Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 2303
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
V. Sakthivel Pandian - Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 3761 of 2014
Decided On : 24-06-2022
For the Petitioner:C. Johnson, Advocate. For the Respondents: M. Bindran, Addl. Government Pleader.
An illegality or irregularity cannot be a ground to claim equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Approval of Appointment - Vocational Instructor - G.O.Ms.No.35, G.O.Ms.No.46, G.O.Ms.No.69 - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking retrospective regularization of services as a Vocational Instructor. The petitioner's appointment was approved based on G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 09.02.2007, and the court held that the benefit of approval of appointment cannot be granted retrospectively after such a long period. The court relied on legal principles from various judgments to emphasize that an illegality or irregularity cannot be a ground to claim equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought retrospective regularization of services as a Vocational Instructor, claiming that he was fully qualified for the position at the time of his appointment. His appointment was eventually approved based on a government order issued in 2007.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the benefit of approval of appointment cannot be granted retrospectively after such a long period.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's appointment as a Vocational Instructor could be retrospectively regularized, considering his qualifications and the approval granted based on a government order issued in 2007.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles from various judgments to emphasize that an illegality or irregularity cannot be a ground to claim equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It highlighted that the benefit of approval of appointment cannot be granted retrospectively after a significant period of time.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the benefit of approval of appointment cannot be granted retrospectively after such a long period.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the 1st respondent culminated in order made in Letter No.21806/VE/2011-1 dated 26.10.2012 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to sanction and approve the petitioner's post as Vocational Instructor/Teacher Grade-II from 18.08.1997 to 07.07.2004 and thereafter as Grade-I from 08.07.2004 to 08.09.2007 and to accord all attendant service benefits including service seniority, salary and other allowances as accorded to other Vocational Instructors/Teachers.)
1. The order dated 26.10.2012 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for retrospective regularization of his services in the post of Vocational Instructor is challenged in the present writ petition. Further direction is sought for to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the post of Vocational Instructor with effect from 18.08.1997 to 07.07.2004 and thereafter as Teacher Grade-I from 07.07.2004 to 08.09.2007 and accord all attendant and service benefits including service seniority, salary and other allowances.
2. The writ petitioner was appointed as part-time Vocational Instructor/Teacher on 02.12.1996 at Sri.M.Ct.M. Higher Secondary School. The petitioner states that he passed Higher Secondary course and B.Sc., (Computer Science) through regular pattern and further completed Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application, M.Sc., (Computer Science) and B.Ed., degree. Thus, the petitioner states that he is fully qualified to the post of Vocational Instructor/Teacher even on the date of his appointment.
3. The petitioner was allowed to continue in the post of Vocational Instructor and he was discharging his duties. However, his appointment was not approved by the competent authorities of the Education Department. Several such Vocational Instructors were appointed by many schools and the issue was taken up for consideration by the Government and as far as the petitioner herein is concerned, his appointment was approved and he was brought under the regular establishment in a sanctioned post of Vocational Instructor, pursuant to the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.35, School Education Department, dated 09.02.2007. From the said date, the petitioner is working as a regular Vocational Instructor.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that many other similarly placed persons were granted with the benefit of retrospective regularization in other Government Orders and the petitioner, even on the day of his appointment, was fully qualified to hold the post of a Vocational Instructor. Thus, the petitioner is also entitled to be regularized with retrospective effect, along with all attendant benefits.
5. The writ petitioner made several representations and none of the representations were considered taking note of the fact that other similarly placed persons were granted such similar benefits. Even the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 12.09.2006 granting the benefit of approval of appointment to a set of Vocational Instructors.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that when many other similar cases were considered by the respondents, the case of the writ petitioner was not considered for grant of retrospective approval of appointment with all attendant benefits and the writ petitioner earlier filed writ petitions in W.P.No.20641 of 2008 and thereafter, in W.P.No.10545 of 2011 and inspite of that, the case of the writ petitioner was not considered.
7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents opposed the said contention by stating that the petitioner was initially appointed as a part-time Vocational Instructor in a minority aided school. However, the cases of such persons who were appointed by the private schools were taken by the Government and an order was passed for approving the appointment of those Teachers as special cases. Therefore, th
