The petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant on 21.10.2016 in the second respondent school in a vacancy caused due to the death of one Selvaraj, who was serving as Office Assistant. Since the second respondent school is an aided minority school coming under TDTA Diocese of Tirunelveli, after appointing the petitioner in a sanctioned post caused due to the death of the then incumbent. Selvaraj sent a proposal for approval of his appointment to the first respondent in the month of October 2016. But the first respondent/District Education Officer, Tirunelveli, has wrongly rejected the proposal sent by the second respondent school on the ground that permission should be obtained from the Director of School Education to fill up the posts of non teaching staff in the second respondent School, and that there is no need to lift the ban imposed in G.O.Ms.No.115 to fill up non teaching posts.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that G.O.Ms.No.115, School Education (D2) Department, dated 30.05.2017, imposing ban on appointment of non teaching staff in an aided minority school was already set aside by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.11481 of 2008 and batch, dated 15.03.2016, holding that the said Government Order is without jurisdiction and violative of the very scheme of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Rules framed there under. While G.O.Ms.115 has already been set aside, the District Eduction Officer, Tirunelveli, first respondent herein, ought not to have passed the impugned order, which reflects a clear non application of mind on the part of the first respondent, hence, he pleaded, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
3. This Court finds merit on the said submissions. When the second respondent school has appointed the petitioner in a vacancy caused due to the death of one Selvaraj, who was serving as an Office Assistant, it is not known how the first respondent/ District Education Officer, Tirunelveli can reject the proposal of the second respondent, seeking approval of appointment of the petitioner citing G.O.Ms.No.115, dated 30.05.2007, which has already been set aside by this Court, asthough he is unaware of the settled legal position. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned order passed without any application of mind.
4. In the result the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The first respondent is hereby directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Office Assistant in the second respondent School with effect from the date of his appointment, namely, 21.10.2016 with all consequential monetary and service benefits within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To The District Education Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
.