[C[CASE NUMBER]SE NUMBER] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIC[CASE NUMBER]TURE [CASE NUMBER]T M[CASE NUMBER]DR[CASE NUMBER]S D[CASE NUMBER]TED: 16[CASE NUMBER]09[CASE NUMBER]2019 COR[CASE NUMBER]M: THE HON'BLE MR[CASE NUMBER]JUSTICE [ENTITY] [CASE NUMBER]ND THE HON'BLE MR[CASE NUMBER]JUSTICE [ENTITY] [C[CASE NUMBER]SE NUMBER] [W[CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER]SR[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]114017[CASE NUMBER]2019] 1[CASE NUMBER]The [ENTITY], Rep[CASE NUMBER] by its [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER] 2[CASE NUMBER]The [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER] 3[CASE NUMBER]The [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER]ppellants vs[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] [ENTITY] Respondents Prayer: Writ [CASE NUMBER]ppeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in [C[CASE NUMBER]SE NUMBER], dated 16[CASE NUMBER]08[CASE NUMBER]2018[CASE NUMBER] For [CASE NUMBER]ppellants : Mr[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY] Government [CASE NUMBER]dvocate[CASE NUMBER] http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in 1[CASE NUMBER]20 [C[CASE NUMBER]SE NUMBER] JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by [ENTITY], J) Instant writ appeal is filed against the order made in [C[CASE NUMBER]SE NUMBER], dated 16[CASE NUMBER]08[CASE NUMBER]2018, by which the Writ Court set aside the impugned proceedings in Letter[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]3498[CASE NUMBER]v[CASE NUMBER]2[CASE NUMBER]2007-19, dated 28[CASE NUMBER]10[CASE NUMBER]2011 of the Secretary to the Government, Department of School Education, Chennai, the first respondent therein, and consequentially issued a direction to the first respondent therein, to regularize the services of the writ petitioner on par with similarly placed persons and extend all the monetary benefits by passing suitable orders in the light of G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]577, Education Department, dated 01[CASE NUMBER]04[CASE NUMBER]1981 and G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]1065, Education Department, dated 19[CASE NUMBER]11[CASE NUMBER]1993, and such orders shall be passed by the first respondent therein, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order[CASE NUMBER]
2[CASE NUMBER] Shorts facts leading to the appeal are that writ petitioner[CASE NUMBER]first respondent herein, was appointed as a consolidated employee by the Compion [CASE NUMBER]nglo Indian Boys Higher Secondary School, Tiruchy, the 2nd respondent herein, to the post of Gardener, with permissible dearness allowance[CASE NUMBER] The 2nd respondent school is an aided institution functioning http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in under the control of the Director of School Education, Chennai[CASE NUMBER]the second appellant herein, though the Inspector of [CASE NUMBER]nglo Indian Schools, Chennai[CASE NUMBER]the third appellant herein, is in-charge of all the [CASE NUMBER]nglo Indian Schools, functioning within the State of Tamil Nadu[CASE NUMBER] It is stated that the provisions of the [[CASE NUMBER]CT], are implemented for administration of the school[CASE NUMBER]
3[CASE NUMBER] Vide G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]577, Education Department, dated 01[CASE NUMBER]04[CASE NUMBER]1981, the first appellant herein approved the proposal submitted by the Director of School Education, Chennai[CASE NUMBER]the second appellant herein, for bringing the contingent staff in aided schools, who were in service for more than five years, and assessed for grant to be brought into the time scale of pay[CASE NUMBER] The benefit of the said government order is stated to have been extended to [CASE NUMBER]nglo-Indian Schools which were given deficit grant by the proceedings of the Inspector of [CASE NUMBER]nglo Indian Schools, Chennai[CASE NUMBER]third appellant herein, dated 31[CASE NUMBER]10[CASE NUMBER]1983 in [C[CASE NUMBER]SE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER][C[CASE NUMBER]SE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER], dated 01[CASE NUMBER]04[CASE NUMBER]1981[CASE NUMBER]
4[CASE NUMBER] It is contended by the writ petitioner that, vide G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]1065, Education Department, dated 19[CASE NUMBER]11[CASE NUMBER]1993, the first appellant has referred to an earlier government order and the proceedings of the third appellant http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in herein, extended the time scale of pay to persons who were in service for the period, between 01[CASE NUMBER]04[CASE NUMBER]1980 and 01[CASE NUMBER]04[CASE NUMBER]1987 in all the [CASE NUMBER]nglo-Indian Schools upon completion of five years of service[CASE NUMBER]
5[CASE NUMBER] On the basis of the abovesaid government order, it is contended that writ petitioner, who had been appointed by the 2nd respondent School, Trichy[CASE NUMBER]Management, were required to be brought into time scale of pay and suitable proposal of the management was submitted for approval of the third respondent[CASE NUMBER]
