State Of Tamil Nadu, v. S.Renganayagi,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.08.2016 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Writ Appeal (MD) No.1207 of 2016 & C.M.P(MD)No.7964 of 2016 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Director of School Education, Chennai-6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin District.
4.The District Educational Officer, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.
...Appellants/Respondents 1 to 4 -Vs-.
1.S.Renganayagi ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner 2.The Secretary, Senaiar Kalaimagal High School, Erachi, Tuticorin District.
...Respondent/5th Respondent
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 14.06.2016 made in W.P(MD)No.5585 of 2010.
Prayer in WP(MD). 5585/ 2010 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ or order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.132 School Education Department dated 27.04.1998 in so far as Clause 3 particularly confinilng girl students are concerned and the consequential order passed by the fourth respondent in his
proceedings Na.Ka.No/2537/A4/2009 dated 2.7.2009 and quash the same and direct the respondents to aprove the appointment of the petitioner as a Vocational Teacher in Tailoring from the date of appointment and confer all the consequential benefits and pass such further or other orders as may deem fit. For Appellant : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader.
For Respondent 1 : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J) This Writ Appeal is preferred by the State against the order and judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on 14.06.2016 in W.P(MD)No.5585 of 2016 in allowing the writ petition. 2.The facts are lying in a very narrow campus. A School at Erachi, Tuticorin District, had the post of Craft Teacher on it's rolls. The incumbent teacher has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31st May 2007. Then the Management of the School has taken up the issue with the Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin District, seeking permission to fill up the vacant post of Craft Teacher in the School.
The third respondent, namely, Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin District, after considering the matter, granted necessary permission on 25th January 2008, for filling up the vacant post of Craft Teacher and accordingly, the writ petitioner/the respondent herein came to be appointed as a Vocational Teacher (Tailoring) on 26th March 2008. The Management has taken up the issue for according approval for the appointment of the writ petitioner made on 26th March 2008. That proposal has been rejected by the District Educational Officer, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District, on the premise that the Government Order contained in G.O.Ms.No.132, School Education Department, dated 27th April 1998, do not authorise sanction of one post of Vocational Teacher to the School in question, where the girl students strength is less than that of 250.
3. The learned Single Judge has pointed out that the impugned order of rejection passed on 02.07.2009 by the District Educational Officer does not advert to the orders contained in G.O.Ms.No.132, School Education Department, dated 27th April 1998, at all. In such an event, the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition made an attempt to justify the impugned order of rejection to accord approval of the appointment of the writ petitioner passed in the year 2009 for different reasons.
4. Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the appellants would strenuously contend before us that no School Management has a right either to create a post of Teacher or to ask for approval of the appointment made to the post of Teacher contrary to the sanctioned scheme announced by the State Government from time to time.
5. We have no difficulty to appreciate the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader. The Private Aided Educational Institutions and the Agencies which run them, have no such liberty to create posts either teaching or non-teaching in educational institutions and then, seek to create huge financial burden on the State Government. It shall be open to the School or the Management of the School to create posts and pay the necessary salary and allowance to the holder of the post from out of their pocket. But however, if they ask for aid from the State Government, then, there is no alternative, except to follow very strictly the regime holding the field. The policy decision of the State Government, particularly, relating to creation of posts in educational institutions and then, providing necessary financial assistance to such posts, calls for strict discipline and adherence on the part of the Managements.
6.But however, in the instant case, the District Educational Officer cannot seek to question the sanction of one post of a Craft Teacher/Vocational Training Instructor in the School, for the reason that such post was already sanctioned to the School, and in fact, the incumbent teacher worked in the said post and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation only on 31st May 2007. Therefore, the issue which is liable to be examined at this distant point of time, is not relating to the decision, when the post of Craft Teacher/Vocational Teacher Instructors was sanctioned properly or not, but the question to be examined is as to whether necessary permission to fill up the vacancy, thus, caused by the retirement of the incumbent can be filled up or not.
