Central Higher Secondary School v. The Chief Educational Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.04.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA and WMP(MD)No.7945 of 2024 Central Higher Secondary School, Kayalpatnam- 628 204, Turicorin District, Rep. By its Correspondent.

.. Petitioner Vs.

The Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin- 628 002.

... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in his proceedings in Oo.Mu.No. 969/Aa3/2024 dated 14.03.2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to approve the appointment of one M.S.Yusuf Kani as Night Watchman in the petitioner school with effect from 01.09.2020 within the period that may be stipulated by this Court. 1/8

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jerin Mathew For Respondent : Mr.T.Amjadkhan Government Advocate

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings of the respondent in Oo.Mu.No.969/Aa3/2024 dated 14.03.2024 and consequential direction to the respondent to approve the appointment of one M.S.Yusuf Kani as Night Watchman in the petitioner school.

2. By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

3. Heard Mr.M.Jerin Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Amjadkhan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.

4. The petitioner was appointed one M.S.Yusuf Kani to the post of Night Watchman on 01.09.2020 and the proposal dated 13.10.2020 was sent to the respondent for approval. The same was rejected stating that there were surplus of two posts in the same cadre and without deploying them, no approval can be given for fresh appointments. Now the petitioner has filed this writ petition 2/8

challenging the order of rejection dated 14.03.2024.

5. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted below:

6. In the above impugned order, it is stated that there are two surplus posts in the revenue District and those surplus posts should be accommodated in the vacancy of the petitioner's school and only for such a proposal the respondent can give approval. So far as the petitioner's school is concerned it is 3/8

an aided minority school. So, the question of filling up the vacancy by deploying in minority schools in the revenue district will not arise in view of the special status of minority schools and the autonomy assured to them under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The other reference that is seen in the impugned order is about the G.O.Ms.No.238 School Education Department dated 13.11.2018. Even the above G.O speaks about the surplus posts of the District Level and the petitioner's school which is a minority institution cannot be expected to accommodate the surplus posts even in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.238 School Education Department dated 13.11.2018.

7. Mr.T.Amjadkhan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent submitted that legality of G.O.238 School Education Department dated 13.11.2018 has been upheld by this Court in W.P(MD)No.13428 of 2020. In the said order, the applicability of the above said Government Order relating to the minority institutions have also been dealt and is held as under: "9.Article 30 of the Constitution of India guarantees right to establish and administer educational institutions by minorities. The impugned G.O does not in any way constitute an inroad into that right. The management can very well appoint as many persons as they want. All that the G.O states is that the government will not be in a position to fund such appointments beyond what has been already provided. In Chandana Das v. State of W.B (2015) 12 SCC 140, it was noted that grant-in-aid is 4/8

not included in the guarantee contained in the Constitution to linguistic and religious minorities for establishing and running their educational institutions. Of course, such grant cannot be denied to such institutions only because the institutions are established by linguistic or religious minority. Grant-in-aid cannot be made subservient to conditions which deprive the institution of their substantive right of administering such institutions. This proposition was affirmed when reference was made to a larger bench [(2020) 13 SCC 411]. The above proposition was approvingly quoted in Christian Medical College Vellore Association v. UOI (2020) 8 SCC 705. The petitioners cannot complain of discrimination. The aforesaid G.O applies across the board to all educational institutions receiving aid irrespective of whether they are minority institutions or nonminority institutions. There is no infraction of the equality principle enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

8. However, the subject matter was pending in W.A(MD)No.816 of 2023 which has been filed by some other petitioner and in which a portion of School Education Department dated 13.11.2018 has been stayed. The respondent has got no quarrel with regard to the vacancy position of Office Assistant and that it is a sanctioned post during the relevant academic year and that was objected with regard to the implication of G.O.No.238 School Education Department dated 13.11.2018. Since the matter is subjudice, the respondent can give approval to the proposal submitted by the petitioner subject to the outcome of W.A.(MD)No.816 of 2023.

5/8

9. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 05.04.2024 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no PJL To The Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin- 628 002.

6/8

7/8

R.N.MANJULA, J.

PJL and WMP(MD)No.7945 of 2024 05.04.2024 8/8