The court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to approval of his appointment as Physical Education Director from 04.06.2007, as the school met the eligibility criteria and he possessed the necessary qualifications.

ORDER :

(R. POORNIMA, J.)

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to order made in Na.Ka.No.5432/AA2/2015 dated 27.05.2016 signed on 06.06.2016 passed by the 3^rd respondent and quash the same and consequentially direct the 3^rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner from the date of his appointment namely 04.06.2007 onwards instead of 12.06.2009 and also direct the 3^rd respondent to disburse the back wages and monetary benefits of the petitioner for the period from 04.06.2007 to 11.06.2009.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :

(a) The petitioner have completed his B.P.Ed., in Annamalai University during the year 2005 and completed his M.P.Ed., in the same University during the year 2005– 07. He was appointed as Physical Education Director in Pius XI Higher Secondary School by the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent School initially was a High School and thereafter, it was upgraded during the academic year 1981–82 as a Higher Secondary School. When the said school was functioning as High School two Physical Education Teachers were working. After upgradation one post of the Physical Education Teacher was upgraded as Physical Director. Due to retirement of previous incumbent, viz., A.Gracy, the petitioner was appointed as Physical Director on 4.6.2007 by the Correspondent of fourth respondent School.

(b) Further stated that during the period of his appointment, the total strength of student was 1439. Out of 1439, the student's strength of 9^th, 10^th, 11^th, 12^th standards was 369 + 569. As per G.O. of the School Education Department, the strength of High School and Higher Secondary School is above 400 students, then School is eligible for the post of Physical Educational Director. At the time of his appointment, strength of the High School and Higher Secondary School was above 400, therefore, the school was eligible to appoint him as a Physical Director in the above School in the academic year 2007–2008 District Education Officer scrapped the post of Physical Director as it was surplus one. The fourth respondent therefore, sent a proposal on 25.08.2008 to the Educational Department attaching the relevant documents to show that during the period, the student strength was above 400 and requested for approval for the post of Physical Education Director and reminder was also sent on 18.09.2008. Thereafter, the second respondent sought for certain clarification, but no action was taken by the third respondent.

(c) The petitioner further stated that later on 12.06.2009 after a period of one year, the third respondent approved the post of Physical Education Director of the fourth respondent school and issued G.O.4(D) No.1, School Education Department, dated 21.01.2000.

(d) The petitioner further stated that he had served as Physical Education Director from the year 2007–2008, 2008–2009. He received his first salary on 13.06.2009 as the post was approved by the third respondent by order dated 12.06.2009. He had sent a detailed representation to the second respondent on 07.09.2013 and requested to approve his appointment as Physical Director from the academic year 2007–2008, in which year he was appointed. Since no action was taken on his representation, sent a reminder on 21.06.2015 requested them to approve appointment from 04.06.2007, instead of 12.06.2009 and requested to pay his back wages and monetary benefits for the period 04.06.2007 to 11.06.2009.

(e) Further stated that his representation was received on 21.06.2015, but no action was taken by the respondent. Therefore, he had filed writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.11014 of 2015 to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to approve his appointment as Physical Director from the date of his appointment i.e., on 04.06.2007 instead of 12.06.2009 with all attendant benefits. The Court directed the second and third respondent to consider his representati