by the then CEO, no right could be claimed, as it is an inadvertent order, on the face of it. http://www.judis.nic.in 16 On the said date, said K. Prabhu's appointment was never approved. Therefore showing his name in the said proceedings is wrong. Including the name of the petitioner in the salary will not give him any right, as he was not paid as per the claim and later his name was deleted. The issue involves disputed question of fact, as to whether the petitioner was appointed on consolidated basis on 15-07-2007 as claimed by management or was appointed on regular time scale on 16-07-2007 as claimed by the petitioner, which cannot be gone into by this Hon'ble court under
Article 226 of Indian Constitution and which has to be adjudicated by competent civil court.
21. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
22. Materials on record discloses that immediately after receipt of the impugned proceedings, dated 27.11.2008, in reply to the above said order, the appellant school has addressed a letter to the Chief Education Officer, Ramanathapuram, on 18.12.2008, informing that even prior to 1998, the appellant school was sanctioned with 3 Physical http://www.judis.nic.in 17 Education Teachers for classes 6 to 10 and 1 Physical Education Director for Classes 11 and 12 and since, as on 01.08.2008, there were 1343 students in classes 6 to 10 and, as per G.O.Ms.No.52, dated 29.12.1997, it cannot be said that the 3rd Physical Education Teacher post is surplus, and therefore requested to approve all the three physical education teacher posts. As a reminder to the above said letter dated 18.12.2008, giving additional particulars for approval of three physical education teachers for classes 6 to 10, the appellant school has written another letter to the Chief Educational Officer, annexed at page No.16 of the typed set of papers filed by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, to the effect that from 16.07.2007, one S.Prabhu has been appointed and working as a physical education teacher and his name also finds place in the attendance register as well as in salary bills.
23. W.P.(MD)No.3879 of 2009 has been filed by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner in the month of April, 2009. Along with the writ petition, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner has filed M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2009, praying for an order of interim injunction, restraining the appellant as well as respondents 2 and 3 herein from terminating his http://www.judis.nic.in 18 service as Physical Education Teacher in the appellant's school, pending disposal of the writ petition. Writ Court, while ordering notice to the respondents therein, namely the appellant as well as respondents 2 and 3 herein, by order dated 29.04.2009, has granted interim injunction. Ultimately, the writ petition came to be allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 30.07.2010.
24. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.07.2010, made in W.P. (MD)No.3879 of 2009, the respondents 2 and 3 herein, namely, the Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram and the District Educational Officer, Paramakudi, have filed writ appeal (MD) No.136 of 2011. 1st Respondent therein is the writ petitioner and the 2nd respondent is the School. A Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dismissed W.A.(MD)No.136 of 2011, by order dated 01.02.2011, holding as under:
“This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 30.07.2010 made in W.P.(MD)No.3879 of 2009.
2.The first respondent herein filed the said Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the first appellant herein and for a consequential direction to the appellants to approve the appointment of the first respondent as Physical http://www.judis.nic.in 19 Education Teacher in the second respondent school from the date of his appointment with all consequential benefits.
3.A learned Single Judge, by order dated 30.07.2010, allowed the said Writ Petition holding that the second respondent aided school is having total students strength of 489 in Higher Secondary Sections and in High School Sections, the total students strength is 1343. As per the norms prescribed, if the students strength exceeds 400, in Higher Secondary School, one Physical Director is permissible. The learned Single Judge, following a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Director of School Education v. K.uma, reported in 2010 (2) MLJ 277, quashed the impugned order passed by the first appellant and directed the appellants to approve the appointment of the first respondent as Physical Education Teacher.
4.We are in full agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench in the said judgment, cited supra, and the learned single Judge while following the Writ Petition has rightly relied on the said Judgment. There is no merit in the Writ Appeal and the Writ Appeal is dismissed. The appellants are directed to iimplement the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.07.2010 made in W.P.(MD)No. 3879 of 2009 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.” http://www.judis.nic.in 20
25. After dismissal of the writ appeal, the department has filed a review application [Rev.A.(MD)SR No.16648 of 2011,] with a delay of 236 days. While considering the miscellaneous petition MP(MD)No.1 of 2012 to condone the delay, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has considered the merits of the review application also and dismissed both the condone delay petition and the review application.
