IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.09.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN W.P.No.40326 of 2005
and WP.MP.Nos.43243 and 43244 of 2005 S.Ramasamy .. Petitioner Vs.
1. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai–600 006.
2. The District Education Officer (East), Thayar Sahib Street, Chennai-600 002.
3. The Secretary, School Committee, Sir Theagaraya College Higher Secondary School Committee, Chennai-600 021. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records and quash the impugned order dated 30.11.2005 passed by the third respondent and direct the third respondent to re-employ the petitioner till 31.05.2006 as per G.O.Ms.No.1360, Education dated
25.08.1972.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Premkumar For Respondents : Mrs.M.E.Raniselvam (for R1 and R2) Additional Government Pleader No Appearance (for R3) O R D E R This petition has been filed seeking issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records and quash the impugned order dated 30.11.2005 passed by the third respondent and direct the third respondent to re-employ the petitioner till 31.05.2006 as per G.O.Ms.No.1360, Education dated 25.08.1972.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Assistant on 03.07.1975 in Sir Theagaraya College School and his service was confirmed on 16.07.1976, with effect from 07.07.1976. After the establishment of Higher Secondary School, the school was renamed as Sir Theagaraya College Higher Secondary School, which is a private aided College.
3. The petitioner further submits that Sir Theagaraya College Higher Secondary School is coming under the control of Theagaraya Chetty Educational Institutions Managing Committee which was governed by the Scheme framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The committee consists of 13 trustee. One of the trustee has to be elected from Sir Theagaraya Higher Secondary School constituency. All the school teachers are voters and he was also entitled for a vote. This constituency has not been represented for more than three years. But as per the scheme vacancy has to be filled within 30 days, some of the teachers filed application before the original side of this Court for appointment of Advocate Commissioner with the direction to conduct the election.
4. The petitioner further submits that for the last 30 years, he discharged his duty as teacher with sincerity and without any blemish and to the utmost satisfaction of the management. As per the petitioner's date of birth, he attained superannuation on 02.11.2005. He further submits that as per G.O.Ms.No.1360, Education, dated 25.08.1972, the age of retirement has been fixed as 58 years and a teacher who attains the age of retirement of 58 years after the re- opening of the school can continue in service on re-employment terms till the closure of the school for summer vacation.
5. The petitioner further submits that the 2nd respondent by its proceedings Mu.Mu.No.4577/AA6/96 dated 01.10.1996 intimated all the school Management to implement the above G.O. compulsorily further remitted the Management that if they failed to adhere to the G.O. the Management will be held responsible for all the consequences and financial burden. He further submits that as per the above G.O.Ms.No.1360, Education, dated 25.08.1972, the petitioner is entitled to continue into the service till 31.05.2006 on re-employment terms. Hence, he submitted a letter dated 24.10.2005 to the 3rd respondent through proper channel i.e., the Headmaster, requesting him to permit the petitioner to serve as Secondary Grade Assistant till the end of academic year i.e. 31.05.2006 along with the fitness certificate issued by a qualified Doctor.
6. The petitioner further submits that without following above G.O.Ms.No.1360, Education, dated 25.08.1972 to the petitioner shocked, the impugned proceeding dated 30.11.2005 relieved the petitioner from service from the afternoon of 30.11.2005. In that order, no reason was given by the 3rd respondent why he relieving the petitioner from service and why he was not given re-employment opportunity. The petitioner further submits that on the same day, he sent representation to the President of the School committee and on 01.12.2005, he sent a reminder to the 3rd respondent along with the letter, the petitioner enclosed the relevant G.O. and the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, but till today the 3rd respondent has not issued re-employment order to the petitioner. The 3rd respondent S.Dillibaskar, is under the impression that he will not vote for his candidate to be contested from the constituency.
7. The petitioner further submits that one of the Trustee Thiru.C.Sivasankar, filed W.P.No.27733 of 2005 challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent herein recognizing the 3rd respondent as School Committee Secretary. This Court passed an order dated 24.11.2005, and that the Court direct the educational authorities to pass order based on resolution passed by the Trust within two weeks and restrained the 3rd respondent from exercise his power either with respect to any disciplinary action or with respect to the action touching the financial areas except the payment of salaries to the staff. But, by passing the impugned order violated the order of this Court.
8. The petitioner further submits that the action of the 3rd respondent is highly illegal, malafide, arbitrary and gross violation of the G.O.Ms.No.1360 dated 25.08.1972 and against the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Mu.Mu.No.4577/AA6/96 dated 01.10.1996. The 3rd respondent ought to have consider his requisition letter dated 24.10.2005 and re-employed him. Hence, he has filed this writ petition for the aforesaid prayer.
9. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.11.2005 that the 3rd respondent passed an order permitting the petitioner to retire from service which was on 02.11.2005 and he should work till November 2005 as per the Government Order.
10. I heard Mr.P.Premkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.M.E.Raniselvam, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and there is no representation on behalf of the 3rd respondent.
11. Since the petitioner, who worked in the 3rd respondent school and retired from service on 02.11.2005, as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1360, Education dated 25.08.1972, the petitioner is entitled to work till the academic year viz., 31.05.2006, but the present impugned order simply passed by the 3rd respondent School as per G.O., he can continue till November 2005, which order is totally against the G.O.Ms.No.1360, Education dated 25.08.1972.
12. Apart from this, as per the proceedings of the 2nd respondent namely the District Education Officer (East), Thayar Sahib Street, Chennai-600 002 by its proceedings No.Mu.Mu.No.4577/AA6/96 dated 01.10.1996, the Management should implement the above G.O.Ms.No.1360, Education, dated 25.08.1972 compulsorily and if the Management failed to adhere the G.O., the Management will be held responsible for all the consequences and financial burden. In this case, though the G.O.Ms.No.1360, Education, dated 25.08.1972 mandate that the employees should continue the service till the academic year. But the 3rd respondent purposely on the personal vengeance has failed to implement the G.O. in respect of the petitioner. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is directed to pay the service benefits from 30.11.2005 till 31.05.2006 and recover the said amount from the 3rd respondent. Therefore, this Court warranting interference in the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 30.11.2005 and it is liable to be set aside.
13. In the result:
(a) this writ petition is allowed;
(b) the respondents are directed to pay the salary to the petitioner till the re-employment period i.e. 31.05.2006;
(c) the said exercise shall be done within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
18.09.2017
Note:Issue order copy on 03.11.2017 vs Speaking order Index: Yes To
1. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai–600 006.
2. The District Education Officer (East), Thayar Sahib Street, Chennai-600 002.
M.V.MURALIDARAN. J.
vs W.P.No.40326 of 2005 and WP.MP.Nos.43243 and 43244 of 2005 18.09.2017