AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Rajasuria, J.—This Writ Petition has been focussed to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in his
proceedings Na.Ka. No. 6944/Aa2/2004 dated 12-07-2004 and quash the same, in so far as it denies the salary from 01-02-2002 to 16-06-
2004, and direct the respondents to date back the approval 01-02-2002 instead of 18-06-2004 and pay salary and other benefits to the
petitioner.
The facts in nutshell which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Writ Petition would run thus:
The petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 01-02-2002 and she joined duty accordingly in the third respondent
school. The appointment was subject to the approval by the authorities concerned in the Government as the third respondent''s school is an aided
one. As revealed by the proceedings dated 30-12-1994 of District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, the service of the petitioner was
regularised with effect from 18-06-2004 misinterrupting G.O.Ms. 525, School Education, Dated 29-12-1997. Accordingly, the petitioner prays
for regularisation with effect from 01-02-2002 itself with consequential benefits.
Per contra, the District Elementary Educational Officer filed the counter as under:
The said appointment was in violation of G.O.Ms. No. 525, School Education, dated 29-12-1997 as there were 23 Secondary Grade Teachers,
who were rendered surplus in various schools in Nanguneri Range alone under the same Management, awaiting redeployment as on that date.
After redeployment of such surplus personnel the case of the petitioner was considered and regularised with effect from 18-06-2004 over which
the writ petitioner could have no grievance. As such the writ petitioner is not entitled to any salary from Government funds for the period from 01-
02-2002 to 17-06-2004. Accordingly, the first respondent prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition.
The Point for Consideration is as to whether the petitioner could claim regularisation with effect from 01-02-2002, based on the Full Bench
decision of this Court in Director of Elementary Education, Chennai and two Ors. v. Smt. S. Vigila and Anr. reported in 2006 (5) CTC 385
Heard both sides.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the Full Bench decision of this Court, if the G.O.Ms. No. 525 School
Education, Dated 29-12-1997, is interpreted, there would be no difficulty at all for the authorities concerned to regularise the petitioner with effect
from 01-02-2002 itself; because of the misinterpretation of the said G.O. they wrongly held as though those 23 persons were treated as surplus
even as on the date of appointment of the petitioner on 01-02-2002.
The learned Government Pleader submits that the Government would follow the Full Bench decision of this Court cited supra. The counter was
filed by the District Educational Officer on 27-06-2006 so to say long before the pronouncement of the Full Bench decision of this Court cited
supra.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner also would refer to one other decision rendered by the single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD)3421 of
2004 and W.P. No. 8905 of 2007 and would pray for similar order to be passed.
I am of the considered opinion that necessary directions could be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the
Full Bench decision of this Court. Accordingly the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, for regularising her with effect from 01-02-2002 by interpreting G.O.Ms. No. 525 dated
29-12-1997 in accordance with the Full Bench decision of this Court referred to supra, if she is otherwise found fit and eligible for regularisation.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.