Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 39396
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
D.Krishnakumar, K.Kumaresh Babu, JJ
S.Poongundran – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary, Education Department, Chennai – Respondent
W.A.No.2312 of 2022 | W.P.No.18351 of 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.N.Ravichandran
For the Respondents: Mr.J.C.Durairaj, A.G.P., Mr.C.Prabakaran
An employee cannot claim post upgradation as a matter of right without sanctioned vacancies; administrative discretion governs such decisions.
Headnote:(A) Education Department - G.O.Ms.No.100, G.O.Ms.No.1297, and G.O.Ms.No.525 - Writ appeal against dismissal of appointment approval - Claim for upgradation of post denied - For upgradation, issuance of vacancies is required, which were not present during service tenure. (Paras 4, 8, 9)
(B) Right to Upgradation - No automatic right to post upgradation exists; administrative discretion is paramount for such upgrades. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the dismissal of his writ petition regarding appointment as Headmaster despite holding qualifications, citing G.O.s for upgradation that lacked applicability due to non-existence of vacancies.
Findings of Court:
The appellant's claims for upgradation to B.T. Teacher or Headmaster were dismissed due to absence of administrative action and vacancies, confirming the Writ Court’s decision.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the appellant had a right to claim upgradation of his post based on qualifications in the absence of sanctioned vacancies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that qualifications alone do not confer the right to claim upgradation; such decisions rest solely with the administrative authority, reinforced by the facts of the case showing no available vacancies.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and petitioner's claims (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. eligibility for post upgradation and authority in decision-making (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of relevant g.o.s and qualifications (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. lack of merit in the appellant's reliance on g.o.s (Para 9) |
| 5. conclusion on appellant’s claim and dismissal of appeal (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT
(D.Krishnakumar, J.)
Today this writ appeal is listed under the caption 'For clarification'. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, the following order is passed.
2. The appellant is the writ petitioner, he filed the writ petition challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.NO.88721/D2/E1/2013 dated 29.01.2014 and for a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the post of Headmaster or B.T. Assistant in the 8th respondent High School w.e.f. 01.03.1998 with all consequential benefits. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the Writ Court, against which the present intra court appeal has been filed.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief, is that the appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 22.7.1991, in the 8th respondent School. The petitioner studied B.A. in the year 1983 and B.Ed. in the year 1985. His appointment was not approved and he filed W.P.No.13667 of 1991 for a direction for approval of his appointment and the said writ petition was allowed. Thereafter, his appointment was approved from the date of his initial appointment. The 8th respondent school was upgraded as High School in the year 1996-97 by the proceedings of the Joint Director of School Education dated 12.01.1998. Consequently, the High School sections were bifurcated and are functioning separately. The then Middle School Headmaster was only a Secondary Grade qualified and therefore, he was transferred to primary school and there is no Headmaster for the High School. In this context, the appellant claims that he is fully qualified for appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant and his case is to be considered for upgradation of post in the said school, so as to accommodate him.
4. The Writ Court, after contest, has held that upgradation of post can never be claimed as a matter of right by an employee. For upgradation of post, the decsion has to be taken by the competent authorities of the department, as per Rules. The teachers are eligible to consider their names for appointment or promotion only if the posts are sanctioned, but not otherwise. A teacher who is working as a Secondary Grade Teacher has no right to claim that a particular post is to be upgraded as B.T. Assistant / Middle School Headmaster, in view of the fact that he is fully qualified for the post. Possession of an educational qualification would not confer any right to claim such upgradation. Only if the administrative decision is taken by the competent authorities and if the posts are upgraded then only, the case of the writ petitioner can be considered and therefore, the Writ Court dismissed the writ petition, against which the instant writ appeal has been filed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that despite the fact that recommendation made by the 5th respondent, the second respondent rejected the claim of the respondent. Admittedly, the appellant is qualified to the post of Secondary Grade teacher only, the appellant cannot claim upgradation of such post as B.T. Assistant /Middle School Headmaster as a matter of right. It is for the competent authorities to decide the upgradation of any such post and an employee cannot claim upgradation of such post. Further, the 5th respondent School is governed by the rules and regulations of the Tamilnadu Private Schools Regulations Act , 1973 and rules 1974 and there is no patent error or illegality in the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.18351 of 2014 dated 5.7.2022 and prays for dismissal of this writ appeal.
6. M
