Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3423 (MAD)

J. Albert Doss v. Director of School Education

2015-10-15

T.RAJA

body2015
ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed by J.Albert Doss challenging the impugned order dated 25.11.2014 and consequential proceedings dated 26.03.2015 passed by the 3rd respondent, the District Educational Officer, Trichy and for a further direction to the 3rd respondent to forthwith disburse the grant-in-aid towards his salary and allowances from the month of November 2014 with all attendant benefits. 2. Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 08.06.1998 with D.T.Ed., qualification in another school under Diocese, namely, S.P.G. Middle School, Thuraiyur, Trichy District. After three years, he was transferred to another school under the Diocese on 27.06.2001, namely, C.S.I. Primary School, Uraiyur, Trichy District. Again after eight years, the petitioner was promoted as Primary School Headmaster in the same school on 31.07.2009. Again he was transferred as Headmaster to the Primary Sections of the 4th respondent school on 23.07.2013 and he has been continuously working there. He further submitted that at the time of upgradation of the 4th respondent school, 6 posts were sanctioned, they are, 1 B.T. Assistant, 4 Secondary Grade Teachers and 1 vocational Instructor (Sewing). While so, one B.T. Assistant (Tamil) Mr.Thangadurai, who was serving as Headmaster in-charge, on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.05.2014, retired from service. After his retirement, the petitioner was appointed as B.T. Assistant (History) and as Headmaster in-charge by way of promotion with effect from 07.09.2014. His appointment was also approved by the 3rd respondent/District Educational Officer, Trichy, by his proceedings dated 06.07.2014 and thereafter, grant-in-aid was also disbursed towards his salary. Surprisingly, in November 2014, the 3rd respondent/ District Educational Officer, Trichy, has returned the salary bill submitted by the school for the month of November 2014 in his proceedings dated 01.01.2015 instructing the school to submit separate bill for each one of the teachers. Accordingly, the school has submitted two separate bills and the District Educational Officer, Trichy, surprisingly did not release the salary. Therefore, it was resubmitted for the next month of December 2014. Once again, the 3rd respondent/District Educational Officer, Trichy, refused to release the same. While releasing the amount, only in the month of January 2015 for the other teacher Tmt. K.Sheeba Lucy Rathna alone the amount has been released. Therefore, it was resubmitted for the next month of December 2014. Once again, the 3rd respondent/District Educational Officer, Trichy, refused to release the same. While releasing the amount, only in the month of January 2015 for the other teacher Tmt. K.Sheeba Lucy Rathna alone the amount has been released. When the salary of the petitioner was refused to be released, 4th 3rd the respondent, Correspondent approached the respondent/District Educational Officer, Trichy, who has 4th informed the respondent/Correspondent that the petitioner's appointment as a B.T. Assistant in History could not be permitted as the vacancy belonged to the post of B.T. Assistant in Tamil. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is that after the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 08.06.1998 with D.T.Ed., qualification, on his transfer to the 4th respondent school, the appointment of the 3rd petitioner was approved by the respondent/District Educational Officer, Trichy, in his proceedings dated 06.07.2014. After grant-in-aid for disbursement towards his salary, it is not open to the 3rd respondent herein to find fault with the appointment. 3. Adding further, he would submit that when the 4th respondent school is also having suitable Tamil teacher, namely, Tmt.Jaisintha Mary, with M.A., M.Ed., qualification by approving the appointment of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant neither the school nor the students studying therein would be put to any prejudice. It is further submitted that in any event, the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent is liable to go for the simple reason that no notice whatsoever has been issued to the petitioner. Had there been an issuance of notice to the petitioner, he would have properly brought to the notice of the 3rd respondent that his appointment was in order, therefore, the 3rd respondent on earlier occasion has granted approval on 06.07.2014, on this basis, the petitioner would have impressed upon the 3rd respondent that after the petitioner's appointment was approved as the B.T Assistant in the 4th respondent school, the order granting approval of his appointment should not have been recalled. As there was no such opportunity given for the petitioner to put forth his case, the petitioner has been put to huge and unimaginable hardships inasmuch as from the date of impugned order passed on 01.01.2015, for the last 12 months, the petitioner is not able to receive the salary. As there was no such opportunity given for the petitioner to put forth his case, the petitioner has been put to huge and unimaginable hardships inasmuch as from the date of impugned order passed on 01.01.2015, for the last 12 months, the petitioner is not able to receive the salary. For all these reasons, he sought to set aside the impugned order by allowing the Writ Petition. 4. Mr.Aairam K.Selvakumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that although the petitioner's appointment was approved by order dated 06.07.2014 as B.T Assistant in the place of one Mr.Thangadurai, who served as B.T Assistant (Tamil) and as Headmaster in-charge, this has not been properly noticed at the time of granting approval. Adding further, he would submit that in any event, since the proposal forwarded by the District Educational Officer himself is waiting for formal conversion, if sufficient time is granted, suitable order would be passed. 5. This Court finding merits on the submission made by the learned Government Advocate, and keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner was appointed and subsequently his appointment having been approved, it is not open to the 3rd respondent to revisit the said order of appointment, therefore, the impugned order which has been passed without notice to the petitioner or to the 4th respondent school, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside and consequently, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the proposal forwarded by the 3rd respondent/ District Educational Officer and approve the case of the petitioner by passing formal order of conversion. The said exercise shall be done within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent is directed to disburse the arrears of salary to the petitioner. 6. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.