The Chintadripet Middle School vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Mr.G.Kathirvelu, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Manoharan the learned

Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.D.Govindareddy, the learned Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent.

It is stated that the petitioner school is a middle school imparting education to students from 1st to 8th standards. It is a non-fee levying Tamil

Medium School, recognised and aided by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The school is having 14 teachers on its roll and 424 students. The

petitioner school is functioning effectively and efficiently both in academic and cultural activities.

It is further stated that the petitioner school had sought for permission to fill up the post of Junior Grade B.Ed. Assistant and such permission had

been granted by the third respondent in proceedings O.Mu. No. 930/B1/2004, dated 23.3.2004. After observing all the procedural formalities,

the petitioner school had called for applications for appointment of Junior Grade B.Ed., Assistant. The 5th respondent was selected by the School

Committee for appointment to the said post. The appointment of the 5th respondent, on 26.4.2004, was approved by the third respondent, on

11.5.2004. On appointment, the 5th respondent had executed an agreement as per Form No. VII in accordance with Rule 15(2)(1)(b) of the

Private Schools Rules. It has been further stated that the 5th respondent had obtained Master of Arts Degree in History and B.Ed., degree from

the University of Madras. The appointment of the 5th respondent was made by the petitioner school, as per the procedures laid down in G.O.Ms.

No. 125, School Education (X2) Department, dated 12.11.2003. The approval of the appointment granted by the 3rd respondent was also in

accordance with the said Government Order. The 3rd and 4th respondents have also taken into account the appointment of the 5th respondent

and had assessed the petitioner school for payment of teaching grant. Since the date of appointment, the 5th respondent has been teaching the

subjects of History and English for the students of 8th standard and she is entitled to be in service for five years on a consolidated pay of Rs.

4,000/- as per the agreement, dated 26.4.2004. While so, the third respondent had passed an order in his proceedings Na.Ka. No. 171/B3/2005,

dated 6.4.2005, stating that the previous District Elementary Educational Officer had erroneously approved the appointment of the 5th respondent

and directed the petitioner school to terminate the service of the 5th respondent. It was also stated that if the petitioner school fails to implement the

said order, the teaching grant payable to the school would be withheld from the month of April, 2005. In such circumstances, the petitioner school

has preferred the present writ petition, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed before this Court an order,

dated 9.4.2007, made in W.P. No. 13210 of 2005, wherein a direction had been issued for the approval of the appointment of the teacher

concerned and to release the salary due to him, within a specified period. In the said order, reference has been made to other orders passed by

this Court holding that G.O.Ms. No. 100, dated 27.6.2003, does not govern the appointments in private aided schools and that G.O.Ms. No.

125, dated 12.11.2003, governing the appointments of Middle school graduate teachers, does not state that subject wise roster should be

followed. The learned Counsel has also pointed out that this Court has held in The Correspondent, Britannia Higher Secondary School Vs. The

State of Tamil Nadu, , that the requirement to maintain subject roster in respect of appointment of middle Grade Graduate Teacher is in violation of

the provisions of the Tamilnadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) act, 1973.

On considering the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing for the parties concerned and in view of the order, dated 9.4.2007,

made in W.P. No. 13210 of 2005, this Court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to direct the third respondent to approve the

appointment of the 5th respondent and release the salary due to her, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.