6[CASE NUMBER] It is the case of the writ petitioner that the only condition contemplated in the said government orders, is that he should have completed five years of service between 01[CASE NUMBER]04[CASE NUMBER]1980 and 01[CASE NUMBER]04[CASE NUMBER]1987 and the writ petitioner satisfies the said condition and therefore entitled to absorption in the post he was working in the regular establishment on time scale of pay applicable to the post[CASE NUMBER]
7[CASE NUMBER] Vide proceedings No[CASE NUMBER]3498[CASE NUMBER]V2[CASE NUMBER]2007-19, dated 28[CASE NUMBER]10[CASE NUMBER]2011, the Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai[CASE NUMBER]the first appellant herein, has stated that the respective management should bear the costs for such http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in regularization and further, that the management should not include the expenditure on that account in the deficit grant and refrain from making a claim to the Department to compensate the differential grant amount[CASE NUMBER]
8[CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER]s against the said proceedings, dated 28[CASE NUMBER]10[CASE NUMBER]2011 of the first appellant herein, [C[CASE NUMBER]SE NUMBER], is filed[CASE NUMBER]
9[CASE NUMBER] Before the Writ Court, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submitted that inasmuch as the writ petitioner had put in more years of service than five years of service as contemplated in G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]577, dated 01[CASE NUMBER]04[CASE NUMBER]1981 and G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]1065, dated 19[CASE NUMBER]11[CASE NUMBER]1993, the first appellant herein ought to have extended the benefit of regularization and granted the time scale of pay with necessary grant[CASE NUMBER]
10[CASE NUMBER] Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that when there are specific government orders requiring the services of the writ petitioner to be regularized by taking into account the need of service of such contingent staff to be brought under regular establishment, denial of such benefits to the writ petitioner, is violative of [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [[CASE NUMBER]CT][CASE NUMBER]
http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in
11[CASE NUMBER] Per contra, before the Writ Court, the learned [CASE NUMBER]dditional [CASE NUMBER]dvocate General appearing on behalf of appellants 1 and 2, reiterated the stand taken by the appellants authorities while passing the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition[CASE NUMBER]
12[CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER]fter hearing the learned counsel for the parties, vide order dated 16[CASE NUMBER]08[CASE NUMBER]2019 in [C[CASE NUMBER]SE NUMBER], writ court ordered as hereunder:-
"12[CASE NUMBER] I heard M[CASE NUMBER]s[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY], learned senior counsel for Mr[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY], Mr[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY], learned [CASE NUMBER]dditional [CASE NUMBER]dvocate General assisted by Mr[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY], learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 and M[CASE NUMBER]s[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY], learned counsel for the 4th respondent in all the writ petitions and perused the documents available on record[CASE NUMBER] No representation on behalf of the 3rd respondent[CASE NUMBER]
13[CASE NUMBER] In the case on hand, the initial appointment of the petitioners or their continuation in employment till date as consolidated employees is not disputed by the respondent authorities[CASE NUMBER] In fact, the plea of the petitioners of continuation in service is fortified by the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent school[CASE NUMBER]
14[CASE NUMBER] Moreover, it is not in dispute that the fourth respondent school is an aided school and it is governed by the provisions of the [[CASE NUMBER]CT][CASE NUMBER]
15[CASE NUMBER] Under identical circumstances, in respect of one [ENTITY], who was appointed as Sweeper-cum-[ENTITY] on 3[CASE NUMBER]1[CASE NUMBER]1966 and retired from service after working for more than forty years, this Court by order dated 3[CASE NUMBER]12[CASE NUMBER]2012 passed in [C[CASE NUMBER]SE NUMBER], held as under:
"6[CASE NUMBER] The Petitioner was appointed as Sweeper cum- [ENTITY] on 3[CASE NUMBER]1[CASE NUMBER]1966 and retired from service after working for more than forty years[CASE NUMBER] Though beneficial Government Orders http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in came to be passed in the year 1977 and 1981 in G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]52 and G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]577 respectively, granting regularization of service with time scale of pay to the persons similarly situated like that of the petitioner, there was no reason as to why the petitioner was not granted such benefit[CASE NUMBER]
