Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J. NISHA BANU, D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, JJ.
C. Palani – Appellant
Versus
The District Educational Officer, Thirupattur, & Others – Respondents
W.A. Nos. 245 of 2019 & 622 of 2022
Decided On : 28-06-2023
Letter Patents Act - Appointment of B.T. Assistant - G.O.No.100 dated 27.06.2003, G.O.Ms.No.241 dated 29.10.2007, G.O.Ms.No.206 dated 06.11.2008, G.O.Ms.No.55 dated 08.04.2010 - The court held that the appointment of the appellant was in accordance with Rule 21 of the Tamilnadu State and Subordinate Services Rules and the rejection of approval by the first respondent was erroneous. The court also emphasized that administrative instructions cannot override statutory rules and directed the first and second respondents to appoint the appellant by creating a supernumerary post.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, C.Palani, was appointed as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) in an aided private school. His appointment was rejected by the first respondent on the grounds of violating the rules and following the 200 point roster. The appellant filed a Writ Petition challenging the rejection of his appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the appellant's appointment was erroneous and illegal. The court also noted that there was no delay or latches on the part of the appellant in filing the Writ Petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the rejection of the appellant's appointment, the application of the 200 point roster, and the delay in filing the Writ Petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of the appellant's appointment was without application of mind and that the administrative instructions cannot override statutory rules. The court also emphasized that there was no delay or latches on the part of the appellant in filing the Writ Petition.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal No. 622 of 2022 was dismissed, and the Writ Appeal No. 245 of 2019 was allowed. The court directed the first and second respondents to appoint the appellant by creating a supernumerary post.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in W.A.No.245 of 2019:Writ Appeal filed under Section 15 of Letter Patents Act to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7680 of 2010, dated 27.09.2016 and thereby allow the Writ Petition.
in W.A.No.622 of 2022:Writ Appeal filed under Section 15 of Letter Patents Act to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Rev.Appln.No.24 of 2017, dated 05.10.2018 and thereby allow the Writ Petition.)
Common Judgment:
1.The Writ Appeal No.245 of 2019 is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.09.2016, whereby, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the orders dated 09.01.2009 and 25.05.2009, by which, the proposal to approve the appointment of the appellant as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) was refused and returned, was dismissed. The Writ Appeal No. 622 of 2022 is against the rejection of Review Application which was filed against the same order. As such, both the Writ Appeals are taken up and disposed off by this common order.
2. The facts are not in dispute. The second respondent, namely, the Secretary, Hindu Girls Higher Secondary School, Ambur, Vellore district is an aided private school. One K.Jayashree, working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the second respondent, was promoted on 01.07.2006, consequent upon which, a regular approved vacancy arose. By an order dated 27.08.2007, the vacancy was upgraded to be as B.T. Assistant and the school was permitted to fill up the vacancy by calling for list from Employment Exchange who are qualified graduates. As per the order, the subject shall be decided as per G.O.No.100 dated 27.06.2003. It seems that as per the same, the relevant subject was to be reckoned as English, but, however, by an order dated 30.08.2008, post was converted into B.T. Assistant in Tamil with a condition that again the subject will not be changed.
3. Thereafter, the second respondent school advertised the post for selection in DailyThanthi Tamil Newspaper on 05.09.2008. List of eligible candidates were also obtained from the District Employment Officer, Vellore, vide his communication dated 05.09.2008. After conducting selection, by a resolution of the School Committee dated 16.09.2008, the second respondent decided to appoint the appellant, C.Palani, a Schedule Caste candidate with effect from 17.09.2008 and accordingly, an order of appointment was made by the Secretary, School Committee on 17.09.2008 and he joined the service.
4. The second respondent school sent the name of the appellant for approval of the first respondent vide their communication dated 19.09.2008. Immediately thereupon, it seems that a query was raised as to why a Schedule Caste (Woman) candidate was not appointed as per the roster. A clarification dated 25.09.2008 was submitted stating that the eligible female candidates who attended the interview were not willing to join the service and hence, the appellant was appointed.
5. By the impugned order dated 09.01.2009, the request for approval was rejected stating that when as per the Rules, only a Schedule Caste (Woman) candidate to be appointed, appointing a male candidate was in violation of the rules. The second respondent school again re-sent the proposal by explaining the position by its communication dated 17.04.2009. However, this time, by the second impugned order dated 25.05.2009, the same was rejected stating that as per G.O.No.241 dated 29.10.2007, 200 point roster has to be followed while making appointments. Therefore, the second respondent school was directed to make fresh appointment from among General Candidates.
6. The second respondent therefore again re-notified the vacancy for fresh selection on 03.10.2009 and selected the third respondent and appointed her with effect from 22.10.2009 and relieved the appellant from the service. The appointment of the third respondent was also approved by the first respondent on 11.01.2010 and she is working in the post till date.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellan
The main legal point established in the judgment is that administrative instructions cannot override statutory rules, and the rejection of an appointment must be in accordance with the applicable rul....
The court affirmed deemed approval for teacher appointments due to the respondent's failure to act within legal timelines and ruled that objections for rejection were legally invalid.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to statutory reservation provisions in employment, rejecting claims of isolated post applicability.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of specific pleading and proof in claiming appointment against a reserved vacancy, and the legal implications of temporary appointme....
The vacancy caused due to the termination of services constitutes a fresh vacancy, and the Tribunal's directions exceeded its jurisdiction.
The court affirmed that educational authorities must consistently approve appointments for similarly situated individuals, rejecting arbitrary refusals.
The main legal point established is that routine affairs of an institution, including appointments and approvals, should be considered independently of disputes in management.
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
