Appointments made in contravention of statutory provisions are void ab initio and cannot be regularised. The court emphasized the importance of following prescribed procedures under the rules for appointments.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, to review the order passed in W.A(MD)No.960 of 2011 dated 23.08.2013 and allow the present review application.)

R. Subramanian, J.

1. The petitioner seeks review of the order of the Division Bench made in W.A(MD)No.960 of 2011 dated 23.08.2013 on the sole ground that the Division Bench exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the 2nd appellant/5th respondent herein, to be treated as a Secondary Grade Teacher from 01.06.1998.

2. The brief facts that led to the filing of the review are as follows:-

The petitioner in this review application was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4th respondent school on 20.04.1990. There arose a vacancy for the post of Headmaster in the said school on 01.06.1998. Disregarding the provisions of Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, 1974, the 5th respondent was appointed as a Headmaster by direct recruitment on 01.06.1998. The 4th respondent school sought for approval of the appointment of the 5th respondent as a Headmaster. The authorities rejected the claim for approval on 10.09.1999. An appeal filed before the appellate authority challenging the order of rejection also, came to be dismissed on 10.02.2000. A further appeal was field to the Government by the 4th respondent school. The same was rejected by the Government on 19.07.2001.

2.1. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.155, School Education Department, dated 03.10.2002, making it clear that recruitment of Graduate Teachers as Secondary Grade Teachers after 19.05.1998 would not be approved. The respondents 4 and 5 jointly filed a writ petition in W.P.No.9823 of 2001 challenging the order dated 30.04.2001 of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Srivilliputhur, placing one Baby @ Umayal Parvathy as Headmistress(in-charge) of the 4th respondent school. Though initially a stay was granted, the stay order was vacated on 05.03.2002. Despite vacation of the stay order, the 5th respondent continued to work as a Headmaster. The petitioner herein filed a contempt petition in Cont.P.No.638 of 2002. In the said contempt petition, the 5th respondent filed a counter stating that he had not been working as a Headmaster after vacation of the interim orders on 05.03.2002.

2.2. While things stood thus, the 5th respondent filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.1907 of 2005 seeking a direction to consider his representation. This Court issued a direction requiring the respondent to consider the representation of the 5th respondent to regularise his appointment as Headmaster in terms of G.O.Ms.No.34, Education Department, dated 17.03.2003 within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The 5th respondent subsequently filed W.P.M.P(MD)No.1609 of 2006 in W.P(MD)No.1907 of 2005, seeking a modification of the order of this Court directing the respondents to consider his claim also in terms of G.O.Ms.Nos.4 and 163, Education Department, dated 19.02.2004 and 07.12.2004 respectively. This Court, by order dated 28.03.2006, granted the prayer for modification.

2.3. Thereafter, the competent authority namely, the Government by order dated 17.10.2008, granted approval to the appointment of the 5th respondent with effect from 01.06.1998. It, however, directed that the 5th respondent will receive a salary of a Secondary Grade Teacher for the first 5 years and thereafter he would be entitled to the salary of a Headmaster. This order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.10248 of 2008.

2.4. The main grounds of challenge were that the 5th respondent was not qualified and there is a violation of Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, 1974. The said writ petition came to be allowed by this Court on 12.08.2011 on the ground that the appointment of the 5th respondent itself was irregular and therefore, the approval granted is also irre