Termination of services during probation must have prior approval from the educational authority, and lack of compliance renders such termination unlawful.

JUDGMENT :

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

Since the issues involved in all these three proceedings are intertwined, they are tagged together and a common order is being passed.

(A).Facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

2.One Mr.A.S.Edwin Suthan was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher on 29.11.2008 in the retirement vacancy of Mr.S.Ganesamoorthy in Papanasam Labour Welfare Association Higher Secondary School, Vickramansingapuram. Based on certain complaints as against the Physical Education Teacher, a memo was issued to him on 02.02.2009. Based upon the enquiry, the said A.S.Edwin Suthan was issued with a termination order by the School Management on 20.02.2009. Since the said A.S.Edwin Suthan was in his probation period, the School Committee had passed a resolution not to extend his services and terminated him on 20.02.2009.

3.Challenging the termination order, the said A.S.Edwin Suthan had preferred WP(MD).No.1849 of 2009 and sought for a direction to reinstate him as a Physical Education Teacher. While the writ petition was pending, one Mr.M.Parthasarathi Selva Ganesan was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher in the vacancy caused by retirement of Mr.S.Ganesamoorthy by way of proceedings dated 05.10.2009. The appointment of Parthasarathi Selva Ganesan was approved by the Educational Authority on 05.11.2012.

4.When WP(MD).No.1849 of 2009 came up for final hearing, the writ Court was pleased to allow the writ petition. In the order, it was observed that the appointment of Mr.Parthasarathi Selva Ganesan pending writ petition is not valid and it is illegal and therefore, the Education Department was directed to take a decision to withdraw the approval granted to his appointment after affording sufficient opportunity. This order was put to challenge by the management in WA(MD).No.1274 of 2014.

5.Pending writ appeal, an interim direction was issued to the School Management on 20.01.2015 directing the management to comply with the orders of the writ Court. The writ appeal came up for final hearing on 29.04.2016. After extracting the order of the writ Court, the writ appellate Court did not find any reason to interfere in the order of the writ Court and dismissed the writ appeal. The writ appeal order was not put to challenge by the School Management.

6.Seeking to review the order in WA(MD).No.1274 of 2014, the second appointee namely Mr.Parthasarathi Selva Ganesan had preferred the review application in Rev.Aplc(MD).No.43 of 2018. He has also preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the order dated 29.04.2016 made in WA(MD).No.1274 of 2014. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the SLP on 10.02.2017 on the ground that Mr.Parthasarathi Selva Ganesan has already taken a remedy for filling a review in the High Court seeking the same relief. This review petition in Rev.Aplc(MD).No.43 of 2018 is listed before us.

7.The said Mr.A.S.Edwin Suthan had filed Cont.Pet(MD).No.750 of2015 alleging violation of the order dated 28.08.2014 made in WP(MD).No. 1849 of 2009 wherein the writ Court had directed the reinstatement of Mr.A.S.Edwin Suthan. This contempt petition came to be closed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 14.12.2016 primarily on the ground that the Division Bench in WA(MD).No.1274 of 2014 had dismissed the appeal on 29.04.2016 and therefore, in view of doctrine of