M. Sundersingh vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the first respondent issued in G.O.Ms. No. 155 School

Education (D2) Department, dated 3.10.2002 in respect of Clause 3(IV) insofar as it relates to the condition prescribing the appointment shall be

made through Employment Exchange for the approval of appointment of B.Ed Teachers in the Secondary Grade Teacher vacancy and the

subsequent order of the 4th respondent dated 21.9.2002 and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary

Grade Teacher with effect from 7.1.1998 with all service and monetary benefits.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a B.A.,B.Ed., degree holder and he is qualified to be appointed as a teacher in the

Government and Private Aided Schools. Petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 7.1.1998 in the 6th Respondent School,

which is a fully aided school. As the petitioner was having higher qualification than the prescribed qualification, the management sent proposal for

approval of his appointment to the 4th respondent, who in turn by order dated 6.9.2000 rejected the said proposal on the ground that B.Ed

qualified Teacher should not be appointed in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher vacancy and only female teachers should be appointed upto

5th Standards, and that the appointment of the petitioner was not made after sponsorship through Employment Exchange.

Petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in W.P. No. 18122 of 2000 and this Court by order dated 9.8.2002 observed that

petitioner''s case is covered by the decision of the Division Bench reported in 2002 WLR 173 (Secretary & Correspondent, Uswathun Hasane

Oriental (Arabic) Girls Higher Secondary School v. The State of Tamil Nadu). In the said judgment it is held that the Government shall give relief

to the teachers who were appointed prior to the date of dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge i.e., on 19.5.199 8. The said writ

petition which was dismissed on 19.5.1998, arose due to the challenge made by similarly placed teachers and management, challenging G.O.Ms.

No. 559 dated 11.7.1995, which prohibited appointment of the B.Ed qualified teachers in the Secondary grade Teacher vacancy. Prior to the said

order, B.Ed. Qualified teachers were appointed in the secondary grade teacher vacancy and their appointments were also approved. Petitioners in

the above batch of cases, who were aggrieved due to the dismissal of the writ petitions on 19.5.1998 filed writ appeals before the Division Bench

and the Division Bench in the above referred reported judgment, taking note of the facts, held that the appointments made upto the date of

dismissal of the writ petitions can be saved and the modalities as to how the said appointments can be approved by giving necessary training,

among other things, shall be decided by the Government.

The Government thereafter issued G.O.Ms. No. 155 School Education Department dated 3.10.2002 and ordered to give training to the

teachers appointed from 11.7.1995 to 19.5.1998. In the said Government Order, a clause was introduced stating that the appointment of the

teachers, who are to be given training, should have been made through the sponsorship of Employment Exchange and appointment should have

been made by following the communal roaster. The said Government Order was subsequently modified by issuing G.O.Ms. No. 34 dated

17.3.2003 and the condition imposed in G.O.Ms. No. 155 that the appointments made in non-minority schools without reference to Employment

Exchanges may also be found valid and they should also be given training and to that effect the rule was relaxed.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that the petitioner having been appointed prior to 19.5.1998 i.e., on 7.1.1 998 in the

6th respondent Aided School, he is entitled to get training from the District Institute of Education and Training (D.I.E.T.) for one month as per

G.O.Ms. No. 155 dated 3.10.2002 and the petitioner is entitled to get salary from 2.6.2003, the date of completion of training as it was given to

all other similarly placed persons. The learned Counsel further submitted that the 4th respondent instead of sending the petitioner for training, had

chosen to reject the request of the petitioner on 21.9.2002 by stating that the petitioner''s appointment is contrary to G.O.Ms. No. 559 dated

10.7.1995, and only lady teachers can be appointed upto standards 1 to 5, and that the petitioner''s name having not been sponsored through

Employment Exchange, his appointment cannot be approved. At this juncture it is relevant to note that the said order was passed prior to issuance

of G.O.Ms. No. 155 dated 3.10.2002. Therefore the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get his

appointment approved and he is bound to get one month Child Psychology Training and at least from 2.6.2003, he shall be paid salary at the time

scale of pay and the petitioner''s service from 7.1.1998 shall be counted for the purpose of pension as ordered by the Division Bench of this Court

in the decision The State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. Pallivasal Primary School,

The learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner''s case is bound to be considered only in accordance with G.O.Ms. No. 155

dated 3.10.2002 and G.O.Ms. No. 34 dated 17.3.2003.

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate.

The point in issue in this writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court reported in 2002 WLR 173 (Secretary & Correspondent,

Uswathun Hasane Oriental (Arabic) Girls Higher Secondary School v. The State of Tamil Nadu). A Division Bench of this Court while upholding

G.O.Ms. No. 559 dated 11.7.1995 held that B.Ed qualified Teachers, appointed in Secondary Grade Teachers vacancy upto the dismissal of the

writ petition are entitled to get relief and the Government was directed to formulate the modalities. The date of order in the writ petition by the

learned single Judge is 19.5.1998. Petitioner having been appointed in the 6th respondent school as Secondary Grade Teacher on 7.1.1998, his

appointment is covered by the said Division Bench judgment cited above.

The Government for implementing the said judgment, issued G.O.Ms. No. 155 and granted relief to the Teachers appointed upto 19.5.1998 by

giving one month Child Psychology Training. The earlier condition imposed that the Teachers shall be appointed through Employment Exchange

and following communal roaster was also removed by the subsequent G.O.Ms. No. 34 dated 17.3.2003. In view of the said order, there is no

impediment for the grant of approval of the appointment of the petitioner by the respondents after giving one month Child Psychology Training.

The only other reason stated in the impugned order is that in Standards 1 to 5, only female teachers can be appointed. The said condition was

also removed by the Government by issuing subsequent Government Orders and now only 1/3rd Posts are reserved for women Teachers. In view

of the removal of all disqualifications attached to the petitioner''s appointment by subsequent Government Orders, petitioner is entitled to get his

appointment approved and it is for the respondents to arrange for giving one month Child Psychology Training to the petitioner to satisfy the

condition imposed in G.O.Ms. No. 155 dated 3.10.2002.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is continuously working without getting salary. Petitioner is to be paid salary

from 2.6.2003 as it has been given to other similarly placed Teachers. As and when Child Psychology Training is given through D.I.E.T., the

petitioner shall undergo the said training. The service of the petitioner from 7.1.1998 to 2.6.2003 shall be counted for pension purposes only as

held by the Division Bench decision reported in The State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. Pallivasal Primary School, Denial of sending the

petitioner for training is due to the fault of the respondents and therefore the same cannot be put against the petitioner for delaying payment of his

salary.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as and when petitioner is sent for training through D.I.E.T., he is willing to undergo the

same and the said undertaking is recorded. The prayer for quashing Clause 3(IV) in G.O.Ms. No. 155 dated 3.10.2002 has become infructuous

in view of the issuance of subsequent G.O.Ms. No. 34 on 17.3 .2003. The consequential order of the 4th respondent dated 21.9.2002 is quashed

with a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner on 2.6.2003 and count petitioner''s service for pension from

7.1.1998.

The writ petition is ordered in the above terms. No costs. Connected WPMPs are closed.