7[CASE NUMBER] On the other hand, the contention of the respondents that G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]577 was not applicable to the aided Teacher Training Institute, cannot be sustained in view of the fact that when G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]577, dated 01[CASE NUMBER]04[CASE NUMBER]1981 was passed by the Education Department, there was no such discrimination made in the said Government order[CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER] perusal of G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]577 would show that the contingent staff in aided schools who had put in not less than five years of service as on 1[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]1979 shall be given the time scale of pay w[CASE NUMBER]e[CASE NUMBER]f[CASE NUMBER] 1[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]1979[CASE NUMBER] While passing the said Government Order, there was no distinction made between the aided schools and the aided Teacher Training Institutes[CASE NUMBER] It is also not in dispute that the Teacher Training Institutes are also coming under the purview and control of the school Education Department[CASE NUMBER] That being the position, there cannot be any discrimination between the contingent staff of aided schools and the aided Teacher Training Institutes[CASE NUMBER] Even assuming so, the very conduct of the first respondent in granting regularization of service to similarly situated persons in G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]156, dated 23[CASE NUMBER]6[CASE NUMBER]1981 and G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]46, dated 8[CASE NUMBER]2[CASE NUMBER]2000 shows that they applied the very same G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]52 to those persons who were also working as contingent staff in Teacher Training Institutes[CASE NUMBER] Thus the petitioner is entitled to the relief and the conduct of the first respondent in rejecting his claim undoubtedly is an act of discrimination which violates [SECTION] of [[CASE NUMBER]CT][CASE NUMBER]
8[CASE NUMBER] In fact this Court in a decision reported in [C[CASE NUMBER]SE NUMBER] cited supra had observed that the petitioner therein having satisfied the minimum required continuous service of five years is entitled for regularization of his service as per G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]52, Finance(FRII) Department, dated 14[CASE NUMBER]1[CASE NUMBER]1977[CASE NUMBER] The institution in the said Writ Petition, wherein the contingent staff worked also was a Teacher Training Institute[CASE NUMBER] By considering all the above facts and circumstances, the learned Judge held that the petitioner therein was entitled to regularization of his service[CASE NUMBER]
http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in
9[CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER]pplying the said decision, to the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as by considering the very conduct of the first respondent in regularization of service of the similarly situated persons through G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]156, dated 23[CASE NUMBER]12[CASE NUMBER]1997 and G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]46, dated 8[CASE NUMBER]2[CASE NUMBER]00 I find every justification in allowing this Writ Petition[CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER]ccordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside[CASE NUMBER] The respondents are directed to regularize the service of the petitioner w[CASE NUMBER]e[CASE NUMBER]f[CASE NUMBER] 01[CASE NUMBER]04[CASE NUMBER]1979 on par with that of the similarly placed persons and extend all the monetary benefits by passing suitable orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order[CASE NUMBER]"
16[CASE NUMBER] The learned [CASE NUMBER]dditional [CASE NUMBER]dvocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities is not in a position to dispute the applicability of the above said order[CASE NUMBER] The [CASE NUMBER]dditional [CASE NUMBER]dvocate General also not produced any appeal proceedings against the said order[CASE NUMBER]
17[CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER] perusal of the typed set of documents filed by the petitioners shows that similar orders passed by this Court had been implemented by the Government[CASE NUMBER]
18[CASE NUMBER] Under such circumstances, this Court finds no just and reasonable cause to take a different stand than the one taken in the above said decision[CASE NUMBER]
19[CASE NUMBER] For the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned proceedings of the first respondent are quashed with a direction to the first respondent to regularize the services of the petitioners on a par with similarly placed persons and extend all the monetary benefits by passing suitable orders in the light of G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]577, dated 01[CASE NUMBER]04[CASE NUMBER]1981 and G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]1065, dated 19[CASE NUMBER]11[CASE NUMBER]1993[CASE NUMBER] Such orders shall be passed by the first respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order[CASE NUMBER] No costs[CASE NUMBER] Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed[CASE NUMBER]"
