Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

A. Carmel Mary vs 5 The Cor

Madras High Court|05 April, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Mr. T.M. Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice for respondents 1 to 4. With consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2 This writ petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 11.11.2016 passed by the fourth respondent, in and by which, the fifth respondent school's proposal seeking approval of appointment of the petitioner as Office Assistant has been returned and for a direction to the respondents to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Office Assistant with effect from 01.06.2015 with all service and monetary benefits.
3 The petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant in the fifth respondent school on 01.06.2015 in a vacancy which arose owing to the retirement of one Regina, Office Assistant and whose appointment was also approved by the fourth respondent, viz., the District Educational Officer. Since the fifth respondent school was established and administered by the Roman Catholic Congregation of Daughters of Mary Help of Christians and also being a minority educational institution governed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, the fifth respondent school forwarded the proposal of the petitioner's appointment as Office Assistant with effect from 01.06.2015, with relevant documents, to the fourth respondent for approval on 13.10.2016. But, the fourth respondent, vide the impugned order dated 11.11.2016, has returned the proposal on the ground that the fifth respondent school can fill up the post of Office Assistant only after getting prior permission from the Director of School Education. Hence, the instant writ petition seeking the aforestated relief.
4 At the threshold, it is pertinent to point out that the aforesaid reasoning assigned by the fourth respondent for returning the proposal made by the fifth respondent school is wholly untenable and is also running contrary to the settled legal position, inasmuch as, it has been held in a catena of decisions, more particularly in B. Arul Ananda Ganesh and another vs. The Secretary to Government, Education Department, State of Tamil Nadu, St. Fort George, Chennai-9 and others1 that as and when any vacancy arises from any sanctioned post, either teaching or non teaching, especially in a minority educational institution, the concerned educational institution, before filling up the said post, need not get approval, much less prior approval, from the educational authorities.
5 The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 submitted that if the petitioner has been appointed in a sanctioned post which arose on account of the retirement of Regina, Office Assistant, whose appointment was approved by the fourth respondent, the proposal submitted by the fifth respondent school qua appointment of the petitioner as Office Assistant, will be re-considered and reasoned orders passed within a period of four weeks.
6 When it has been clearly stated by the fifth respondent school in its proposal to the fourth respondent that it is a minority educational institution, the fourth respondent ought not to have returned the proposal submitted by the fifth respondent school stating that the fifth respondent school can fill up the post of Office Assistant only after getting prior permission from the Director of School Education.
7 In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 11.11.2016 passed by the fourth respondent is wholly unsustainable and it is accordingly set aside and the fourth respondent is directed to consider the fifth respondent school's proposal dated 13.10.2016 and grant approval of the petitioner's appointment as Office Assistant with effect from 01.06.2015 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Connected W.M.Ps. are closed.
05.04.2017 cad To 1 The Secretary Department of School Education Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai 600 009 2 The Director of School Education DPI Campus College Road Chennai 600 006 3 The Chief Educational Officer Office of the Chief Educational Officer Vellore Vellore District 4 The District Education Officer Office of the District Education Officer Tirupattur Vellore District T.RAJA, J.
cad W.P. No.8040 of 2017 05.04.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

A. Carmel Mary vs 5 The Cor

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
05 April, 2017