Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2626 (MAD)

FLORA MACHADO v. DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

2016-08-01

S.S.SUNDAR

body2016
ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.4022/Aa4/09 dated -03-2010 signed on 05-03-2010 on the file of respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to restore the approval of the petitioner's appointment with effect from 28-01-2008. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the records. 3. Brief facts of the case in the present Writ Petition, as contended by the petitioner are as follows:- The petitioner was appointed as B.Ed., Teacher in the fourth respondent's school on 28.01.2008 in the vacancy caused by the promotion of one Mrs. S. Johnsi Rani, a Secondary Grade Assistant. The petitioner had required qualification, and her appointment was against a regular vacancy and in the sanctioned post. 4. By an order dated 29.01.2010, the second respondent has approved the appointment of the petitioner, with effect from the date of appointment i.e., 28.01.2008. However, by a subsequent order dated 05.03.2010, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition, the second respondent has cancelled the earlier order, granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner. But, prior to the issuance of the impugned order, the second respondent has not issued any notice either to the petitioner or to the fourth respondent/Management. 5. In the impugned order, it is admitted that for the academic year 2007-2008, there were 11 sanctioned posts and there was one vacancy in the post of secondary grade teacher. However, it is stated that for the academic year 2008-2009, the sanctioned post was fixed as 8, as the strength of the students decreased and the petitioner cannot be appointed for the post which is either surrendered or declared as surplus. 6. The second respondent filed a counter supporting the impugned order passed by him. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced an unreported Judgment of this Court, in the case of Tmt. F. Mary Packiam Valarmathi Vs. Director of Elementary Education, (W.P. No. 9895 of 2012, dated 27.06.2012). 6. The second respondent filed a counter supporting the impugned order passed by him. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced an unreported Judgment of this Court, in the case of Tmt. F. Mary Packiam Valarmathi Vs. Director of Elementary Education, (W.P. No. 9895 of 2012, dated 27.06.2012). In the said Judgment, while dealing with a similar situation, this Court, following the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1263 of 2001, dated 22.01.2004 has held that if a teacher is appointed in a sanctioned post, the approval of the appointment cannot be rejected on the ground that there is a fall in strength subsequently and that the post became surplus and the Authorities should be directed to grant approval of the post and thereafter, the said teacher can be transferred or deployed to a needy school. 8. The above said Judgment squarely applies to the facts of this case. By applying the ratio laid down by this Court, in the Judgment of the Division Bench which is also followed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9895 of 2012, the impugned order passed by the second respondent is set aside and the second respondent is directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner as B.Ed., Teacher (Tamil) with effect from 28.01.2008. However, it is open to the second respondent to deploy the petitioner with post to a needy school, if the fourth respondent is not eligible to retain the petitioner on account of the post being surplus. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed subject to the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.