The Correspondent v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.04.2017 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR W.P.(MD).No.6790 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.5354 and 5355 of 2017 The Correspondent, Jahova Reformed Christian High School, Seelovam Nagar, Dindugal-620 001.
... Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer, Dindugal,Dindugal District.
4.The District Educational Officer, Dindugal,Dindugal District.
... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceeding issued by the 4th respondent District Educational Officer in A.Thi.Mu No.1145/A3/2016 dated 04.03.2016, quash the same and further direct the 4th respondent to approve forthwith the appointment of S.Lavanya as Office Assistant in the petitioner's school w.e.f. the date of her appointment viz., 03.12.2014 with all attendant benefits including the arrears of salary and allowances. For Petitioner : MR. K.Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader.
O R D E R
The petitioner in this Writ Petition is the concerned School in which a non-teaching staff was appointed as against the sanctioned post.
2. The crucial fact whether the appointment was against sanctioned post or not was directed to be verified by the learned Additional Government Pleader and the learned Additional Government Pleader after getting instructions, has conceded the factual position that the persons to whom the approval is sought for are non-teaching staffs, who were appointed as against the sanctioned post. In this case the appointment is made in private school getting aid from the Government.
3. The question whether prior approval is required or not before appointing a non-teaching staff in a private aided institution has already been decided in favour of the petitioner holding that no prior permission is required. The attempt of the Government by restricting or preventing the private aided institution from making appointment as against sanctioned post was the subject matter of challenge in several writ petitions and this Court has consistently allowed all the writ petitions quashing the order refusing approval or other Government Orders or instructions preventing the private aided schools from making appointment on their own as against sanctioned post.
4. It is relevant to refer to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of The Manager, Concordia High and Higher Secondary School V. Tmt.S.Christy and others reported in 2013 Writ L.R.691 where in it has been held as follows: "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 05.01.2010 that for any sanctioned post, no prior approval is necessary. In respect of proceedings nothing 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".
5. A similar issue also 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.
6. This Court has categorically held that the approval cannot be rejected on the ground that no prior permission was obtained before the appointment, if the appointment was against a sanctioned post in the private aided institution. The question of approval to the appointment of Non-Teaching Staff against the sanctioned post was considered by this Court in several cases and this Court has consistently taken the view that no prior permission is required before making appointment in various Non-Teaching posts
in private aided institution. The conduct of respondents in passing orders against the judgment of this Court is also commented in subsequent orders of this Court.
7. In view of the proposition laid down by this Court which has now been well settled, this Court is inclined to allow this writ petition.
8. As a result this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the fourth respondent is directed to accord approval to the appointment of Non-Teaching Staff concerned with effect from the date of appointment with all monetary and other service benefits within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs. Consequently the connected W.M.P.(MD) Nos.5354 and 5355 of 2017 are closed.
sd ASST REGISTRAR (CS II) TRUE COPY SUB ASST REGISTRAR cmr/gsp To 1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer, Dindugal,Dindugal District.
4.The District Educational Officer, Dindugal,Dindugal District.
1CC TO MR. K. PRABHU, ADVOCATE SR: 52588 KK SKN RSK SAR 4/ 25/04/2017 W.P.(MD).No.6790 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.5354 and 5355 of 2017 18.04.2017 3P 6C