Nadar Higher Secondary v. The Secretary To Govt.,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.09.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA W.P(MD)No.16903 of 2016 Nadar Higher Secondary School, Watrap-626 132, Virudhunagar District, By its Secretary, Mr.S.K.Sankar ... Petitioner vs.
1)The Secretary to the Government, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2)The Director of School Education(Secondary) College Road, Chennai-6.
3)The District Educational Officer, Shriviliputhur, Virudhunagar District.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent O.Mu.No.2160/A3/2016 dated 29.08.2016 and Quash the same directing the 3rd respondent to approve the appointment of P.Kumaresan as Watchmen with effect from 17.08.2016 in the petitioner school namely, Nadar Higher Secondary School Watrap-626 132, Virudhunagar District,with all consequential monetary benefits and salary.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Kannan For Respondents : Mrs.S.Bharathi , Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the order of the 3rd respondent dated 29.08.2016, vide which, the 3rd respondent has returned the proposal of the petitioner, citing G.O.115 dated 30.05.2007 and Government Letters dated 26.10.2012, 26.05.2006 and 09.07.2012 respectively, stating that action is
being taken to form an Expert Committee to give recommendations to the Government, with regard to sanction of grant to the teaching and non teaching staff appointed in Government aided schools and after a final decision is taken by the government in this matter, grant of approval for such appointments will be considered later. So stating, the impugned return is made. The petitioner also sought for a direction to the respondents to accord approval to the appointment of P.Kumaresan as Watchman in their school with all monetary and other service benefits.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. The petitioner has appointed P.Kumaresan as Watchman with effect from 17.08.2016 in their school, which is a private Aided school and forwarded the proposal of approval of appointment on 19.08.2016. The eligibility of the petitioner to the post of Watchman is not in dispute. By the impugned order dated 29.08.2016, the proposal has been rejected on the ground that it is not possible to give approval to the post of Watchman.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the school is governed by the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Rules 1974 framed thereunder. Section 19 stipulates the qualifications and the conditions of service of employees in private schools. Section 20 speaks about the conditions of appointment. In addition to that, the Tamil Nadu Minority Aided Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant) Rules, 1977 also stipulates the rules in respect of Administration of Aided Minority School. Annexure - III of Rule 8 provides for the sanctioning and appointment of Library Clerk, Record Clerk and Laboratory and Library Assistants, Peons, Watchman, Waterman, Gardener, Sweeper and Scavenger in the Minority Aided Schools.
5. It is seen that the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms.212 dated 29.11.2001 imposed ban on appointment of different categories of post, excepting Police, Doctors and Teachers. The ban was lifted vide G.O.14 dated 07.02.2006 enabling the fulfillment of non-teaching staff. G.O.Ms.115 dated 30.05.2007, directed filling up of certain categories of nonteaching staff by appointment and the remaining categories of nonteaching staff to be outsourced. Vide G.O.Ms.No.189 dated 29.07.2009, the vacancies of Junior Assistant and Office Assistant are to be filled upon on a priority basis. Subsequently, G.O.203 dated 23.07.2010 mandated that certain categories of non-teaching staff like Junior Assistant, Librarian, Laboratory Assistant, Record Clerk and Office Assistant are to be approved from the date of appointment.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the post is sanctioned by the Director under Rule 15(1) of the Rules, the 3rd respondent is bound to sanction grant as per Rule 11
(2) of the Rules and there is no need to get prior permission from any authority to fill the vacancies that would arise in the sanctioned post. Unless the State Government suitably amends the provisions of the Act and the Rules making it mandatory to obtain prior permission for filling up of those sanctioned non- teaching posts, the Government could not issue impugned Government Orders. 6.1. This Court is in entire agreement with the said submission. Since there is no such provision in the Act and the Rules to seek prior permission, the 3rd respondent could not rely on the Government Orders/Government Letters imposing condition seeking permission of the State Government or the Director or any authority to fill up the sanctioned posts for approving of the same for the purpose of grant and therefore, the impugned Government Orders and the consequential proceedings refusing to approve of the non-teaching posts for the purpose of grant are issued in gross violation of the provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the Act read with Rule 15 of the Rules.
6.2. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in The Manager, Concordia High and Higher Secondary Schools V. Tmt.S.Christy and Others, reported in 2013 Writ L.R. 691 held as under: "4. In considering the contentions as put forth in the writ petition, learned single Judge pointed out to the judgment passed by this Court in W.A.Nos.93 and 94 of 2009 decided on 06.01.2010 that for any sanctioned post, no prior approval is necessary. In respect of proceedings noting the availability of posts, the learned single Judge pointed out that there is no necessity for prior approval. In any event, the appointment without getting approval could not be a ground for not considering the writ petitioner's plea"
6.3. A similar question arose for consideration in the case of S.Rasheetha Banu V. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Chennai and others, reported in (2012) 4 MLJ 198 wherein this Court has categorically held that "if a person is appointed in a sanctioned post in the Private Aided Minority School, the approval cannot be rejected for the purpose of grant on the ground that no prior permission was obtained before appointment". It is useful to extract paragraph 7 of the said order in this regard :
"7. The issue involved in this Writ Petition was already considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1263 of 2001, dated 22.1.2004. In the said Judgment, it is held that if a person is appointed in a sanctioned post, the approval of appointment cannot be rejected and if there is fall in strength and the post become surplus, after granting approval of the post, the
said teacher along with post could be transferred/deployed to a needy school. The said Judgment of the Division Bench was followed in W.P.(MD)No.11353 of 2008, dated 11.9.2009. As against the said order dated 11.9.2009, the department preferred W.A.(MD)No.703 of 2009. A Division Bench of this Court, by Judgment dated 1.2.2011, dismissed the said Writ Appeal."
7. The question of approval to the appointment of nonteaching staff in the sanctioned post after the introduction of G.O.Ms.No.115 and G.O.203 came to be considered by this Court and the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court quashed G.O.Ms.115 dated 30.05.2007 and G.O.203 dated 23.07.2010 vide order dated 15.03.2016 passed in W.P.(MD) Nos.11481 of 2008, etc. batch. It will be appropriate to extract the operative portion of the order as under:
"38. In the result, for the details reasons mentioned above, (i) All these writ petitions are allowed.
(ii) Impugned G.Os., namely, G.O.Ms.No.115, School Education Department, dated 30.05.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.203, School Education Department, dated 23.07.2010 and Government Letter No.8884/D1/2011-2, dated 09.07.2012, are quashed.
(iii) The impugned orders of the DEOs/DEEOs refusing to approve of the appointments of various non-teaching posts in these writ petitions are set aside and the official respondents are directed to approve of those appointments of the non-teaching staff in the Private Aided Schools concerned in these writ petitions and to sanction grant."
8. In view of the above stated position and also in the light of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.11481 of 2008, etc. batch (stated supra), this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.08.2016 of the 3rd respondent, refusing to approve of the appointment of P.Kumaresan as Watchman is set aside and the 3rd respondent is directed to accord approval to the appointment of P.Kumaresan as Watchman in the petitioner school with effect from 17.08.2016 with all monetary and other service benefits, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Sd/ Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar.
To 1)The Secretary to the Government, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2)The Director of School Education(Secondary) College Road, Chennai-6.
3)The District Educational Officer, Shriviliputhur, Virudhunagar District.
+1CC to M/S.K.K.Kannan, Advocate, SR.No. 51337 +1CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 51616 W.P(MD)No.16903 of 2016 09.09.2016 nbi MSM/CK/05.12.2016/5P/6C