R.Suriyakala v. The State Of Tamilnadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 01.03.2023 Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU W.P.No.11653 of 2015:
R.Suriyakala, B.Sc., B.Ed., Secondary Grade Headmaster C.S.I. Girls Elementary School Somanathu, Dharmapuri.
...
Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its Secretary Education Department Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The District Elementary Education College Road, Chennai -6.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer Tiruvarur.
4.The District Elementary Educational Officer (I/C) Erode.
Page No.1/8
5.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer Mannarkudi.
6.The Correspondent C.S.I. Elementary School Kulithalai.
7.The Correspondent C.S.I. Elementary School Somanathu.
... Respondents Prayer in W.P.No.11653 of 2015: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner w.e.f. 12.12.1997 as Secondary Grade Teacher, with all consequential benefits by restoring/continuing the scale of pay in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.9072/2005 dated 19.12.2007. For Petitioner :
Mr.S.N.Ravichandran For Respondents :
Mr.R.Neelakandan, AAG assisted by Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru, SGP for RR1 to 4 COMMON ORDER These Writ Petitions have been filed, to direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioners, with effect from their initial Page No.2/8
appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher, with all consequential benefits. 2.The petitioners herein were appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the 6th and 7th respondent's School in the sanctioned post. To approve the appointment of the petitioner, the respondent school submitted proposal to the 4th respondent, along with necessary documents. In the meantime, 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.394 dated 12.09.1997, prohibiting the appointment of highly qualified person in the Secondary Grade Post. Challenging the said G.O., a batch of writ petitions filed before this Court and the same was dismissed by a common order dated 19.05.1998. As against which, appeal was preferred in W.A.Nos.991 to 998 of 1998 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 29.06.2001, holding that the appointment of the persons from 11.07.1995 to 19.05.
1998, shall be approved, on condition that they should undergo one month child psychology training. Accordingly, the government issued G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 03.10.2002 and pursuant to the said G.O., the petitioners herein completed their training from 02.05.2003 to 31.05.2003 and on completion of said training, petitioners appointment was approved with effect from 02.06.2003 by the department. The petitioners now seeking Page No.
a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to approve their appointment with effect from the date of their respective initial appointment. 3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. 4.The issue involved in the present writ petitions, as to whether the petitioners are entitled to seek for approval of their appointment from the date of their original appointment has been dealt with in various decisions of this Court. In one such decision, in the case of Varadharajan Vs. Director of School Education and others, passed in W.P.(MD)No.9072 of 2005, dated 19.12.
2007, the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the approval of appointment be granted with effect from the date of initial appointment and not from the date on which the concerned Teacher had completed the Child Psychology Training. This decision in the writ petition came to be confirmed by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal in W.A. (MD).No.SR11055 of 2009, dated 01.10.2009, as well as by the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.0250012 and Page No.
012151 of 2012, dated 28.07.2012.
5.Further, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would point out that though the orders passed in W.P.(MD).No.9072 of 2005 dated 19.12.2007 has been implemented by the respondent - Department, it is made clear that the order shall not be taken as a precedent to any other matter.
6.Admittedly, the 4th respondent ought to have approved the appointment of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment irrespective of the fact that they underwent child psychology training during May 2003. Relying upon the order passed in W.P.No.9072 of 2005, dated 19.12.2007, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court directed the authorities to regularise the services of the petitioner therein from the date of his appointment and also declared to be entitled to all consequential benefits.
Page No.5/8
7.The aforesaid decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, confirmed by the Hon'ble First Bench of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, is squarely applicable to the case of the petitioners herein also.
8.Accordingly, these writ petitions stand allowed, with a direction to the 4th respondent to pass appropriate orders, approving the petitioners appointment from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits to them. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
01.03.2023 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Jer Page No.6/8
To 1.The Secretary State of Tamil Nadu Education Department Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The District Elementary Education College Road, Chennai -6.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer Tiruvarur.
4.The District Elementary Educational Officer (I/C) Erode.
5.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer Mannarkudi.
Page No.7/8
J.NISHA BANU, J., Jer 01.03.2023 Page No.8/8