Arumairaj vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

C.S. Karnan, J.—The brief facts of the case are as follows:--

The petitioner submits that he has passed B.A. (Economics) in April 1972 and B.Ed., in December 1983 from Madurai Kamaraj University and

Annamalai University respectively and he had registered his name in the Employment Exchange. He was appointed as a teacher in CSI School for

Blind Irenepuram (Un Aided) from 01.04.1978 to 05.02.1998 and further he was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher from 06.02.1998 in

the fifth respondent''s Management school and posted in RT L.M.S. Higher Secondary School, Venkanji. The petitioner''s appointment is made

only in the transfer and promotion vacancy in the said Christian Religious Minority School and as such, no list from the Employment Exchange need

be obtained, but the appointment of the petitioner was not approved from the date of appointment and he has not been paid as on date.

The salary of the petitioner was not paid due to issue of G.O.Ms. No. 394, Education, dated 12.09.1997 and the fifth respondent challenged the

said G.O. by filing a writ petition and the same has been dismissed. Subsequently, a writ appeal was filed and an interim stay of termination was

obtained. The Division Bench, by order dated 29.06.2001, partly allowed the writ petition and directed to approve the appointment made upto

19.05.1998, the date on which, the writ petitions were dismissed by the learned single judge. The first respondent issued a G.O.Ms. No. 155,

School Education (D2) Department, dated 03.10.2002, in which the Government ordered that B.Ed., qualified candidates appointed upto

19.05.1998 in regularly sanctioned posts can be approved and they have to undergo one month training in Child Psychology in the concerned

District Institute of Education and Training. The Government further ordered that they have been given relaxation for not having the required

qualifications fixed in annexure (VI)(iii) under Rule 15(6) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Regulation Rule, 1974. In the said

Government Order, it is further stated that the salary will be paid to the said teachers after their completion of one month training through DIET. It

is further stated in the G.O. that in so far as the teachers appointed in the non-minority schools are concerned, they should have been appointed

following the Rule of reservation and through Employment Exchange. It is further ordered in the said G.O., that the salary paid to such of those

teachers shall be stopped immediately and steps would be taken to recover the salary already paid. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to

challenge the said G.O. in the writ petition.

The petitioner further submits that the order of the first respondent issued in G.O.Ms. No. 559, dated 11.07.1995 and 394 dated 12.09.1997

were challenged in a batch of cases. During the pendency of the writ petition, this Court granted stay of the operation of the G.O. and several

Managements including the Management in which the petitioner is working appointed B.Ed., teachers in secondary grade vacancies including that

of the petitioner herein and the respondents approved and paid salary. On 19.05.1998, the said writ petitions were dismissed by the learned single

judge as against which writ appeals were filed in a batch of cases. The Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 29.06.2001, held that while

upholding the Government Order as valid, the teachers appointed upto date of dismissal of the writ petition on 19.05.1998 are to be given an

approval and an undertaking to that effect was given by the learned Additional Advocate General that the graduate teachers who are inducted

prior to the disposal of the writ petition shall be saved and a direction can be given to that effect, they should undergo training on the same lines as

it was done in the past. The undertaking was recorded by this Court and this Court directed the Government to grant practical training. The first

respondent, even though giving an undertaking before this Court and which was recorded in the order dated 29.06.2001, failed to take any

decision in this respect and only after the contempt notice was issued and the matter was moved, the first respondent has chosen to issue

Government Order dated 03.10.2002 in which the said conditions are imposed.

It is further submitted that it is specifically stated in the G.O. that relaxation is granted to the teachers appointed prior and upto 19.05.1998 and

therefore, they are directed to go for one month training in Child Psychology through DIET. The petitioner is willing to go for one month training.

The qualification has been relaxed in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the directions of Division Bench of this Court which was accepted by the

Government through the Additional Advocate General and as such, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to state that the salary of the petitioner

will be paid only from the date of passing the one month training course. Similarly the direction to stop payment to the teachers who are already

receiving salary is clearly unauthorized. The further direction to take steps to recover the salary already paid is also totally erroneous and without

jurisdiction. Hence, the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 155, School Education (D2) Department, dated 03.10.2002 is challenged before this

Court by way of this writ petition.

