All these writ petitions are filed challenging the order dated 04.10.2002 issued by the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tiruvallur, rejecting the grant of approval to the writ petitioners from the date of appointment on the ground that the required student strength, at that point of time, was not prevailing in the school, when the writ petitioners were appointed. In other words, the requirement contemplated by the Government in G.O.Ms. 525 Education department dated 29.12.1997 had not been complied while appointing the writ petitioners in the 3rd respondent school by the management. Therefore, the first respondent had not approved the appointment of the writ petitioners.
2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners fairly contended that he was unable to secure necessary instruction from the writ petitioners and therefore the present status and the grievances, as on today, is unable to be presented before this Court.
3. However, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 has taken this Court to the contention raised in the common counter affidavit filed by the first respondent on 27.01.2009. Para 9 of the counter is extracted hereunder:
9. I submit further that the writ petitioners are not entitled to the prayer as prayed for mainly on the following grounds:
1.The appointment of the writ petitioners was made by the third respondent school against the norms prescribed in G.O.M.S.No.525 Education Department dated 29.12.1997.
2.when the matter came up before this Hon'ble High Court, this Hon'ble High Court passed an order that they should be accommodated for the time being till the appointments were made on regular basis and during that period they should be paid salary from the school grant for which the petitioners agreed.
3. Further the petitioners gave in writing individually on 14.01.2004 to the first respondent requesting him to appoint them as per order of this Hon'ble Court. Therefore, the petitioners cannot ask for the approval of their original appointment of the 3rd respondent school.
The learned Government Advocate, further, produced the letters given by the writ petitioners on 08.05.2003, wherein the writ petitioners have categorically pleaded that they may be permitted to join duty in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court. Pursuant to the letter given by all the writ petitioners, respondents 1 and 2 have taken action and therefore, the initial grounds raised in the writ petitions cannot be considered. It is further contended that though the writ petitioners have filed these writ petitions for a relief to consider the approval of their respective appointments from the individual date of appointment, subsequently, they have given individual letters on 08.09.2003 confining their reliefs and those representations also were considered by the authorities. Such being the factum of this case, no further adjudication, on the grounds raised in these writ petitions needs to be done. It is left open to the writ petitioner to redress their grievances, if any, still persist.
In view of this, all the writ petitions stands dismissed. No costs.
29.06.2017 sli/jer Index : Yes (or) No Internet Yes (or) No To
1. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tiruvallur.
2. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Poonamallee.
3. The Correspondent, T.B.M.Middle School, Poonamallee, Chennai 56.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J sli/jer W.P.No.40610 of 2002 to 40612 of 2002 29.06.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in