26. Material on record further discloses that alleging that the order of the writ court has not been complied with, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner has filed Contempt Petition (MD)No.26 of 2011, against the Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram, the District Educational Officer, Paramakudi and the Correspondent of Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School, Thiruvarangam. When the contempt petition came up for hearing, submission has been made by Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the appellant School, 3rd respondent in the contempt petition, that they came to know about the filing of the writ petition by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner only after the disposal of the Writ Appeal W.A.(MD)No.136 of 2011 and http://www.judis.nic.in 21 therefore they have filed a review application in Rev.A.(MD)SR No.31465 of 2012, along with an application to condone the delay of 544 days. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, a learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 08.02.2013, has ordered that, "11.In the result, the contempt petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the proposals submitted by the management within a period of four weeks from the date receipt of a copy of this order. The Review Petition S.R.(MD)No.31465 of 2012 is closed. However, if the respondent management has any grievance, it is always open to the respondent management to agitate their grievance in the manner known to law.”
27. Pursuant to the above order passed in the contempt petition, the District Educational Officer, Paramakudi, the 3rd respondent, in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.2492/2009, dated 10.06.2013, issued orders granting approval to the appointment of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, as Physical Education Teacher, with effect from 16.07.2007, in the time scale of pay of Rs.4500-125-7000/-. Thereafter, by proceedings Na.Ka.No.3492/Aa.4/2009, dated http://www.judis.nic.in 22 14.06.2013, the District Educational Officer, Paramakudi, issued directions to the appellant school to sent necessary proposals for the release of grant-in-aid arrears.
28. Material on record also discloses that Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC 13149 and 13150 of 2013, filed by the official respondents, has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.08.2013. From the above, it is clear that the issue has attained finality and the official respondents have also granted approval for the appointment of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner on 10.06.2013 and requested the appellant school to send proposals for the release of grant-in-aid arrears. At this juncture, the appellant school has come forward with the present writ appeal.
29. To a specific query as to how the present appeal filed by the Management is maintainable, when the writ appeal filed by the department, to which the appellant school is also a party, has reached finality and the department has also granted approval to the appointment of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, http://www.judis.nic.in 23 learned counsel for the appellant school, submitted that though the school has been arrayed as a party to the writ proceedings, they came to know about the proceedings only when the writ appeal filed by the department came to be disposed of and therefore the school did not have the opportunity to put-forth their case, either before the writ court or before the Hon'ble Division Bench, that the 1st respondent/writ petitioner was appointed only in an un-sanctioned post, on consolidated pay, on 15.07.2007 and that there was no occasion for the school to appoint him, on the very next day i.e. 16.07.2007 and to send proposals for approval, after 1-1/2 years, i.e. on 18.12.2008. In short, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the alleged appointment letter dated 16.07.2007 and the proposal letter dated 18.12.2008 are fabricated documents.
30. Per contra, Mr.V.Panneerselvam, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the appellant school was very well aware of the writ proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner and therefore it is not correct to contend that they they were not aware of the writ proceedings and did not have the opportunity to put-forth their http://www.judis.nic.in 24 case. Drawing the attention of this Court to the letter of the appellant school, dated 23.06.2009, addressed to the District Educational Officer, Paramakudi, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner further submitted that from the contents of the said letter, it is very clear that the school was aware the writ proceedings. He further submitted that the said contention of the appellant school has already been considered by this Court in the contempt proceedings and rejected the review petition filed by the appellant school. He also produced copies of the cause lists of the writ court for the hearings on 15.07.2010, 16.07.2010, 20.07.2010, 21.7.2010, 23.07.2010 and 30.07.2010 as well as the cause list of the Hon'ble Division Bench for the hearing on 31.01.2011 obtained from the Registry of this Court under RTI Act, in support of his submission that the appellant school was served with summons and they were aware of the proceedings.
In view of the above, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions is also closed.