1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.A.(MD).No.306 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 1.The Director of School Education, Chennai 600 006. 2.The District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. : Appellants/Respondents 1&2 Vs. 1.P.Govil Pillai, No.1/478, NGO Colony, Satchiapuram, Sivakasi West, Virudhunagar District. : I Respondent/Petitioner 2.The Correspondent, SCMS Girls Higher Secondary School, Sachiapuram, Sivakasi West, Virudhuangar District. : 2nd Respondent/3rd Respondent PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 04.08.2009 made in W.P.(MD).No.1476 of 2008 on the file of this Court. WP 1476 of 2008: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings O.Mu.No.1863/A3/06 dated 28.12.2007 and quash the same and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Record Clerk from the date of appointment and confer all the consequential benefits. For Appellant : Mr.R.Janakiramalu Special Government Pleader For Respondent 1 : Mr.V.Panneerselvam JUDGMENT ************* [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J] This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 04.08.2009 made in W.P.(MD).No.1476 of 2008. 2. The case of the first respondent before the learned Single Judge was that she was appointed as a Record Clerk in the second respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 school, which is a minority private aided school, with effect from 03.04.2002 due to the promotion given to one Charles as Junior Assistant. On 10.04.2002, the second respondent school submitted a proposal seeking approval of appointment of the first respondent. The second appellant, by his proceedings dated 10.12.2003, rejected the proposal sent by the second respondent school stating that the Government imposed ban order in G.O.Ms.No.212, (Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department, dated 29.11.2001, and therefore, the approval of appointment sought for by the second respondent school cannot be granted. Challenging the above order passed by the second appellant, the first respondent filed W.P. (MD).No.1476 of 2008 and for a consequential direction to the appellant to approve the appointment of the first respondent as Record Clerk in the second respondent school from the date of his appointment. 3. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 04.08.2009, relied on the similar order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD).No.1722 of 2009, dated 06.03.2009, quashed the order dated 10.12.2003 passed by the second appellant and allowed the said Writ Petition and directed the second appellant to approve the appointment of the first respondent as Record Clerk. Aggrieved over the said order, the appellants have come up with the present Writ Appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and perused the records carefully. 5. A similar issue as to whether after lifting of the ban, approval of a person's appointment in a non-teaching post in aided school, can be kept pending and whether the said persons are entitled to get salary at least from the date on which the ban order was lifted was considered by one of us [NPVJ] in W.P.(MD).No.484 of 2007, dated 30.10.2007. In the said order, in Paragraph Nos.19 and 20, it is held as follows:- 19. Similar ban order issued by the Department on the ground that new norms are contemplated and pending the same no appointment in aided schools are to be made was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.10237 of 1994 by order dated 16.08.1999. Since the petitioner was appointed from 05.06.2002 and he is continuously working in the sanctioned post, the respondents may be justified in not approving the appointment of the petitioner from 05.06.2002 to 06.02.2006. The petitioner has got a right to get his appointment approved, once the ban order is lifted. Admittedly, the ban order imposed, not to fill up the posts, was lifted on 07.02.2006. Hence, the petitioner has got every right to get his post approved with salary and other benefits with effect from 07.02.2006. Once the ban order is lifted, the provisions contained in Rule 15(1) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, comes into operation and the petitioner is deemed to be appointed on regular basis, as he was appointed within the sanctioned post in the fourth respondent school. 20. For all the reasons stated above, the impugned orders are set aside with a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Lab Assistant with effect from 07.02.2006. The third https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 respondent is directed to pass orders approving the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 07.02.2006 and pay arrears of salary from 07.02.2006 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 6. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the said order dated 30.10.2007 made in W.P.(MD).No.484 of 2007, was challenged by the respondents – Education Department in Writ Appeal (MD). No.308 of 2008 and the said Writ Appeal was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 04.08.2008. In the said Judgment, the Division Bench, in Paragraph Nos.4 and 5, has held as follows:- 4. After considering the rival submissions made on either side, following the Judgment of the Supreme Court and the order of this Court, the Learned Single Judge set aside the orders of the appellants with a direction to approve the appointment of the respondent/petitioner as Lab Assistant with effect from 07.02.2006 and the third respondent was directed to pass orders approving the appointment of the first respondent with effect from 07.02.2006 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 5. We find no infirmity or illegality in the order of the learned Judge dated 30.10.2007 passed in W.P.(MD).No.484 of 2007. Therefore, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed." 7. Subsequently, in W.A.No.558 of 2008, dated 16.09.2008, the Principal Seat of this Court ordered to pay salary to similarly placed persons from the date of their respective appointments. 8. In view of the above said order, which was confirmed by the Division Bench and by the Supreme Court in S.L.P.Nos.4086 and 4087 of 2010, dated 26.03.2010, the Writ Appeal is dismissed and the order dated 04.08.2009 made in W.P.(MD).No.1476 of 2008 is confirmed. The appellant is directed to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. SD/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ To Sub Assistant Registrar 1.The Director of School Education, Chennai 600 006 2.The District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. +1 CC TO MR. V. PANNEERSELVAM, ADVOCATE S.R NO. 11771 JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).No.306 of 2011 03.03.2011 NB PAM 07.04.2011/4C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/