1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.A.(MD).Nos.154 to 156 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1, 1, 1, 2, 2 and 2 of 2011 1.The Secretary to Government, Education Department, State of Tamil Nadu, St.George Fort, Chennai 9. 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai 600 006. 3.The District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli 627 001. : Appellants in All Writ Appeals Vs. 1.V.Franklin Jebasingh, S/o.J.Vadhamanickam, Matha Street, Koripallam, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Correspondent, Schaffter Higher Secondary School, Tirunelveli District. : Respondents in W.A.(MD).No.154 of 2011 1.R.Kennedy, S/o.Ratnam Nadar, Rajagopalapuram, Ramayapatti, Thachanallur, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Correspondent, Schaffter Higher Secondary School, Tirunelveli District. : Respondents in W.A.(MD).No.155 of 2011 1.Mrs.A.Jasmin Sofia, D/o.Arulmanickam, 18B, Mission Street, C.N. Village, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Correspondent, Schaffter Higher Secondary School, Tirunelveli District. : Respondents in W.A.(MD).No.156 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 PRAYER: Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 24.11.2008 made in W.P.(MD).Nos.8150, 8151 and 8152 of 2008 on the file of this Court. Common Prayer: Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the return of request for the approval of appointment of these petitioners in the post of office Assistants and Watchman in 4th respondent School in his proceedings in A.Thi.Mu.2279Aa2/06, A.Thi.Mu.2281Aa2/2006, A.Thi.Mu.2280Aa2/2006, dated 22.05.2006 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to approve the petitioners appointment as office Assistants and Watchman in 4th respondent School with all the service benefits. For Appellants : Mr.R.Janakiramalu Special Government Pleader For Respondent 1 : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer in WA.Nos.154 &155/11 For Respondent 2 : Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram COMMON JUDGMENT [Common Judgment of the Court was delivered BY N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J] Since common issues are involved in all the Writ Appeals, they were heard together and are disposed of by means of this Common Judgment. 2. These Writ Appeals are directed against the Common Order dated 24.11.2008 made in W.P.(MD).Nos.8150, 8151 and 8152 of 2008. 3. The case of the first respondents before the learned Single Judge was that the first respondents in W.A.(MD).Nos.154 and 156 of 2011 were appointed as Office Assistants and the first respondent in W.A.(MD).No.155 of 2011 was appointed as a Watchman in the second respondent school with effect from 07.02.2006, which is a Government Aided Minority Private School as against the existing vacancies. The second respondent submitted proposals seeking approval of appointments of the first respondents. The third appellant, by his proceedings dated 22.05.2006, rejected the proposals sent by the second respondent school stating that the Government Order regarding approval of appointment of non – teaching staff is expected from the first appellant and after getting orders from the first appellant, the claim of the first respondents will be considered. Challenging the above orders passed by the third appellant, the first respondents filed W.P.(MD).Nos.8150, 8151 and 8152 of 2008 and for a consequential direction to the appellants to approve the appointments of the first respondents as Office Assistants and Watchman in the second respondent school with all service benefits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 4. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by Common Order dated 24.11.2008, following a Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in D.Samuel Raj Thomas vs. the Secretary to Government in W.A.(MD). No.558 of 2008, dated 16.09.2008, allowed the said Writ Petitions. Aggrieved over the said Common Order, the appellants have come up with the present Writ Appeals. 5. We have heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, learned counsel appearing for the first respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent school. 6. 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 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." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 7. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondents 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." 8. 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 appointment. 9. 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, the Common Order dated 24.11.2008 made in W.P.(MD).Nos.8150, 8151 and 8152 of 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge is confirmed and the Writ Appeals are dismissed. The appellants are 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 Petitions are also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 To 1.The Secretary to Government, Education Department, State of Tamil Nadu, St.George Fort, Chennai 9. 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai 600 006. 3.The District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli 627 001. +2cc to Mr.T.A.Ebenezer, Advocate, Sr.No.4573 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 4602 COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).Nos.154 to 156 of 2011 03.02.2011 NB SMA/21.03.2011/7C/5P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/