IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 10.3.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL W.P.No.44721 of 2002 The Correspondent, St. Peter's R.C. High School, Chekkal, Thirparappu, Kanyakumari District. Petitioner vs. 1. The Government of Tamilnadu, rep by Secretary, Secondary Education, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 6. 3. The District Educational Officer, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent relating to his proceedings in Rc.No.52024/D1/2001 dated 17.4.2002 and quash the same and also direct respondents 1 and 2 to pass orders granting sanction for the post of Junior Assistant with effect from the academic year 1993-1994. For petitioner : Ms.J.Anandhavalli For respondents: Mr.D.Srinivasan ORDER The writ petition is filed to quash the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in Rc.No.52024/D1/2001 dated 17.4.2002 and also direct respondents 1 and 2 to pass orders granting sanction for the post of Junior Assistant with effect from the academic year 1993- 1994. 2. The petitioner St. Peter's R.C. High School, Chekkal, Kanyakumari District was a High School having standards 6 to 10. The School was upgraded as Higher Secondary School from the year 1998. A https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Junior Assistant by name M.Mary Rossary was appointed on 4.6.1979 as the School was eligible for such appointment as per the sanctioned strength of the School. But, she was denied salary and other benefits from 2.11.1987 by the respondents on the ground that the School was not eligible for one post of Junior Assistant as per the norms in vogue. 3. The petitioner, having contended that it was eligible to have one post of Junior Assistant as per the norms fixed in G.O.Ms.No.340 Education Department dated 1.4.1992, made several representations to the respondents. As the representations were not properly disposed of by the respondents, a writ petition was filed in W.P.No.7177 of 2000. After a direction was issued by this court to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 22.11.1999 in the light of G.O.Ms.No.340 Education Department dated 1.4.1992, the second respondent passed orders on 9.8.2000 rejecting the request of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner School did not have the required student strength of 300. As the strength of the School increased in the year 1993-94, a fresh representation was made to the respondents for sanction of the post of Junior Assistant. As the said representation was not disposed of, the petitioner again filed W.P.No.6825 of 2001 praying for a direction. The second respondent was again directed in the aforesaid writ petition to consider the claim of the petitioner for one post of Junior Assistant on merits. The second respondent passed the impugned order dated 17.4.2002 postponing the grant of sanction for the post of Junior Assistant on the ground that the recommendations of the High Power Committee appointed to revise the norms for sanction of non-teaching staff to private recognized aided school are under consideration of the Government. The petitioner challenges the aforesaid impugned order passed by the second respondent. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner cannot be asked to wait unendingly for the orders of the Government on the recommendations made by the High Power Committee appointed by it as the Junior Assistant Post is vital for the functioning of the School. It is her submission that inspite of the recommendations made by the third respondent to the second respondent, the second respondent has passed an order to direct the petitioner to wait till a decision is taken by the Government on the recommendations of the High Power committee. Therefore, he would submit that a direction may be issued to sanction one post of Junior Assistant as it is the admitted case of the respondents that the petitioner School has a required student strength of 300 right from the academic year 1993-94. 5. Learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that G.O.Ms.No.340 Education Department dated 1.4.1992 was completely superseded by the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.525 Education Department dated 29.12.1997. As the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.525 Education Department https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 29.12.1997 did not deal with the norms of the non-teaching staff, the Government appointed a High Power Committee. The recommendations of the High Power Committee is under serious consideration of the Government. Therefore, he would submit that the petitioner school cannot, as a matter of right, claim a post of Junior Assistant as per G.O.Ms.No.340 Education Department dated 1.4.1992. 6. The fact remains that the second respondent did not renew the sanction of the post of Junior Assistant right from 2.11.1987 as it was found that the petitioner school did not have required student strength as per the norms fixed by the first respondent. 7. The petitioner, having contended that the petitioner school has got the required student strength of 300 from the academic year 1993-94, made a representation to the third respondent for sanction of the post of Junior Assistant. But, the said representation, at the intervention of this court in W.P.No.6825 of 2001, was disposed of by the second respondent saying that the recommendations of the High Power Committee appointed by the first respondent is still under consideration of the first respondent. 8. As per G.O.Ms.No.340 Education Department dated 1.4.1992, the School having a student strength of 300 is entitled to a post of Junior Assistant. G.O.Ms.No.525 Education Department dated 29.12.1997 was passed by the first respondent fixing the norms only for the sanction of teaching staff superseding the entire Government Order earlier passed by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.340 Education Department dated 1.4.1992. 9. As a vacuum has been created in passing G.O.Ms.No.525 Education Department dated 29.12.1997 superseding G.O.Ms.No.340 Education Department dated 1.4.1992 in the matter of fixing norms for sanction of non-teaching staff, the Government awaited the report of the High Power Committee appointed by it as per G.O.4(D) No.1 Education, Science and Technology Department dated 16.8.1995. 10. It is brought to the notice of this court through the counter filed by the respondents that the High Power Committee had already submitted a report to the Government. It appears that the Government has not passed any orders on the recommendations made by the High Power Committee appointed by it way back in the year 1995. In the absence of any norms for sanction of non-teaching staff in G.O.Ms.No.525 Education Department dated 29.12.1997, the superseded G.O.Ms.No.340 Education Department dated 1.4.1992 which clearly prescribes the norms for sanction of the non-teaching staff will have to be fallen back on. The Government should have atleast directed the second respondent to adhere to the norms fixed for sanction of non-teaching staff in the superseded G.O.Ms.No.340 Education Department dated 1.4.1992 until the recommendations of the High Power https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Committee is accepted by the Government. 11. The third respondent has, in fact, recommended to the second respondent for sanction of a post of Junior Assistant to the petitioner school on the ground that the petitioner school has got a student strength of 300 during the academic year 1993-94. A school with a student strength of 300 cannot function without a Junior Assistant. The Teachers appointed by the School will have to share the administrative function of the Junior Assistant taking away their precious time of conducting classes for the students. Such an exercise will definitely tell upon the quality of education imparted by the Teachers in the School concerned. 12. It is held that the norms fixed in G.O.Ms.No.340 Education Department dated 1.4.1992 for sanction of non-teaching staff shall be adhered to by the second respondent though it is superseded by G.O.Ms.No.525 Education Department dated 29.12.1997 as the later Government Order had completely created a vacuum in the matter of prescribing norms for sanction of non-teaching staff. A school cannot be asked to wait for another decade begging continuously for a post of Junior Assistant when it is eligible to get such a post for the effective administrative function of the school. 13. Therefore, the second respondent is hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioner school on the strength of the recommendations made by the third respondent that the petitioner school has got student strength of 300 right from the academic year 1993-94 and that the petitioner school is entitled to have one post of Junior Assistant and pass orders in the light of the superseded G.O.Ms.No.340 dated 1.4.1992 without waiting for orders of the first respondent on the recommendations made by the High Power Committee appointed by it in the year 1995 within one month from the date of receipt of this order. 14. The writ petition is allowed with the above directions. There is no order as to costs. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ssk. To 1. The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamilnadu, Secondary Education, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 6. 3. The District Educational Officer, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District. + One C.C to Government Pleader SR.NO.16602 + One C.C to Mr. J. Anandhavalli Advocate SR.NO.16034 W.P.No.44721 of 2002 AKR[CO] KS 20/04/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/