13[CASE NUMBER] Being aggrieved by the same, instant writ appeal is filed on the following grounds:-
http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in "(i) Writ Court ought to have seen that the benefit of the Government Orders as stated by the writ petitioners i[CASE NUMBER]e[CASE NUMBER], G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER](Ms)[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]577, Education, dated 01[CASE NUMBER]04[CASE NUMBER]1981, G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER](Ms)[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]1065, Education Department, dated 19[CASE NUMBER]11[CASE NUMBER]1993 and G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER](Ms)[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]85, School Education Department, dated 23[CASE NUMBER]08[CASE NUMBER]2005, are available to the posts in the fully aided institutions only if they are filled up after obtaining due prior-approval from the Government[CASE NUMBER] In the instance of the writ petitioners they were appointed without the prior approval of the Government[CASE NUMBER]
(ii) Writ Court ought to have seen that the Hon'ble [CASE NUMBER]pex Court, reiterated the power of the Government in sanctioning posts to aided institutions in its judgment in SLP (C) No[CASE NUMBER]5855 of 2009 ([ENTITY] and Others vs[CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER]mala [CASE NUMBER]nnai Higher Secondary School)[CASE NUMBER] The Hon'ble [CASE NUMBER]pex Court in the paras (15) and (16) has ordered as follows:-
"15[CASE NUMBER] Last but not the least, the High Court erred in directing the present [CASE NUMBER]ppellant No[CASE NUMBER] 1 to sanction one post of Junior [CASE NUMBER]ssistant to the Respondent No[CASE NUMBER] 1 - [CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER]HS School from June 1, 1994 overlooking and ignoring that creation and sanction of posts is the prerogative of the executive and the courts cannot arrogate to themselves a purely executive power[CASE NUMBER]
16[CASE NUMBER] The appeal must, accordingly, succeed and is allowed with no order as to costs[CASE NUMBER]"
Hence, it is well settled that sanctioning of posts to the aided institutions are within the prerogative of the executive and the courts cannot arrogate to themselves a purely executive power[CASE NUMBER]
(iii) Writ Court ought to have seen that in [C[CASE NUMBER]SE NUMBER] filed against the orders of this Court in W[CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER][SECTION]20 of 2011, dated 16[CASE NUMBER]11[CASE NUMBER]2011, the Hon'ble [CASE NUMBER]pex Court has held as follows:-
http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in In our view, the direction given by the Division Bench of the High Court in G[CASE NUMBER]Sahadevan Nair, Kanyakumari District vs[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], represented by its Secretary, Education Department, Chennai and others 2008 (4) MLJ 289 for consideration of the application of the institutions and[CASE NUMBER]staff employed by such institutions does not mean that even though the particular institution may not be eligible or entitled to grant-in-aid, the Government is obliged to accept the application[CASE NUMBER] The direction given by the High Court clearly implies that the Government is required to consider the application of the institutions and[CASE NUMBER]staff employed by such institutions strictly in accordance with law and take appropriate decision[CASE NUMBER]
With the above observation, the special leave petition is disposed of[CASE NUMBER]
(iv) Writ Court ought to have been considered the fact that in [C[CASE NUMBER]SE NUMBER], the High Court in its judgment dated 13[CASE NUMBER]06[CASE NUMBER]2012, has inter alia held by citing various Hon'ble [CASE NUMBER]pex Court orders that the Government is under no obligation to accord sanction to the posts as and when so requested by aided institutions, but it can only verify the need of such institutions and award sanction according to the financial viability of the State[CASE NUMBER] In view of the above the respondents are not at all under any obligation, to accord sanction to the unapproved posts of the petitioners[CASE NUMBER]
(v) Writ Court ought to have seen that the Government have ordered that the category of contingent staff be abolished forth with and that there should be no further recruitment to this category[CASE NUMBER] Even, if need arises for a particular post, it may be sanctioned by the Government either for a temporary post or a permanent post vide G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER](Ms) No[CASE NUMBER]52, Finance (F[CASE NUMBER]R[CASE NUMBER]II) Department, dated 14[CASE NUMBER]01[CASE NUMBER]1977[CASE NUMBER] Hence, the category of contingency staff was abolished by the Government as per the above said G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER] But, the 1st respondent was http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in appointed on 12[CASE NUMBER]08[CASE NUMBER]1988 as [ENTITY] under the contingency category in the Dathie Nursery School, Nagarcoil[CASE NUMBER] Hence, the 1st respondent service could not be regularized[CASE NUMBER]
