Pleader
For the Respondent: Mr. K.Vasudevan, Mr. S.Silambanan, Senior Counsel, for M/s. Kaavya Silambannan Associates, Mr. S.Parthasarathy
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School Act, 1973 – Section 19 – Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School (Regulation) Rule 1974 – Rule 15 – Writ of Certiorari fied Mandamus – Calling for records – Respondent herein/writ petitioner has filed for a writ of Certiorari fied Mandamus calling for records relating to proceedings second respondent in writ petition Director of School Education and quash same and further direct respondents to approve post of P.G. Assistant – Writ petitioner was qualified and was appointed by second respondent District as Postgraduate Assistant assurance that post will be sanctioned and he was continued to work and teach Economics – Wit petitioner Government sanctioned five posts of P.G. Assistants with effect Government sanctioned three post said School – Held, Management of School Committee and as well as salary is being paid from self financial appointment by School Committee – State Government cannot be directed to upgrade and sanction a post that too retrospectively from appointment and said relief cannot be granted of factual position as mentioned in preceding paragraphs admittedly forwarding of proposal – Management have taken a decision based upon factual position on students strength who were opting for Economics subject both School Management as well as Director of School Education have come to conclusion that the post of Post Graduate is not necessary and both on law and facts direction issued by learned Single Judge is not sustainable and same is liable to be set aside – Writ Appeal is allowed.
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
Challenging the correctness of the order dated 14.02.2014 made in W.P.No.23260 of 2011, the State has preferred this appeal.
2. The first respondent herein/writ petitioner has filed the above W.P.No.23260 of 2011 for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.18132/W5/E1/2008 dated 07.06.2011 passed by the second respondent in the writ petition viz., Director of School Education, DPI Compound, Nungambakkam, Chennai, and quash the same and further direct the respondents to approve the post of P.G. Assistant (Economics), in M.M. Higher Secondary School, Bethelpuram, Kanyakumari District, with all backwages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.
3. The factual matrix of the case, which has a chequered history, are as follows:-
The writ petitioner was qualified M.A. in Economics and M.Ed. Degree and was appointed by the second respondent herein viz., M.M. Higher Secondary School, Bethelpuram, Kanyakumari District as Postgraduate Assistant on 01.06.1988, on the assurance that the post will be sanctioned and he was continued to work and teach Economics. According to the writ petitioner, in the year 1992, the Government sanctioned five posts of P.G. Assistants with effect from 01.06.1991 and in the year 2001, the Government sanctioned three posts to the said School. Though the School was bound to send the writ petitioner's name for approval, his name was not sent and hence, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.18900 of 2001 seeking for a direction to the Director of School Education to approve the writ petitioner's post and pay all the arrears of salary from 1988 onwards till the date of approval of the post and that the writ petition was allowed by an order dated 29.09.2004. Against which, both the School Management as well as the Government has preferred writ appeals in W.A.Nos.3776 of 2004 and 593 of 2005 respectively, in which, by an order dated 12.12.2006, at paragraph Nos.8, 9 and 12, a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:-
"8. Admittedly the post of PG Assistant for the subject Economics against which the writ petitioner was appointed has not been sanctioned by the State Government. There is nothing on record to suggest that the service of the writ petitioner was also approved by the authorities of the State. It appears that the State Government earlier sanctioned five posts of PG Assistant for five different subjects by G.O.Ms.No.552, Education Department, dated 11.1.92 with effect from 1.6.91, namely :-
| 1. | Tamil | 1 post |
| 2. | History | 1 post |
| 3. | Political Science | 1 post |
| 4. | Botany | 1 post |
| 5. | Zoology | 1 post |
Subsequently, vide proceedings Na.Ka.No.95192/W6/2000, dated 13.9.2001, three more posts of PG Assistants for three different subjects were sanctioned, namely:-
| 1. | P.G. Assistant in English | 1 post from 4.6.2001 |
| 2. | P.G. Assistant in Physics | 1 post from 4.6.2001 |
| 3. | P.G. Assistant in Mathematics | 1 post from 4.6.2001 |
9. It is settled law that if a person has been appointed against a post not sanctioned by the State Government, he cannot claim salary against such unsanctioned post. There is nothing on record to suggest that the post of PG Assistant (Economics) was required to be sanctioned for the school, in absence of which the teaching in the school would have been affected. In absence of such averment and other details, according to us, no relief could have been granted in the manner granted by the learned single judge and in the manner as was sought for by the writ petitioner. If the petitioner was appointed against a post created by the school management, but not sanctioned by the State Government, the petitioner, at best, could claim for wages from the school management, which was paid to him at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month for taking class
