Thiruvalluvar Higher Secondary School, Vellore vs Government of Tamil Nadu and others

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the order dated 6.3.2003 passed by the fourth respondent.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner-School was established in the year 1952 and it was sanctioned with 89 teaching staff and 13 non-teaching staff. According to the petitioner, in the year 2002 the petitioner-School was sanctioned a post of Junior Assistant and it was utilised by appointing one S.K. Rajasekar, which came to effect from 1.7.2002 forenoon. The appointment was ratified by the District Educational Officer, Thirupattur, the fourth respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.Na. 2928/A1/02f, dated 4.10.2002.

According to the petitioner, suddenly the District Educational Officer, fourth respondent herein in Proceedings Na.Ka. No. 292B/A1/02, dated 6.3.2003 passed an order cancelling the ratification order issued on 4.10.2002, confirming the appointment of S.K. Rajasekaran stating that due to the ban order issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 212, P6AR Department dated 29.11.2001. Hence, the Management filed the present writ petition. The said ban order was lifted by the Government through G.O. Ms. No. 14, dated 7.2.2006.

Similar issue as to whether after lifting of the ban, approval of appointment of a person appointed in a non-teaching post in an aided school can be kept pending and whether the said person is entitled to get salary at least from the date on which the ban order was lifted, was considered by me in W.P. (MD) No. 484 of 2007 by order dated 30.10.2007 and I have allowed the writ petition and in paragraphs 19 and 20, held as follows:

Similar ban order issued by the Department on the ground that new norms are contemplated and pending the same no appointment in aided schools are to be made was set aside by this Court in W.P. No. 10237 of 1994 by order dated 16.8.1999. Since the petitioner was appointed from 5.6.2002 and he is continuously working in the sanctioned post, the respondents may be justified in not approving the appointment of the petitioner from 5.6.2002 to 6.2.2006. The petitioner has got a right to get his appointment approved, once the ban order is lifted. Admittedly, the ban order imposed, not to fill up the posts, was lifted on 7.2.2006 He the petitioner has got every right to get his post approved with salary and other benefits with effect from 7.2.2006. Once the ban order is lifted the provisions contained in Rule 15(1) and (3) of the Tamil Nad Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, comes into operation and the petitioner is deemed to be appointed on regular basis, as he was appointed within the sanctioned post in the fourth respondent-school

For all the reasons stated above, the impugned orders are set aside with a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Lab Assistant with effect from 7.2.2006. The third respondent is directed to pass orders approving the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 7.2.2006 and pay arrears of salary from 7.2.2006 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the above order was challenged by the respondent Education Department in W.A. (MD) No. 308 of 2008 and the said writ appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of Madurai Bench on 4.8.2008. The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal by observing as follows:

After considering the rival submissions made on either side, following the judgment of the Supreme Court and order of this Court, the learned. Single Judge set aside the orders of the appellants with a direction to approve the appointment of the respondent/petitioner as Lab Assistant with effect from 7.2.2006 and the third appellant was directed to pass orders approving the appointment of the first respondent with effect from 7.2.2006 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

We find no infirmity or illegality in the order of the learned Judge dated 30.10.2007 passed in W.P. (MD) No. 484 of 2007. Therefore, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the first respondent in W.A. (MD) No. 308 of 2008 filed separate appeal in W.A. (MD) No. 456 of 2008 and challenged the order not giving direction to approve the appointment from the date of appointment till the date of lifting of the ban and the said writ appeal was also allowed by the Madurai Bench of this Court on 4.8.2008 by observing as follows:

Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appointment of the appellant from the date of appointment should have been approved by the learned Single Judge instead of restricting the prayer.

It has been brought to our notice that in similar circumstances the Government has issued orders in respect of similar employees approving their services from the date of their initial appointment. When once the ban is revoked, the Government should have considered and approved the appointment of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment. Therefore, the orders of the learned Single Judge need to be modified to this extent. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed modifying the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.10.2007 made in W.P.(MD) No. 484 of 2007 and directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petition from the date of initial appointment.

In the light of the above referred judgments of the Division Bench, the impugned order dated 6.3.2003 is set aside with a direction to the fourth respondent to approve the appointment of S.K. Rajasekar working in the petitioner School as Junior Assistant, with effect from 1.7.2002 with all monetary benefits. Necessary orders to that effect is directed to be passed by the fourth respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the arrears of salary payable to the said S.K. Rajasekar is directed to be paid within four weeks therefrom.

With the above directions, the writ petition is ordered. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.