(vi) Writ Court ought to have seen that in a case filed by [ENTITY] before this Court, in [C[CASE NUMBER]SE NUMBER], and passed an order to regularize the service of the petitioner[CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER]s against the order passed by this Court, [C[CASE NUMBER]SE NUMBER], has been filed[CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER] Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, has passed the following order on 30[CASE NUMBER]11[CASE NUMBER]2016:-
[CASE NUMBER]t this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the first Respondent herein relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], wherein the Supreme Court quoted the ratio laid down in [PRECEDENT], while considering the scope of regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and laid down the well-settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay relevant in the context of the issues involved t[CASE NUMBER] The same are as under:
(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates[CASE NUMBER]
http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in
(vii) Writ Court ought to have considered the fact that respondents 1 to 3 were appointed on 01[CASE NUMBER]06[CASE NUMBER]1985, 01[CASE NUMBER]12[CASE NUMBER]1989 and 02[CASE NUMBER]12[CASE NUMBER]1985 in the unsanctioned contingency Night Watchman, Sweeper and Gardener post i[CASE NUMBER]e[CASE NUMBER], after the issuance of G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER](Ms)No[CASE NUMBER]52, Finance (FR-II) Department, dated 14[CASE NUMBER]01[CASE NUMBER]1977[CASE NUMBER] The appointment of contingency post was abolished as per the said government order[CASE NUMBER] Hence, the services of the respondents 1 to 3, could not be regularized[CASE NUMBER]
(viii) Writ Court ought to have considered that at the time of appointment order issued to the respondents, the management of the school and the contingent staff (un sanctioned post) entered into an agreement (terms and conditions) each other[CASE NUMBER] The agreement is made only between the contingent staff (un sanctioned post) and the management[CASE NUMBER] There is no role for the government in the agreement made between the contingent staff (un sanctioned post) and the management[CASE NUMBER] Hence, the appellants 1 to 3, have no responsibility of the salary etc[CASE NUMBER], to the respondents 1 to 3[CASE NUMBER]
(ix) Writ Court could have considered the fact that if regularization is given to the respondents [CASE NUMBER] petitioners it will adversely affect the interest of the State and unnecessarily reopen the already settled issues[CASE NUMBER]"
14[CASE NUMBER] Heard the learned Government [CASE NUMBER]dvocate and perused the materials available on record[CASE NUMBER]
15[CASE NUMBER] G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER](Ms)[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]577, Education Department, dated 01[CASE NUMBER]04[CASE NUMBER]1981, is extracted hereunder:-
http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]577 Education Dated: 1[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]1981 Read:
1[CASE NUMBER] G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]52 Finance (F[CASE NUMBER]R[CASE NUMBER]II) dt[CASE NUMBER] 4[CASE NUMBER]11[CASE NUMBER]77
2[CASE NUMBER] From the Director of School Education, [C[CASE NUMBER]SE NUMBER] dt[CASE NUMBER]20[CASE NUMBER]11[CASE NUMBER]78 Order:
The Government approve the proposal of the Director of School Education and direct that the contingent staff in [CASE NUMBER]ided Schools who have put in five years and more of continuous service as on 1[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]79 and who are assessed for grant, be given a time scale of pay applicable to similar categories in Government Service, from time to time with effect from 1[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]79[CASE NUMBER] The Director of School Education should ensure that the managements of [CASE NUMBER]ided Schools do not appoint any contingent staff in future without his approval[CASE NUMBER] The instructions issued in G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]52 Finance dated 12[CASE NUMBER]1[CASE NUMBER]77 should scrupulously be followed while bringing the contingent staff into regular establishment and the Director of School Education is requested to send proposals of bringing the contingent the contingent staff in to regular establishment who will be completing five years of service after 1[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]79 to Government for approval[CASE NUMBER]
2[CASE NUMBER] The expenditure in the extension of time scale of pay will be allowed for grant purposes under the existing pattern of aid[CASE NUMBER]
This order issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department Vide its U[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]37476[CASE NUMBER]E2[CASE NUMBER]81-1 dt[CASE NUMBER]31[CASE NUMBER]3[CASE NUMBER]1981[CASE NUMBER]
