Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 2374
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
The Secretary, Maipparai High School, Tirunelveli - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Chennai and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (MD) No. 12639 of 2016 and W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 9554 and 9555 of 2016
Decided On : 20-07-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Isac Mohanlal, Mr. T. Chakraborthy
For the Respondents: Mr. N.S. Karthikeyan
The judgment emphasized the principles of equity and non-discrimination, highlighting the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the context of the teacher's appointment dispute.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Appointment Dispute - Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 - Rules 1974 - G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 14.06.2002 - O.S.No.64 of 2010 - W.P.(MD)No.5325 of 2014 - W.P. No. 19631 of 2011 - Sakthirani vs. Secretary Bar Counsel of Tamil Nadu reported in 2014 4 MLJ 849 - R.Thirunavukarasu and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2012 5 CTC 129 - Article 14 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner school sought approval for the appointment of a teacher, which was initially granted but later rejected based on a judgment disqualifying individuals with a dual degree. The teacher had been working for over six years without salary due to the approval delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of approval based on a subsequent judgment amounted to discrimination and violated the principles of equity, especially considering the teacher's long service without salary.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the teacher's appointment in light of a subsequent judgment disqualifying individuals with a dual degree, and the delay in approval despite the teacher's long service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of approval based on a subsequent judgment, when several similar appointments were approved before the judgment, amounted to discrimination and violated the principles of equity.
Final Decision: The Writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed. The respondents were directed to approve the appointment of the teacher with all attendant benefits and arrears of salary.
The above Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned proceedings of the fifth respondent, dated 14.01.2016 and the order of the third respondent, dated 29.04.2016, confirming the order of fifth respondent. The Writ Petition is also filed for issuing a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of one Tmt.P.Meena, B.T. Assistant (English) in the petitioner school with effect from 08.03.2010.
2. The brief facts that are necessary for the purpose of disposal of the above Writ Petition are as follows:
2.1. The petitioner school is a Government aided private school. The school is offering education from standards 1 to 10 and the medium of instruction is Tamil. One post of Secondary Grade Teacher fell vacant in the petitioner school on 01.07.2009 due to retirement of the then incumbent on 30.06.2009. In order to get prior permission for filling up of the said Secondary Grade with B.T. Assistant in English under BC category, (as the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 14.06.2002 to fill up Secondary Grade Post with Graduate Teacher) the petitioner school submitted a proposal, dated 27.07.2009 to the fourth respondent. The fifth respondent granted permission for the same by order dated 16.09.2009.
2.2. Thereafter the school committee, after inviting application from the District Employment Exchange and after an advertisement in newspaper, conducted an interview by calling the candidates who have applied. Since, no one was found suitable, the petitioner school issued a notification afresh in the newspaper viz., “Dinamalar” on 04.02.2010, inviting candidates to fill up the said post under BC category. After an overall assessment of the merits and ability etc., the school committee selected one Tmt.P.Meena, for the said post and gave appointment to her, by resolution dated 08.03.2010. The teacher also joined in the petitioner school on 08.03.2010 and she is working ever since she joined in the school.
2.3. The petitioner school submitted proposal to the fifth respondent on 09.03.2010 seeking approval for the appointment of Tmt.P.Meena, with effect from 08.03.2010. This application was returned originally, seeking for some particulars and details, by communication dated 24.03.2010 and the petitioner school submitted the particulars regarding the constitution of school committee and the decision of the school committee, which was in consonance with the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Rules 1974 framed thereunder.
3. By proceedings dated 30.04.2010, the fifth respondent returned the proposal stating that the approval could be granted only after the disposal of suit in O.S.No.64 of 2010. Thereafter, there was an election in the educational agency of the petitioner school for the period 2011-2014 and the new Office bearers assumed their office and new school committee was also formed. The District Registrar of Society registered Form-VII submitted by the society and the fifth respondent approved the newly formed committee as well as Secretary-ship of the school by proceedings dated 01.06.2011.
4. Once again the petitioner school re-submitted the proposal to the fifth respondent on 22.06.2011 requesting the fifth respondent to approve the appointment of Tmt.P.Meena as B.T. Assistant (English) with effect from 08.03.2010. Unfortunately the fifth respondent once again cited the pendency of suit in O.S.No.64 of 2010 and held that the proposal could be accorded only after the final verdict in the suit in O.S.No.64 of 2010. Thereafter the concerned teacher filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.5325 of 2014 before this Court, seeking a direction to the respondent to approve her appointment as B.T. Assistant (English) with effect from 08.03.2010. It is alleged that the fifth respondent assured the said teacher to withdraw the Writ Petition in order to grant approval to her appointment. It is stated that the said teacher w
