Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J. NISHA BANU, J.
Pon Krishnamurthy & Others - Appellants
Versus
The Director of Elementary Education DPI Campus, Chennai & Others - Respondents
W.P.Nos. 12886 & 17597 of 2009 W.P.No. 20123 of 2010
Decided On : 28-03-2023
Appointment - Primary School Headmaster - Tamil Nadu (Recognised) Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973 - G.O.Ms.No.237 School Education Department dated 05.09.2000 - W.P.Nos.12866 of 2009 and 17597 of 2009 - W.P.No.20123 of 2010
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings of the 2nd and 1st respondents and to approve their appointments as Head Master in the 4th respondent school. The appointments were challenged due to non-compliance with the ratio stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.237 and the subsequent cancellation of appointments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of Ashwath Begum as Headmistress was approved following the Government Orders, and the show cause notice issued to Pon Krishnamurthy was deemed futile due to the passage of time. The court allowed W.P.No.20123 of 2010 and W.P.No.17597 of 2009, and dismissed W.P.No.12886 of 2009.
Issues: The issues revolved around the compliance with the appointment ratio, the cancellation of appointments, and the approval of Ashwath Begum's appointment as Headmistress.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the approval of Ashwath Begum's appointment as Headmistress was in compliance with the Government Orders, and the show cause notice issued to Pon Krishnamurthy was deemed futile due to the passage of time.
Final Decision: W.P.No.20123 of 2010 and W.P.No.17597 of 2009 were allowed, and W.P.No.12886 of 2009 was dismissed. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, order in the nature of writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the proceedings of the 2nd respondent made in Na.Ka.No.2969/E3/09 dt 05.06.2009 and quash the same, consequently direct the 4th respondent herein to appoint the petitioner as Head Master in the 4th respondent school.
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction, order in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the proceedings of the 1st respondent made in Na.Ka.No.4549/E3/2009 dated 17.08.2009 and quash the same and pass such other orders.
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records connected with the impugned order of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.23524/G1/09 dated 22.07.2009 and consequential order of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No. 2969/E3/2009 dated 30.07.2009 and quash the same and direct the respondent 1 and 2 to approve the appropriate of the petitioners as primary school Headmaster in the 4th respondent school w.e.f. 11.06.2009 with all consequential benefits and pass such further or other orders.)
Common Order:
W.P.Nos.12866 of 2009 and 17597 of 2009 are filed by the petitioner-Pon Krishnamurthy. This petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings of the 2nd respondent/District Elementary Educational officer dated 05.06.2009 in W.P.No.12886 of 2009. He also seeks to quash the order of the 1st respondent/District Elementary Educational officer dated 17.08.2009 in W.P.No.17597 of 2009.
2. W.P.No.20123 of 2010 has been filed by petitioner viz., Ashwath Begum. She was appointed as Primary School Headmaster in the 4th respondent school with effect from 11.06.2009. The petitioner sought to approve the said appointment and also seeks to quash the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 22.07.2009 and consequential order of the 2nd respondent dated 30.07.2009, whereby, the petitioner Ashwath Begum-s appointment was sought to be cancelled as the authority who granted approval is not having jurisdiction.
3. The above two petitioners viz., Pon Krishnamurthy and Ashwath Begum are appointed as secondary grade teachers in the 4th respondent school. The 4th respondent school is an aided primary school governed by the provisions of Tamil Nadu (Recognised) Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973 and various G.Os issued from time to time.
4. A vacancy arose for the post of Head master in the 4th respondent school on 01.06.2006 due to retirement of one Aruldasan, Headmaster on 31.05.2006. Due to non-availability of eligible teachers with five years teaching experience, the said post was not filled by the school. But as a temporary arrangement and as a transitory measure, one Shajahan was appointed as Headmaster (in-charge) of the 4th respondent school from 01.06.2006. The said Shajahan who was working as Headmaster-in-charge retired from service on 31.05.2008. Since then, the post of Headmaster was vacant.
5. The Petitioner in W.P.Nos.12886/2009 and 17597/2009 was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 14.03.2005 and his service was regularized on 01.06.2006. The respondent-Elementary Educational Officer issued show cause notice on 17.08.2009 to the petitioner asking to show cause as to why his appointment cannot be cancelled as the said appointment was not following the ratio as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.237 School Education Department dated 05.09.2000 in respect of male teachers Vs female teachers appointment in the specified ratio.
6. Challenging the said show cause, petitioner filed W.P.No.17597 of 2009, wherein, this court granted interim stay and thereby, Pon.Krishnamurthy continued his service. The said interim order granted in favour of the petitioner was also made abso
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with Government Orders and the futility of show cause notices after the passage of time.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the respondent authorities to follow the regular appointment process as mandated by the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialis....
Promotions should be based on merit and ability, with seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal, as per Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (R....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner, as a teacher in a private school, was entitled to receive salary and continuity of service for the period she worked, and t....
The appointment of public officials must adhere to the prescribed procedures and consider all eligible candidates, as per the relevant service rules.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