The fourth respondent, viz, the District Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents 1, 2

and 3 and on his behalf also. The respondent stated that their office is not aware about the appointment of the petitioner in an unaided Primary

School during the years from 1978 to 1998. The petitioner is a Graduate having a B.A., B.Ed., qualification and he does not possess Secondary

Grade Training/Diploma in Teachers Education. The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 06.02.1998. The

post, in which the petitioner was appointed, was rendered surplus during the Staff Fixation for the year 2001-2002 and hence, the post was

resumed by the Department. Now, there is no post available in the school. Secondary Grade Teacher Training/Diploma in Teachers Education is

very essential to handle the teaching classes in Primary and Middle Schools (Standard I to VIII), as there is no psychology training available in the

B.Ed., course.

The respondents further submit that the Government have banned the appointment of the qualified (with only B.Ed.,) person in Secondary

Grade Vacancies with effect from 11.07.1995 vide G.O.Ms. No. 559, Education, dated 11.07.1995. Even after the Managements appointed

qualified (only with B.Ed.,) persons in the Secondary Grade Posts and as per the above G.O., the approval of these appointments, were denied by

the Department. The aggrieved Managements and the Teachers have approached this Court. The Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 155,

Secondary Education (D2) Department, dated 03.10.2002, in which the B.Ed., qualified candidates appointed upto 19.05.1998 have to undergo

one month training in Child Psychology in the concerned DIET. They have to be given relaxation for not having the required qualifications

prescribed in the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private School Regulation Rule 1974 and these salaries are to be paid after completion of one month

Child Psychology Training through DIET.

The respondent further submits that the persons appointed with B.Ed., qualifications and without Secondary Grade Teacher Training/Diploma

Teachers Education in Secondary Grade Teacher Posts are not at all suitable to handle classes from Standard-I onwards. Hence, the Government

ordered that the said teachers have to undergo one month Child Psychology Training as it was found to be very essential and only after the

completion of such one month training, their appointment can be approved. The petitioner in this case is not willing to undergo the above mentioned

training. In these circumstances, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be approved. Candidates for sanctioned posts have to undergo one

month training in Child Psychology in the concerned DIET and then approved by giving relaxation for not having the required qualifications as fixed

by the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Regulation Rules, 1974 and the salary would be paid to these teachers only after their completion

of the training in Child Psychology. The training in Child Psychology is very essential to teach the children studying in Standard I to VIII. The

persons appointed by the Management are possessing only B.Ed., qualifications, who are not at all suitable to teach the small children from 1st

standard onwards. Hence, without possessing one month Child Psychology training as ordered in G.O.Ms. No. 155, Education, dated

03.10.2002, their appointment cannot be approved.

The highly competent counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has possessed B.A., B.Ed., educational qualification, and that the

degrees were obtained from the Madurai Kamaraj University. He has been appointed as a teacher in CSI School for Blind Irenepuram (Un

Aided) from 01.04.1978 to 05.02.1998. Subsequently, he has been appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher from 06.02.1998 in the fifth

respondent Management and posted in RT L.M.S. Higher Secondary School, Venkanji. The petitioner''s appointment at the present station is

made only in the transfer and promotional vacancy in the said 5th respondent''s institution, which is a minority educational institution. The

petitioner''s appointment was not approved from the date of appointment and he was not paid salary as of date. The first respondent issued a

G.O.Ms. No. 155, School Education, dated 03.10.2002, in which, the Government ordered that B.Ed., qualified candidates appointed upto

19.05.1998 in regular sanctioned posts can be approved and they have to undergo one month training in Child Psychology in the concerned

District Institute of Education and Training. The Government further ordered that they had been given relaxation for not having the required

qualification fixed in annexure (VI) (iii) under Rule 15(6) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Regulation Rule 1974. In the said

Government order, it is further stated that the salary will be paid to the said teachers after their completion of one month training through DIET.

