IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.06.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.10344 of 2011 K. Jayalakshmi Secretary Aided Primary School Chinnakangiyanur Thiruvannamalai 606 611 .. Petitioner /vs/ 1.The Director of Elementary Education College Road, Chennai-6 2.The District Elementary Educational Officer Thiruvannamalai 3.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer Thriuvannamalai. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order of the second respondent passed in O.Mu.No.5261/B4/2010 dated 30.09.2010 and quash the same and directing the second respondent to approve the appointment of Tmt.S.Vani as Secondary Grade Teacher in the petitioner School with effect from 19.8.2010, with all consequential benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.S.N. Ravichandran For Respondents : Mr.P. Sanjaigandhi Additional Government Pleader(Edu.) O R D E R The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 30.09.2010 and direct the second respondent to approve the appointment of S.Vani as Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 19.08.2010 with all consequential benefits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents. 3.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's school was started as a Primary School in the year 1919. The school was given permanent recognition in the year 1941 by order dated 05.08.1941. Thereafter, the school was upgraded as a High School and recognized by proceedings of the Director of School Education dated 31.08.1986. The school is fully aided by the Government of Tamilnadu and governed under the provisions of Tamilnadu Private School Regulations Act and the Rules therein. 4.According to the petitioner, the petitioner school was bifurcated as Primary school and named as Primary Aided School and High School viz., Thiru.K.K.Kuppusamy Memorial High School and the two schools are functioning in the same premises. According to the petitioner, 7 teaching posts for Primary School was sanctioned, Out of which one Headmaster and 5 Secondary Grade Teachers are now utilised. As on date, 228 students are studying in Standards I to V which contain six sections. A vacancy arose in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher in the Petitioner School on 01.07.2009, due to retirement of one Mr.K.Maniyan, Secondary Grade Teacher who retired on 30.06.2009. The School Committee passed a resolution dated 02.07.2009. Pursuant to which, the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent through the third respondent on 02.07.2009 seeking grant of permission to fill up the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. The third respondent on 03.08.2009 recommended the proposal. On 31.08.2009, the second respondent directed the third respondent to consider the students strength of the Petitioner School as per G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education Department dated 29.12.1997 and then directed to recommend for permission to fill up the post. On 10.09.2009, the third respondent sought for certain particulars from the petitioner and the same were also furnished. However, no action was taken regarding the permission sought for. 5.The petitioner filed W.P.No.24591 of 2009 and this Court on 01.12.2009 directed the second respondent to pass orders in the petitioner's representation seeking permission to fill up the post and four weeks time was given to pass orders. The said order was not complied with which necessitated the petitioner to file Contempt Petition No.96 of 2010. The Contempt Petition was heard on 03.03.2010 and the permission sought was rejected. Thereafter, the said rejection of permission was challenged in W.P.No.5463 of 2010 and this Court by order dated 23.04.2010 set aside the said order and directed to consider the average attendance of the School in August 2009 and pass revised order. The second respondent granted permission to fill up the post by order dated 22.07.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ After the grant of such permission, the list of qualified person from the Employment Exchange was sought for and an advertisement was also issued in the newspaper on 25.07.2010. On 02.08.2010, the School Committee conducted an interview and 11 persons attended the interview, i.e., 5 persons through the Employment exchange and 6 persons through Newspaper advertisement. The Management selected one S.Vani as Secondary Grade Teacher and resolution was passed on 14.08.2010 to appoint the said teacher viz., S.Vani and she joined the school on 19.08.2010 and thereafter, the Management submitted a proposal seeking approval of appointment on 19.08.2010 to the second respondent through the third respondent and the third respondent forwarded the same on 25.08.2010. 6.The second respondent returned the same to clarify the certain defects. Again, the said proposal was resubmitted with due clarification. The third respondent recommended the proposal for approval by letter dated 02.12.2010. The said recommendation was again returned by the second respondent on untenable reasons and the same is challenged in the writ petition. 7.From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that certain doubts were raised regarding the sponsorship of Employment Exchange and regarding the list sent by the Petitioner school, by the Employment Officer. The paper advertisement issued on 25.07.2010 clearly discloses calling for application for Aided Primary School Teacher post. It is not the case of the respondent that the person selected viz., S.Vani is not qualified to hold the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. The objections stated in the impugned order is regarding the recognition of the school and the deficiencies for continuing recognition of the school. The said issues are having no connection with the approval sought for by the petitioner to the teacher appointed. As on today, the Petitioner school is having recognition. Permission to fill up the posts having been granted by the competent Authority and the School Management following the procedure appointed S.Vani as Secondary Grade Teacher who is fully qualified, the respondent is not justified in denying the approval of the appointment of the said teacher with payment of salary from 19.08.2010. It is also not the case of the respondent that the school is not eligible to retain the post. Even assuming that the post is found surplus as on today, for any reason the said teacher cannot be deployed to new school after granting approval and payment of salary. 8.In view of the said findings, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to verify the genuineness of the petitioner's certificates and if the said teacher is found qualified for being appointed necessary approval order is directed to be passed by the second respondent with effect from the date of appointment within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While passing revised https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order, the objection raised by the second respondent in the impugned orders cannot be relied on any account. It is made clear that if the petitioner School is violating the recognition order, it is open to the respondents to take appropriate action as per law. No costs. vri Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The Director of Elementary Education College Road, Chennai-6 2.The District Elementary Educational Officer Thiruvannamalai 3.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thriuvannamalai. + 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.37393 + 1 cc to Mr. S. N. Ravichadran, Advocate SR No.37295 W.P.No.10344 of 2011 PA(CO) SR/4.7.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/