(By order of the Governor) (Sd[CASE NUMBER]) C[CASE NUMBER]R[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]D[CASE NUMBER]S COMMISSIONER & SECRET[CASE NUMBER]RY TO GOVT[CASE NUMBER]
16[CASE NUMBER] G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER](Ms)[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]1065, Education Department, dated 19[CASE NUMBER]11[CASE NUMBER]1993, is extracted hereunder:-
http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in [ENTITY] [CASE NUMBER]bstract EDUC[CASE NUMBER]TION - [CASE NUMBER]nglo-Indian Education - Contingent Employees in [CASE NUMBER]nglo-Indian Schools and [CASE NUMBER]nglo-Indian Teacher Training Institute bring into regular establishment and extension of time scale of pay to those who have completed five years of service during 1[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]80 to 1[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]87 and etc[CASE NUMBER] - Orders issued[CASE NUMBER]
EDUC[CASE NUMBER]TION DEP[CASE NUMBER]RTMENT G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]1065 Dated: 19[CASE NUMBER]11[CASE NUMBER]93 Read: 1[CASE NUMBER] G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]577, Education dated 1[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]81[CASE NUMBER] 2[CASE NUMBER] From the Director of School Education [C[CASE NUMBER]SE NUMBER], dated 1[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]92[CASE NUMBER] ORDER:
The Director of School Education has brought to notice that with reference to the orders issued in G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]577, Education dated 1[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]81 the inspector of [CASE NUMBER]nglo-Indian Schools has issued orders in his proceedings [C[CASE NUMBER]SE NUMBER] dated 31[CASE NUMBER]10[CASE NUMBER]83 and 5[CASE NUMBER]3[CASE NUMBER]84 bringing 51 Contingent staff of [CASE NUMBER]nglo-Indian High[CASE NUMBER]Higher Secondary Schools who had completed 5 years of service as on 1[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]79 to regular establishment on regular time scale of pay[CASE NUMBER] This was done even when the Director of School Education had addressed the Government on the applicability of the orders issued in the G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER] Read above to [CASE NUMBER]nglo-Indian Schools and the question was under
consideration of the Government[CASE NUMBER] The Director of School Education has requested orders regarding applicability of the orders in G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]577, Edn[CASE NUMBER] Dated 1[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]81 to [CASE NUMBER]nglo-Indian Schools and has requested the Government to ratify the action of the Inspector of [CASE NUMBER]nglo-Indian Schools in having issued orders bringing 51 contingent menials in [CASE NUMBER]nglo-Indian Schools who had completed 5 years of service as on 1[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]79 to regular establishment[CASE NUMBER] The Director of School Education has also requested orders of the Government to bring 35 continuous staff working indifferent [CASE NUMBER]nglo-Indian http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in Schools and one [CASE NUMBER]nglo-Indian Teacher Training Institute who have completed 5 years service during the period from 1[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]80 to 1[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]87 to regular Establishment[CASE NUMBER]
2[CASE NUMBER] The Government have carefully examined the proposal of the Director of School Education[CASE NUMBER] The Government clarified that the orders issued in G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]577, Edn[CASE NUMBER] Dated 1[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]81 have to be followed in the case of [CASE NUMBER]nglo-Indian Schools and the case of one recognised [CASE NUMBER]nglo-Indian Teacher Training Institute also[CASE NUMBER] The Government also ratify the action of the Inspector of [CASE NUMBER]nglo-Indian Schools in having issued orders to bring in regular establishment 51 contingent staff of various [CASE NUMBER]nglo-Indian Schools who had completed 5 years of service as on 1[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]1979[CASE NUMBER]
3[CASE NUMBER] The Government have also examined the proposal of the Director of School Education to bring regular establishment 35 members of the contingent staff of different [CASE NUMBER]nglo-Indian Schools and one [CASE NUMBER]nglo-Indian Teacher Training Institute who have completed 5 years of service on the first of [CASE NUMBER]pril each year from 1980 to 1987[CASE NUMBER] the Government direct that the contingent staff who were appointed prior to 1[CASE NUMBER]04[CASE NUMBER]81 specified in the [CASE NUMBER]nnexure to this order (that is those against serial numbers 1 to 29 the rein) be brought into regular establishment with effect from the date of issue of this order[CASE NUMBER] The contingent Staff who are brought to regular establishment shall be brought to the time scale of pay applicable to the posts with effect from the date on which they are brought to regular establishment[CASE NUMBER]
