Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3753 (MAD)

SBM High Schoo v. State of Tamil Nadu

2012-08-30

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a private school under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974. It is a High School. It was started in the year 1923 as Middle School. The same was upgraded as High School in the year 1990. The school gets 100% aid from the Tamil Nadu Government. 2. The second respondent sanctioned one post of Junior Assistant by an order dated 05.12.1997 apart from sanctioning other posts. 3. One Tmt. C.Parvathi, who was serving as Junior Assistant was promoted as B.T. Assistant in the School on 28.2.2011. In the resultant vacancy, one Thiru.G.Kumar was appointed as Junior Assistant by the school by an order dated 28.02.2011. 4. The third respondent approved the appointment of the said Kumar by an order dated 02.03.2011. 5. While so, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 29.02.2012, cancelling the earlier order dated 02.03.2011 granting approval, to the appointment of Thiru. G.Kumar by the petitioner-school. 6. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order dated 29.02.2012 of the third respondent. 7. The respondents filed a common counter affidavit refuting the allegations. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The only reason given in the impugned order is that the third respondent approved the appointment of Thiru.G.Kumar without prior permission from the second respondent for filling up the vacancy in the post of Junior Assistant, when the vacancy arose due to the promotion of Tmt.C.Parvathi. 10. In my view, the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of this court in S.Christy v. The Chief Eduational Officer, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil and others reported in2011(5)CTC 532, A.Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu, Repl by its secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai and others reported in 2007(4) MLJ 561 andW.A.(MD) No.928 of 2010, dated 11.01.2011. The relevant paragraphs in the aforesaid judgments are extracted hereunder:- 2011(5)CTC 532, paragraph No.5 "5. In view of the settled law by this court, the stand taken by the respondent in not considering the case of the petitioner for granting approval of the petitioner is not sustainable in law, as on true interpretation of Rule 15, only conclusion which can be drawn is, that for appointment to sanctioned post, no prior approval is necessary nor it can be a ground to deny the approval to appointment of a qualified person. 2007(4) MLJ 561 , paragraph No.6 "6. 2007(4) MLJ 561 , paragraph No.6 "6. The petitioner has been appointed on a compassionate ground by an order dated 19.3.2001. As per the said appointment order also, the vacancy in which, the petitioner was appointed on a regular basis. As per Rule 15 of Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 any regular vacancy should be filled on regular basis alone. That apart, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, under Rule 15 there is a specific provision with regard to the seeking of the prior permission for the teaching staff. As far as non-teaching staff are concerned, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no provision for seeking prior permission for making an appointment. Basing on this, the petitioner's appointment cannot be held as not in conformity with the provisions of the Private Schools Regulation Act. That apart, it is not the case of the respondents-department also that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. The only ground basing on which the approval was rejected is that the prior permission was not sought for. But as per relevant rule, no need to get prior permission with regard to the appointment of non-teaching staff. As such, the impugned proceeding is not in conformity with the statuary provisions. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to approve the petitioner's appointment with effect from 31.1.2006 on compassionate ground with all the consequential benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." W.A.(MD) No.928 of 2010, dated 11.01.2011, paragraph No.8 "8. In the instant case, there is no dispute about the appointment of the first respondent on compassionate grounds. In such a situation the contention of the appellants that the appointment was made during the ban period cannot be countenanced. Further, a close reading of the Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 would reveal that prior permission is necessary only for the appointment of teaching staffs and not for the appointment of non teaching staff. The appointment of the first respondent is only to the post of water supply attender which is admittedly a non teaching post. The appointment of the first respondent is only to the post of water supply attender which is admittedly a non teaching post. Under such circumstances, the reason assigned by the third appellant in the impugned order that the appointment was made during the ban period and no prior permission was obtained or the appointment of the first respondent under Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, have no legs to stand." 11. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, the impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.