AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Ramanathan, J.—As the issue is common in all the writ petitions, with consent of parties all the writ petitions were taken up together and common order is passed.
The Petitioner in W.P. Nos. 11338, 11345 and 11348 of 2008 are the Superintendent of schools R.C Diocese of Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli-11 and the Petitioner in W.P.2165 of 2009 is one D. Devaprakash Gnanadurai.
The Petitioner in W.P. No. 11338, 11345 and 11348 of 2008 is a Roman Catholic Diocese owns and administers 105 recognised schools from Primary to Higher Secondary level as a corporate body in the Districts of Tirunelveli and Tuticorin. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Palayamkottai is a recognised religious Minority Institution and therefore, they are entitled to appoint teachers of their choice and the authorities have to grant approval. On the basis of that those teachers are appointed by the Petitioners, who are having required qualifications. The second Respondent by proceedings dated 26.10.2004 and 13.01.2005 introduced a subject roster for appointment of teachers in Middle Grade Graduate teacher post and prescribed subject roster. The said proceedings were challenged in W.P. No. 7717 of 2006 and this Court by an order dated 18.10.2006 quashed those two proceedings referred to above and therefore the authorities cannot insist that the subject roster is to be followed in the appointment of teachers. It is further submitted that in respect of vacancies caused by the retirement or transfer of teachers in the schools administered by the Petitioners, the Petitioners appointed qualified teachers for that purpose and sought the approval of the Respondents for the appointment and in the above three writ petitions, the second Respondent by proceedings dated 15.06.2007 and 14.08.2007 refused to grant approval stating that the appointments were made contrary to G.O. Ms. 100, School Education dated 27.06.2003 and appointments were also made without following the subject roster and hence, appointments cannot be approved. Therefore, the Petitioner challenged the orders of the Respondents in refusing to grant approval to the appointments made by the Petitioner in these three writ petitions.
In W.P. No. 2165 of 2009, the Petitioner is working as a teacher in the fourth Respondent school, it is a recognised and aided private school and the Petitioner is working as a BT Assistant (Science). He was appointed by the fourth Respondent on 20.10.2008 against the permanent and regular vacancy and after obtaining necessary permission from the first Respondent to fill up the vacancy and after calling for the candidates through employment exchange as well as paper publication. Thereafter, the fourth Respondent sent a proposal for the approval of the Petitioner as BT Assistant and the first Respondent by proceedings dated 15.06.2007 and 14.08.2007 rejected the approval stating that G.O.(MS).100 (School(Budget)Education),dated 27.06.2003 was not followed and subject roster was also not followed. Therefore, in all the above four writ Petitioners challenged the rejection of approval of the teachers by the first Respondent.
Mr. Isaac Mohanlal, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in all the writ petitions submitted that the matter is no longer than res Integra and this Court in the judgment rendered in W.P.(MD). No. 7717 of 2006 in the matter of The Corporate Manager, CSI Corporate Schools, CSI Diocese of Kanyakumari, No. 71-A, Dennis Street, Nagercoil-629001 v. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009 and Ors. 2006(5) CTC 504, held that the Educational Authority cannot insist the Subject Roster to be followed and the same is also in violation of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School (Regulation) Act, 1973 and Rules, wherein it is not stipulated anywhere that the School should follow Subject Roster. It is also held in that judgment that even G.O. No. 125 dated 12.11.2003, which is governing the appointment of Middle Grade Graduate teachers upto standards 6 to 8 and it has not been stated that subject roster should be followed. Therefore, the learned judge has held that the authority has no jurisdiction to issue the such circular that subject roster should be followed. The above judgment was also approved by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1198 of 2007 dated 20.09.2007.
Mr. Isaac Mohanlal, learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that the judgment reported in the matter Viveka Poorana Aided Elementary School, rep. by its Secretary R. Aravamudhan Cuddalore Old Town Cuddalore v. The Director of Elementary Education Madras and Ors. 2004 W L.R. 248 this Court has held that G.O. Ms. 100 applies only to the schools maintained by the Panchayat Union and the Government Schools and the said Government Order will not govern the private schools and with respect to those schools separate order has to be passed. He therefore submitted that the Respondents are not correct in refusing to approve the appointment and therefore, the order of the Respondent is liable to be set aside and the first Respondent must be directed to approve the appointment made by the Petitioners in W.P. No. 11338 , 11345, 11348 of 2008 and grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner in W.P. No. 2165 of 2009.
Mr. K. Balasubramanian, learned Additiona1 Government Pleader reiterated the allegations made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the order passed by the Director of School Education are valid and he further submitted that as per the G.O.(ms). 144 School Education dated 04.07.2008, the G.O.(ms). No. 244 School Education dated 22.09.2007 was made applicable to the Government aided schools and subject roster has to be followed. The learned Additiona1 Government Pleader therefore submitted that even as per the judgment reported in 2004 W.L.R. 2489(cited supra), when the Government issued a separate Government Order stating that the circular stated in G.O.(Ms).100 is applicable to Government Aided Schools and necessary (Government Order) was passed in G.O.(Ms). No. 144 School Education, dated 04.07.2008 and therefore, the impugned order are valid in law and cannot be challenged.
Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader.
It is true that under G.O.(Ms). No. 144 School Education, dated 04.07.2008, it has been made clear that the G.O.(Ms). No. 244 School Education, dated 22.09.2007 is applicable to Government Aided Schools and as per the judgment of this Court 2004 W.L.R. 2489 (cited supra) G.O. Ms. No. 100 dated 27.06.2003 will not be applicable to schools receiving aid from the Government and for that Schools, separate order has to be passed. Therefore, by virtue of the G.O. Ms. 144 dated 04.07.2008 the G.O. Ms. No. 100 dated 27.06.2003 is also made applicable to the aided schools. It is not in dispute that the schools managed by the Petitioners in W.P. No. 11338, 11345, 11348 of 2008 and the fourth Respondent in W.P. No. 2165 of 2009 are Government Aided Schools. But the issue is whether subject roster has to be followed. This issue was dealt by this Court in the judgment The Corporate Manager, CSI Corporate Schools v. The State of Tamil Nadu 2006(5) CTC 504 and in that judgment, it has been stated that insistence of following subject roster is against the provisions of Tamil Nadu recognised Private Schools Regulation Act and also G.O. Ms. 125 dated 12.11.2003 and this judgment was confirmed in W.A. No. 1198 of 2007 dated 20.09.2007 and therefore, as per the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court the Director of School Education or other educational authorities cannot insist, subject roaster should be followed in the appointment and on that ground they cannot refuse to approve the appointment in all these case. The appointments are refused to be approved only on the ground that subject roaster was not followed. Hence, the impugned orders are against the judgment rendered by this Court and therefore, they are liable to be set aside and accordingly are set aside and the Respondents are directed to grant approval to the appointments made by the Petitioners in W.P. No. 11338,11345 and 11348 of 2008 and also grant the approval of the Petitioner in respect of W.P. No. 2165 of 2009. The writ petitions are allowed.