7. In our opinion, the Chief Educational Officer has rightly approached the subject, when he has sanctioned necessary permission to fill up the vacant post of Craft Teacher/Vocational Teacher Instructor in the School on 22nd March 2008. Once, the Chief Educational Officer, being the administratively superior than that of the District Educational Officer, accorded the permission to the Management of the School to fill up the vacancy that arose due to the retirement of the incumbent Craft Teacher who retired on 31st May 2007, the Management has followed the necessary procedure and filled it up by appointing the writ petitioner on 22nd March 2008. The proposals have been sent to the District Educational Officer, namely, the fourth respondent, for according approval to such an appointment. It is, therefore, beyond the scope and power of the fourth respondent to examine the correctness or validity of the orders passed by his superior
agency, namely, the third respondent in according the permission to the School concerned on 22nd March 2008 to fill up the said post. The scrutiny by the District Educational Officer is liable to be confined strictly to the issue as to whether the Management has followed the procedure of filling up vacancies, fairly and faithfully or not. Once the procedure is followed correctly, approval is required to be accorded.
8. No public administration can run smoothly if subordinate agencies keep questioning the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by superior agencies. At any stage, if there is a genuine doubt entertained by the subordinate agency, with regard to the correctness of the order passed by such superior agency, they must approach the said superior agency to seek necessary clarification on the subject but, not to take independent decision on their own, which might be contrary to the orders passed by the superior agencies. The public administration, if it is allowed to function in that manner, it would create too many bottleneck and the quality of services to the public will get impeded substantively.
We, therefore, disapprove the conduct of the fourth respondent/District Educational Officer, Tuticorin, in passing the rejection order, dated 02nd July 2009, to approve the appointment of the writ petitioner, on the precious plea that a post of Craft teacher could not have been created in the school for want of strength of 250 Girl students, notwithstanding his superior sanctioning permission to the School to fill up the said post.
9. In our opinion, the order passed by the fourth respondent on 02nd July 2009, amounts to administratively reviewing the order passed by the Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin on 22nd March 2008, according necessary permission to the Management to fill up the post of Craft Teacher/ Vocational Training Instructor. Hence, the order passed on 02nd July 2009 passed by the District Educational Officer, which is impugned in the writ petition, is wholly un-sustainable.
10. There is yet another legal hurdle coming in the way of Shri.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader. When once a public authority passes an order assigning reason(s) for the order so passed, the validity of such an order needs to be tested in that backdrop. If new reasons are allowed to be assigned later on, that would amount to infusing life and sustainability into an otherwise an unsustainable order as was originally passed. Therefore, new reasons cannot be infused subsequent to the passing of an order by the public authority. (Mohinder Singh Gill and another -vs- The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405).
11. Therefore, we have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever to dismiss the writ appeal. We may take this opportunity to add one
other reason. Admittedly, there are large number of girl students pursuing various courses in the School concerned. May be their strength may have fallen short of the number of 250 prescribed, as necessary for sanction of a post. But however, the State, as a wise policy, has sanctioned such posts to the Schools, so that, the vocational skills can be imparted to the girl students. In the instant case, the vocation training sought to be imparted related to tailoring an avocation which better suits the girl students, to enhance their employment capabilities in the later part of life.
12. Therefore, the object of the State to promote the welfare and wellbeing of the girl child is a paramount consideration in case of this nature.
13. We accordingly, dismiss the writ appeal. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar gsr TO 1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Director of School Education, Chennai-6. 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin District. 4.The District Educational Officer, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.
+1 cc to Mr.V.Panneer Selvam ,Advocate, Sr.No: 47301 +1cc to M/S Special Government Pleader, Sr No. 47279 Writ Appeal (MD) No.1207 of 2016 23.08.2016 JAM/GSV-PM/9.09.16/ 5p-7c 23.08.2016