4[CASE NUMBER] The expenditure on the extension of time scale of pay will be allowed for grant purposes only under the existing pattern of aid in [CASE NUMBER]nglo- Indian Schools and in the [CASE NUMBER]nglo-Indian Teacher Training Institute[CASE NUMBER]
5[CASE NUMBER] This order issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide its U[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]90251[CASE NUMBER]Edn[CASE NUMBER]93-1 dated 07[CASE NUMBER]10[CASE NUMBER]93[CASE NUMBER]
(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) J[CASE NUMBER]Y[CASE NUMBER]NTHI SECRET[CASE NUMBER]RY TO THE GOVERNMENT http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in
17[CASE NUMBER] In the averments made in the writ petition, petitioner has furnished the service details, as hereunder:-
Name [CASE NUMBER]ge Designation School Date of app[CASE NUMBER] Years of Service as on 30[CASE NUMBER]09[CASE NUMBER]2012 [ENTITY] 53 Gardener St[CASE NUMBER]Josephs 01[CASE NUMBER]06[CASE NUMBER]93 19 Years, 4 [CASE NUMBER]nglo Indian months[CASE NUMBER]
Girls Hr[CASE NUMBER]Sec[CASE NUMBER]School, Trichy
18[CASE NUMBER] Though the 3rd appellant has filed a detailed counter affidavit before the writ court, denying regularisation of the services of respondent 1 herein, appellants have not disputed the service rendered by the writ petitioner, in the abovesaid 2nd respondent school, in particular, period of service rendered by them, namely, 19 years and 4 months[CASE NUMBER]
19[CASE NUMBER] Writ Court while allowing the writ petition, has considered an identical order made in [C[CASE NUMBER]SE NUMBER], dated 03[CASE NUMBER]12[CASE NUMBER]2012[CASE NUMBER] It is not disputed before the Writ Court that the writ petitioners[CASE NUMBER]respondents 1 to 3 herein, are also similarly placed persons[CASE NUMBER] Before the Writ Court learned [CASE NUMBER]dditional [CASE NUMBER]dvocate General has also not disputed the applicability of the order made in [C[CASE NUMBER]SE NUMBER], dated 03[CASE NUMBER]12[CASE NUMBER]2012 to the facts of the case they cannot be treated differently[CASE NUMBER] Reference can be made to few decisions:-
http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in
(i) In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph 8, held thus, "8[CASE NUMBER]
[CASE NUMBER]s regards the right to equality guaranteed under [SECTION], the position is well settled that the said right ensures equality amongst equals and its aim is to protect persons similarly placed against discriminatory treatment[CASE NUMBER] It means that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed[CASE NUMBER] Conversely discrimination may result if persons dissimilarly situate are treated equally[CASE NUMBER] Even amongst persons similarly situate differential treatment would be permissible between one class and the other[CASE NUMBER] In that event it is necessary that the differential treatment should be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question[CASE NUMBER]"
(ii) In [PRECEDENT], in paragraph 8, the Hon'ble [CASE NUMBER]pex Court held thus:
"8[CASE NUMBER] we do not find any reasonable justification to confine the relief to only such of the teachers who approached the court and having regard to the fact that relief related to the revision of scales of pay, every one of that class of teachers who approached would be entitled to the benefit, notwithstanding that they have not approached the court[CASE NUMBER]"
(iii) In [PRECEDENT], the Supreme Court held that if the Courts are not correcting the wrong action of the Government it may leave citizen with the belief that citizen is right in contacting right persons in the Government as if judicial proceedings are not efficacious[CASE NUMBER] Thus similarly placed persons are bound to be treated equally without discrimination is a fundamental right guaranteed under [SECTION] of the [[CASE NUMBER]CT][CASE NUMBER]
(iv) In [PRECEDENT] http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in (8) Scale 74 : (2013) 7 SCC 595, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there cannot be any discrimination in treating equally placed persons on same footing, for all purposes[CASE NUMBER]"
20[CASE NUMBER] In view of the above discussion and decisions, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge and the instant writ appeal is dismissed[CASE NUMBER] No Costs[CASE NUMBER] Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition, is closed[CASE NUMBER]
([ENTITY], J[CASE NUMBER]) ([ENTITY], J[CASE NUMBER]) 16[CASE NUMBER]09[CASE NUMBER]2019 nvsri http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in To
1[CASE NUMBER]The [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER]
2[CASE NUMBER]The [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER]
3[CASE NUMBER]The [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER]
http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in [ENTITY],J[CASE NUMBER]
[CASE NUMBER]ND [ENTITY], J[CASE NUMBER]
nvsri [[C[CASE NUMBER]SE NUMBER]] 16[CASE NUMBER]09[CASE NUMBER]2019 http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in