← Library
Madras High CourtWP/7263/2004disposed of

S.Antonysamy v. Director Of School Education

2017-08-08Honourable Mr Justice M.V. Muralidaran5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.08.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN WP.No.7263 of 2004 and WMP.Nos.8584 and 8585 of 2004 and WMP.No.2403 of 1994 and WMP.No.739 of 207 S.Antonysamy ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Director of School Education, Chennai 6.

2. The District Educational Officer, Udayarpalayam, Perambalur District.

3. The Correspondent, Don Bosco Higher Secondary School, Varadharajanpet - 621 805, Perambalur District.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his Proceedings in O.Mu.No.947/A1/2003 dated 31.05.2003 and quash the same, and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Agricultural Instructor and confer all the consequential benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganesan For Respondents : Mr.A.Raja Perumal (for R1 and R2) Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his Proceedings O.Mu.No.947/A1/2003 dated 31.05.2003 and quash the

same, and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Agricultural Instructor and confer all the consequential benefits.

2.The case of the petitioner is that he passed the SSLC in the year 1973, thereafter the petitioner has worked as Noon Meal Organiser on 26.11.1984. In the meantime, a post of Agricultural Instructor became vacant in the 3rd respondent Management due to the incumbent by name one Saveriar was retired on 01.06.2000. Therefore, in the vacancy report, this petitioner was appointed on 14.08.2000 as Agricultural Instructor and thereafter, the papers were forwarded for approval of the petitioner's appointment, but the said application was returned on the ground that no prior permission was obtained to fill up the post. Therefore, the said post was not approved.

3.It is the further case of the petitioner is that later on the Chief Educational Officer, Perambalur was granted permission to fill up the vacancy for the post of Agricultural Instructor. Therefore, pursuant to the order of the Chief Educational Officer, Perambalur to fill up the vacancy on 04.10.2000, the petitioner was reappointed on 04.10.2000 and it was sent to the respondent for approval but the same was returned again on the ground that this petitioner was not resigned the previous post of Noon Meal Organiser while the petitioner was already hold. Therefore, the petitioner has immediately resigned the post of Noon Meal Organiser on 04.04.2002 and the same was accepted by the District Collector by letter dated 22.01.2003. 4.Thereafter, the Block Development Officer, Andimadam on 27.01.

2003, relieving the petitioner from the post of Noon Meal Organiser. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent was again issued another appointment order on 28.01.2003 to the petitioner and papers were forwarded for approval to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the 2nd respondent sought clearance from the 1st respondent with reference to the approval in and by his communication dated 03.04.2003. Even, without awaiting any order from the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent passed order rejecting approval by order dated 31.05.2003 referring to the earlier order passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.104, School Education Department dated 12.07.2002. The said G.O.Ms.No.104, dated 12.07.2002 says that since the petitioner was appointed after 12.07.2002 dated on which the Government Order came to be issued, the appointment inasmuch as made on 28.01.

2003, cannot be approved. Hence, the order was passed on 31.05.2003. Therefore, with the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner filed the present writ petition by challenging the order dated 31.05.2003 with further direction to the respondents to approve the petitioner's appointment as Agricultural Instructor and confer all the consequential benefits.

5.A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent and submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Agricultural Instructor in the 3rd respondent school on 04.10.2000 in the existing vacancy on the eve of retirement of the Instructor on 31.05.2000, the petitioner has passed SSLC Agriculture Course (Higher) and Teacher Training Certificate Course, on 18.06.2001, the 3rd respondent sent necessary proposal for the approval of the appointment of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent also states that at the time of approval, the petitioner was also working as Noon Meal Organiser on the same school, but he has not resigned the said post. The petitioner should have resigned the Noon Meal Organiser post before joining in the Agricultural Instructor post, but he has not resigned. Therefore, on 11.02.

2002, the 3rd respondent has informed the 2nd respondent that the petitioner has not resigned the Noon Meal Organiser's post and have the appointment of the petitioner as Agricultural Instructor post was cancelled and also requested not to take action in the matter of approval of appointment. Pursuant to the resignation letter dated 04.04.2002, the petitioner's resignation was accepted by the Block Development Officer, Andimadam on 27.01.2003, thereafter, the 3rd respondent again appointed the petitioner as Agricultural Instructor on 28.01.2003 Forenoon, and sent proposals for the approval of appointment to the 2nd respondent on 29.01.2003. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.104 School Education (D1) Department, dated 12.07.2002, issued ban on the appointment of Agricultural Instructor post with effect from 12.07.2002 in the aided schools.