The learned counsel further submits that the Government Order in so far as the teachers appointed in the non-minority schools are concerned, they

should have been appointed following the rule of reservation and through Employment Exchange. It is further ordered in the said G.O. that the

salary paid to such of those teachers shall be stopped immediately, and steps are to be taken to recover the salary already paid. The G.O. has

been passed by the Government which is prejudicial to the staff already working. The G.O. is causing injustice to the teaching staff already working

in the concerned cadre since the order of payment of salary to staff and recovery of the salary which had been paid to the employee is against the

fundamental and personal rights of the teaching staff. Therefore, the G.O is not sustainable under law.

The very competent counsel further contended that the petitioner is working from 06.02.1998 in a sanctioned post and the very same

respondents paid salary to similarly placed teachers appointed upto 10.07.1995 and also several teachers of SC/ST category from the date of

appointment, by G.O.Ms. No. 113, even before completing their training. The denial of salary to the petitioner for the period served by him is

violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner is working in the sanctioned post and as such, he should be paid salary. The

non-payment of salary from 01.08.1997 as per G.O., is an arbitrary one. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to quash the G.O.Ms. No.

155, School Education (D2) Department, dated 03.10.2002.

The very competent Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4 vehemently argued that the respondents are not aware about the

appointment of the petitioner in an unaided primary school during the years 1978 to 1998. The petitioner is a B.A., B.Ed., qualified person and he

does not possess the Secondary Grade Training/Diploma in Teachers Education. The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher

with effect from 06.02.1998. The post in which, the petitioner was appointed was rendered surplus during the staff fixation for the year 2001-2002

and hence, the post was resumed by the Department. Now, no posts are available in the school. The learned counsel further submitted that the

Government have banned the appointment of the B.Ed. qualified persons in Secondary Grade Vacancies with effect from 11.07.1995, as per

G.O.Ms. No. 559, Education, dated 11.07.1995. Even after the Managements having appointed the qualified B.Ed., persons in the Secondary

Grade Posts as per the G.O., the approval of these appointments were denied by the Department. The highly competent counsel further submits

that the petitioner has been appointed without a Secondary Grade Teacher Training/Diploma Teachers Education in Secondary Grade Teacher

posts and is not at all suitable to handle classes from Standard I onwards. Therefore, without possessing the one month Child Psychology Training

as ordered in G.O.Ms. No. 155, School Education (D2) Department, dated 03.10.2002, their appointment cannot be approved. Hence, the

highly competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the writ petition.

The very competent counsel for the fifth respondent argued that the petitioner has possessed B.A., B.Ed. qualifications, hence he is competent

enough to pursue his avocation as a teacher in the teaching profession and therefore, he has been appointed as a teacher from the year 1978-

1998. Subsequently, he has been appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher from 06.02.1998 in the fifth respondent Management''s education

institution. His service was to be reckoned from 1978 upto date. He has been appointed in the sanctioned post as a Secondary Grade Teacher.

The fifth respondent''s education institution is a Christian Religious Minority School and therefore, for mode of appointment, list of candidates need

not be called from the Employment Exchange since the Management has power to appoint any qualified person from their institution. Further, the

petitioner has rendered teaching service from the year 1978 upto date without any stigma and his services as a teacher is very valued by the fifth

respondent''s educational institution.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to undergo the Child Psychology Training in the concerned

DIET, which is the additional prayer in the above writ petition. However, the respondents have stated in their counter that the petitioner is not

willing to undergo the said training, which is incorrect and as such, this Court should not consider the above contention of the respondent and give

suitable direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to allow the writ petitioner herein to undergo one month Child Psychology Training.

On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on all sides and on perusing the

Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 155, School Education (D2) Department, dated 03.10.2002, this Court finds that the prayer of the petitioner

is reasonable and has requisite force. The Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 155, School Education (D2) Department, dated 03.10.2002 is fit to

be operated upon since it has the potential for improving the educational standards across the State and also being appropriate in the instant case, I

find no lapse whatsoever. Hence, the above writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to permit the petitioner to

undergo one month training in Child Psychology in the Kanyakumari District Institute of Education and Training and this order is to be executed

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Further, the emoluments are to be paid within the same period as specified,

subject to he being appointed in the sanctioned post, which has to be determined by the Management/fifth respondent and the writ petitioner jointly

with relevant records before the concerned respondents. In the result, the above writ petition is disposed of with the above observations.

Accordingly ordered. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.