Teacher's service regularized from original appointment date; department delay in training not attributable to employee.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Senthilkumar J.)

This intra court appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.11299 of 2015 dated 01.03.2023.

2.In view of the order that is going to be passed in this Appeal at the admission stage, notice to the 2^nd respondent is dispensed with.

3.The case of the 1^st respondent herein/writ petitioner before the writ Court was that she was appointed as a secondary grade teacher by the appellants, by the proceedings of the second respondent herein dated 24.03.1998. The writ petitioner had challenged the proceedings of the 2^nd appellant, whereby the request to approve and regularise the writ petitioner’s appointment with effect from the initial date of appointment was rejected. Instead, the Department ordered that the appointment be construed and approved only from the date of completion of Child Psychology Training, thereby depriving her service benefits from the date of original induction. 4.The appellants filed G.O.Ms.No.559, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 11.07.1995, whereby the Government directed that appointment of B.Ed qualified teachers to Secondary Grade Teacher vacancies shall not be approved. Prior to 11.07.1995, the Government had permitted aided schools to appoint B.T. teachers in Secondary Grade Teacher vacancies due to the non-availability of candidates possessing Diploma in Teachers Education (D.T.Ed.) qualification. The said Government Order was challenged before this Court. The stand of the Government was that B.Ed., qualified teachers, though possessing higher qualifications, were not specifically trained in child psychology and therefore, they were not suitable for handling classes meant for Secondary Grade Teachers. The Writ Court quashed G.O.Ms.No.559, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 11.07.1995. The same was challenged by the Government by way of Writ Appeal Nos. 991 to 998 of 1998, which came to be dismissed.

5.In the present case, the writ petitioner, who possesses a B.Ed., qualification was permitted to take classes. The Writ Court after considering the relevant precedents and the fact that the petitioner was not responsible for the delay in undergoing the mandatory Child Psychology Training, allowed the Writ Petition with a direction to the Appellants to regularise the petitioner’s services from the original date of appointment rather than the date of completion of the training. Aggrieved over the same, the State has filed this Writ Appeal.

6.The learned counsel for the appellants fairly submitted that on the same issue, a division bench of this Court [in which one of us (RSKJ) was a member]

has passed the following order in W.A.No.795 of 2021 dated 14.02.2024.

“2. The issue, which was posed for consideration before the Writ Court was that whether the first respondent, who was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in a B.T. Assistant post would be entitled to get approval and regularization and seeking service benefits from the date of the order passed in this regard for sending those teachers like the respondent for child psychology training or from the date when they completed the said training belatedly because of the delay caused by the appellant Department.

3. The learned Judge in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment relying upon the earlier judgments of the Division Bench in W.A.(MD).No.231 of 2006 dated 17.08.2006 and W.A.No.956 of

2018 dated 04.07.2018 has allowed the said writ petition.

4. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Judge, which is impugned herein reads thus:

5. The issue that has been raised in this writ petition was considered by this Court in W.P.No.2426 of 2020 and an order was passed on 03.02.2020. The relevant portions in the order are extracte