Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. SRIMATHY, J.
R. Rajesh & Others – Appellants
Versus
The Commissioner, Directorate of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P.(MD) No. 1434 of 2023 & W.M.P.(MD) Nos. 1310 to 1312 of 2023
Decided On : 09-05-2023
Appointment - Approval of Teaching Posts - G.O.Ms.No.165, dated 17.09.2019 - G.O.Ms.No.525 School Education dated 29.12.1997 - W.A.(MD)No.76 of 2019 - Grant-in-Aid Code - Legal Principles
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought approval for their appointment as B.T. Assistant and Physical Education Teacher in a Private Aided Non-Minority School. The school had vacancies due to retirements and had submitted multiple representations seeking permission to fill the posts. The appointments were made after a selection process, but the approval was not granted citing pending cases and surplus teachers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the school had unilaterally appointed teachers without prior permission and in violation of staff fixation orders. It also noted that the appointment of the Physical Education Teacher was against the relevant government order. The court held that the grant-in-aid is not automatic and depends on various factors, and declined to quash the impugned order, dismissing the writ petition.
Issues: Unilateral appointments, violation of staff fixation orders, approval of teaching posts, grant-in-aid entitlement
Ratio Decidendi: The school's unilateral appointments without prior permission and in violation of staff fixation orders were not justified. The appointment of the Physical Education Teacher was against the relevant government order. The grant-in-aid is not automatic and depends on various factors.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent in A.Thi.Mu.No.4355/Aa2/2020, dated 23.02.2021 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to approve the appointment of the petitioners 1 to 3 in the post of B.T.Assistant and 4th respondent in the post of Physical Education Teacher in the 4th respondent School, from the date of appointment with all consequential and other attendant benefits including arrears of salary with interest within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.)
1. This writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order dated 23.02.2021 of the 3rd respondent and consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to approve the appointment of the petitioners 1 to 3 in the post of B.T. Assistant and 4th respondent in the post of Physical Education Teacher in the 4th respondent School, from the date of appointment with all consequential and other attendant benefits including arrears of salary with interest within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the 4th respondent is a Private Aided Non-Minority School having standards from 6 to 10. The school was established in the pre-independence period that is in 1946 as Primary School and subsequently upgraded as Middle School and then upgraded as High School. The 4th respondent School appointed the petitioners after selection process by the selection committee and the proposals were forwarded for approval. The same was returned by the DEO, vide impugned order, dated 23.02.2021. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The petitioners 1 to 3 are possessing the basic qualification for B.T. Assistant post along with TET. The 4th petitioner is qualified in Bachelor of Physical Education and is eligible for appointment as Physical Education Teacher. In the School, vacancy arose for the post of B.T.Assistant (Science), due to the retirement of incumbent, namely A.Kanagaraj due to voluntary retirement on 11.10.2007. The post of Physical Education Teacher became vacant on 01.05.2011, due to the retirement of incumbent namely, M.Pandiyan. Another vacancy in the post of B.T.Assistant (Tamil) arose on 01.05.2013, due to the retirement of one Sethurajan on 13.04.2013. Consequent to the vacancy arose in the year 2007, 2011 and 2013, the 4th respondent School submitted several representations seeking permission to fill up the posts and the last representation was submitted on 01.11.2018. Consequently, the 4th respondent School has also forwarded the proposal to the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings, dated 13.06.2019, whereas, no orders were passed by the respondents.
4. In the meanwhile, another vacancy in the post of B.T.Assistant (Science) arose due to the promotion of the incumbent R.Nachiyar as Headmaster on 09.07.2018. Since already there is a post of B.T.Assistant (Science) in the School, a representation was submitted to the Department for conversion of Science B.T. as English B.T. On 25.02.2019. Consequently, the Director of School Education issued orders, dated 02.09.2019, for conversion. Yet another vacancy arose in the post of Secondary Grade Teachers due to the retirement of incumbent one Thillakkarasi on 31.01.2019. Consequently, the 4th respondent submitted a proposal to upgrade the said Secondary Grade Teacher post as B.T.Assistant (Maths) on 25.02.2019. As per G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 27.06.2003, the said proposal was submitted. However, no orders were passed. In such circumstances, 5 teaching posts remained unfilled for a long time. This was causing hardships to the School.
5. Thereafter, the 4th respondent has notified the vacancy in the employment exchange to sponsor the eligible candidates in accordance with roster, vide letter, dated 10.06.2020. The employment exchange
Grant-in-aid is not automatic and depends on various factors, and appointments must comply with relevant government orders and staff fixation rules.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to recruitment bans and upheld the school's right to make decisions regarding appointments and terminations within the self-finance section.
Government Orders imposing bans on fresh appointments or restricting the approval of non-teaching staff in government institutions do not apply to sanctioned posts in private aided minority schools, ....
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
