Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 1723
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
P. Freddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 27046 to 27052 of 2008 & M.P. Nos. 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 & 2 of 2008
Decided on : 05-10-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mahalakshmi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: C. Selvaraj, Adv
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 – Terminating of services – Reappointing - Regularization - Petitioners sought and were appointed as fully qualified vocational Instructors - On account of delay in according approval to these appointments, several vocational Instructors had filed before Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) challenging non-grant of approval by State to their appointments - Tribunal, by order held that the proper basis for regularization should be date of their appointments as instructors - Whether petitioners can be permitted to take benefit notwithstanding that same was set aside by Tribunal – Held, it is not in dispute that petitioners hold requisite qualifications as vocational instructors. Furthermore, Division Bench of this Court by its decision has also categorically stated that those double part-time instructors regularized shall continue to enjoy the status that they had required including emoluments as per their original dates of regularization - As a consequence, petitioners must be entitled to benefits sought for by them, not just notionally but actually, and from dates of their respective appointments - These writ petitions are allowed, Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd Respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.5046/VI/E1/2003-02 dated 22.5.2007 and the consequential order of the 6th Respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.23204/01/E3/2007 dated 26.3.2008 and quash the same in so far as it relates to granting the Petitioner only notional fixation of pay for the period from 28.09.1994 to 08.07.2004 and consequently direct the respondents to pay part-time salary to the Petitioner from the date of his appointment and payment of B.T. Scale to the Petitioner from 23.09.1994 as Vocational Instructor at the 5th Respondent School.)
1. The seven petitioners before me challenge proceedings dated 22.05.2007 passed by the Joint Director of School Education/R2 and consequential order of the 6th respondent i.e. Director of School Education/R6 insofar as they have been granted only notional fixation of pay for the period from 28.09.1994 to 08.07.2004 without actual consequential benefit thereof. They seek a direction to the respondents to pay part time salary to the petitioners from the date of their appointment and payment of B.T. scale to the petitioners from 23.09.1994 as vocational instructors in the St. Aloysins Higher Secondary School/R5.
2. G.O.Ms.No.1719 dated 14.09.1978 had been issued by the State/R1 setting out qualifications for appointments of vocational instructors in Government Higher Secondary Schools. Vide G.O.Ms.No.974 Education Department, dated 23.09.1985, R5 School had been sanctioned two posts of part-time vocational teacher on permanent basis. G.O.Ms.No.712, Education, dated 28.05.1990 had thereafter been issued under which 800 fully qualified double part time vocational instructors, including the seven petitioners before me were appointed under regular scale of pay. G.O.Ms.No.967, Education, dated 16.10.1992 brought 587 fully qualified double part time vocational instructors into regular scales of pay.
3. The petitioners sought and were appointed as fully qualified vocational Instructors on 17.07.1989 (WP.No.27046 of 2008), 28.07.1986 (WP.No.27047 of 2008), 04.08.1986 (WP.No.27048 of 2008), 31.10.1988 (WP.No.27049 of 2008), 21.07.1986 (WP.No.27050 of 2008), 26.10.1988 (WP.No.27051 of 2008) and 22.07.1989 (WP.No.27052 of 2008). Admittedly, the petitioners have all been appointed prior to July 1989.
4. Sanction was however accorded to the petitioners only subsequently on various dates i.e. 02.09.1993 (WP.Nos.27046, 27047, 27048, 27050 & 27051 of 2008) and 10.08.1993 (WP.Nos.27049 & 27052 of 2008), with retrospective effect from 17.07.1989 (WP.No.27046 of 2008), 28.07.1986 (WP.No.27047 of 2008), 04.08.1986 (WP.No.27048 of 2008), 31.10.1988 (WP.No.27049 of 2008), 21.07.1986 (WP.No.27050 of 2008), 22.07.1989 (WP.No.27051 of 2008), 10.08.1993 (WP.No.27052 of 2008) as single part time vocational instructor. Notwithstanding the retrospective sanction accorded to the petitioners’ appointments, there was no approval granted by the Department.
5. On account of the delay in according approval to these appointments, several vocational Instructors had filed O.A.No.3280 of 1982 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) challenging the non-grant of approval by the State to their appointments. The Tribunal, by order dated 18.06.1993 held that the proper basis for regularisation should be the date of their appointments as instructors, notwithstanding whether a single part-time instructor had been converted to double part-time instructor, or whether the candidate had been appointed as a double part-time instructor even to begin with. The Government was directed to re-visit the policy, giving due regard to seniority. In the meanwhile orders passed in G.O.Nos.712 and 967 stood suspended.
6. G.O.Ms.No.712 and 967 came to be set aside and thus all appointments under G.O.712 and 967 were treated as part-time inst