Therefore, the petitioner's appointment was rejected by the 2nd respondent. The above Government Order was also made applicable to aided schools with effect from 12.07.2002 as per G.O.Ms.No.104 School Education (D1) Department dated 12.07.2002. Therefore, the 2nd respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6.I heard Mr.P.Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Raja Perumal, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the entire records.

7.Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Noon Meal Organiser, in the 3rd respondent school on 26.11.1984.

Thereafter, on 04.10.2000 the petitioner was appointed as Agricultural Instructor on 14.08.2000. Originally, the teacher by name Saveriar was retired on 01.06.2000 in the 3rd respondent school and in that place the petitioner was appointed. The proposal was sent to the 2nd respondent for approval of the petitioner's appointment, but it was returned only on the ground saying that the petitioner appointment was made without prior permission from the 2nd respondent. Therefore, again the 3rd

respondent sought permission from the 2nd respondent and suitable permission was given to the 3rd respondent school, pursuant to that the petitioner was again appointed on 04.10.2000. 8.After the appointment of the petitioner on 04.10.2000, the 3rd respondent again sent papers for approval, but the same was again returned on the ground that the petitioner without resigning his original post of Noon Meal Organiser, who was appointed as Agricultural Instructor. Immediately, on knowing about the same, the petitioner was resigned the post on 04.04.2002 and on 22.01.2003 the Block Development Officer also accepted the resignation letter dated 04.04.2002. On 3rd occasion, the 3rd respondent made another appointment order on 28.01.2003 to the petitioner as Agricultural Instructor. When the said appointment order dated 28.01.

2003 sent to the 2nd respondent for approval, again the approval was rejected by referring to the order passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.104, School Education Department, dated 12.07.2002, the petitioner was appointed in the post of Agricultural Instructor was not available, therefore, no appointment as Agricultural Instructor should be made in the aided schools. Therefore, challenging the order dated 31.05.2003, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 9.Admittedly, the petitioner was originally appointed as Agricultural Instructor on 14.08.2000 due to the vacancy in the place of one Saveriar, who retired on 31.05.2000, but on the simple reason that prior permission was not sanctioned to the petitioner's appointment and hence the petitioner's approval was returned by the 2nd respondent.

But again on the 2nd occasion, the 2nd respondent has rejected the approval by stating that the petitioner was not resigned the post of Noon Meal Organiser. The activities of the respondents 2 and 3 is totally against the natural justice, since if the petitioner was appointed as Agricultural Instructor at that time, it is the bounden duty of the 3rd respondent directing the petitioner to resign the post, thereafter only the 3rd respondent appointed the petitioner as Agricultural Instructor. But, showing the reason on the petitioner, since he was not resigned the post. On 3rd occasion, the 2nd respondent rejected the approval on the simple ground by showing that as per G.O.Ms.No.104, School Education Department, dated 12.07.2002, the aided school should not appoint the Agricultural Instructor.

But on perusal of record and counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent, it is made clear that on 14.08.2000 itself the petitioner was originally appointed, thereafter on two occasions, the 3rd respondent has passed order by appointing the petitioner.

respondent cannot rejected the approval of the petitioner, by showing the G.O.Ms.No.104,dated 12.07.2002. Since the petitioner was originally appointed on 14.08.2000 itself and the same should be taken into and to approve the appointment of the petitioner.

10.The respondents 2 and 3 have not shown their responsibility in a proper manner, since when the petitioner was appointed in the approved post vacancy namely the retired Saveriar Teacher's post. The petitioner has make out his case and hence this Court warranting interference in the impugned order and the same is liable to be quashed.

11.In the result:

(a) this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his Proceedings O.Mu.No.947/A1/2003 dated 31.05.2003; (b) the 1st respondent / Director of School Education, Chennai-6, is hereby directed to pass suitable orders by approving the petitioner's appointment from 28.01.2003 and pay back all the service and monetary benefits;

(c) the 1st respondent is directed to complete the said exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// vs/rka Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Director of School Education, Chennai 6.

2.The District Educational Officer, Udayarpalayam, Perambalur District.

+1cc to Mr.C.S.Associates, Advocate, S.R.No.57234 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.57938 WP.No.7263 of 2004 and WMP.Nos.8584 and 8585 of 2004 and WMP.No.2403 of 1994 and WMP.No.739 of 2007 AR IV CA(01/11/2017)