← Library
Madras High CourtWP/39496/2016disposed of

T.Samraj Thangadurai v. The District Educational

2016-11-11Honourable Mr Justice R.Subbiah4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.11.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Writ Petition No.39496 of 2016 T.Samraj Thangadurai

...Petitioner

Vs 1 The District Educational Officer Villupuram District 2 The Central Manager & Chairman Education Board ALC Campus Cuddalore 3 The Correspondent Danish Mission Higher Secondary School Parikkal Villupuram District 4 The Commissioner Danish Mission Higher Secondary School Kariyalur Kalrayan Hills Villupuram District

...Respondents

Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.8.2015 for approval of the appointment of the petitioner as a secondary grade teacher in the 3rd respondent school with effect from date of initial appointment with all service and monetary benefits in light of the judgment in Writ Appeal (MD) No.231 of 2006 (The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu Education Department and other Vs- S.Suganthi Victoria) dated 17.8.16.

For Petitioner :

Mr.T.Dharani For Respondents :

Mr.D.Suriyanarayanan, Govt. Advocate.

ORDER

The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for a mandamus, directing the respondents to consider his representation dated 20.8.2015 for approval of the appointment as a secondary grade teacher in the third respondent school with effect from date of initial appointment with all service and monetary benefits in light of the judgment in Writ Appeal (MD) No.231 of 2006 (The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu Education Department and other Vs S.Suganthi Victoria) dated 17.8.2006.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has possessed B.Sc., and B.Ed. Degrees. Pursuant to the proceedings of the Secretary, CB Arcot Lutheran Church, the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the fourth respondent management in the vacancy caused by the transfer of one Immanual Gnanaselvam subject to the selection as contemplated in the rules with effect from 6.6.1997 and as such, the petitioner has been working for the past 17 years. After his appointment, the approval for similarly placed persons like that of the petitioner has been rejected by the second respondent. Challenging the same, the similarly placed persons approached this Court and this Court in W.A.No.991 of 1999, etc. by order dated 29.6.2001, protected the interest of the teachers, who had been appointed between 11.7.1995 and 19.5.1998.

Subsequently, the first respondent issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.155, Education Department dated 3.10.2002, whereby the graduate teachers, who had been appointed in the Secondary Grade post, were directed to undergo child psychology training. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner was sent for the said training. However, after completion of the said training, the appointment of the petitioner has been approved with effect from 1.6.2003 instead of 6.6.1997, the date of his initial appointment. In this regard, he sent a representation dated 20.8.2015 to the respondents. But, the same was not considered so far. Hence, left with no other alternative, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for the relief set out earlier.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that similarly placed persons like that of the petitioner approached the Madurai Bench of this Court and a Division Bench, in W.A.(MD) No.231 of 2006, by order dated 17.8.2006, directed the appellants therein to pass appropriate orders regularizing the service of the first respondent therein and also to pay salary. Hence, the case of the petitioner has also to be considered in the light of the said decision.

4. I have also heard the learned Government Advocate, who has taken notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. In view of the limited order to be passed hereunder, this Court is of the view that notice is not necessary to the respondents 3 and 4.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made on either side, without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner, this Court directs the petitioner to send a fresh representation along with a copy of this order to the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the first respondent is directed to consider the said representation seeking approval of his appointment as a secondary grade teacher in the fourth respondent school with effect from the date of initial appointment with all service and monetary benefits and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law and also in the light of the judgment of the Madurai Bench of this Court dated 17.8.2006 made in W.A. (MD) No.

231 of 2006 (The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Education Department vs. S.Suganthi Victoria), within a period of six weeks thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

To 1 The District Educational officer Villupuram District 2 The Central Manager & Chairman Education Board ALC Campus Cuddalore +1cc to Mr.T.Dharani, Advocate, S.R.No. 65034 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 65314 W.P.No.39496 of 2016 GJ (CO) PSI (02/12/2016)