P BABU Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER SANKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in these cases was appointed as Waterman in the 2nd Respondent School, which is an aided School governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.7715 of 2004. It appeared that there was a vacancy of the post of Waterman, which is a non-teaching post in the 2nd Respondent School within the sanctioned strength which occurred in December 2001. THE 2nd Respondent School has sought for permission from the District Educational Officer - 1st Respondent to fill up the said vacancy on 20.12.2001 and that permission was granted by the 1st Respondent in his proceedings dated 9.1.2002. It was thereafter the 2nd Respondent School has called for list of suitable candidates from the Employment Exchange, Salem on 23.3.2002 and the Assistant Director of District Employment Office, Salem in the letter dated 5.4.2002 has sent list of candidates numbering 11 for selection for appointment of the said Post and the petitioner happened to be one among the said 11. Interview for the said post was held by the 2nd Respondent on 3.5.2002. It is seen that the petitioner came to be appointed as Waterman in the 2nd Respondent School on 5.6.2002 in the time scale of pay of Rs.2,550-55-2600-60-3200 and accordingly it is stated that the petitioner has joined duty on the Fore-noon of 5.6.2002. THE approval for appointment of the petitioner as Waterman was sought by the 2nd respondent on 5.7.2002 from the 1st respondent District Educational Officer. Accordingly, the 1st Respondent also granted approval for appointment of the petitioner in his proceedings dated 16.8.2002. THEreafter it is seen that at the request of 1st respondent, Provident Fund Account number was also allotted to the petitioner. However, after 2 years, viz., on 27.2.2004, the impugned order came to be passed by the 2nd respondent cancelling the approval of appointment of the petitioner on 16.8.2002 on the basis that the recruitment of the petitioner in the non-teaching staff during the period when the ban on recruitment was in force and as per the said impugned order, 1st respondent has directed the 2nd respondent to relieve the petitioner from the post forthwith. It appears that based on the said impugned communication dated 27.2.2004, the 2nd respondent institution has passed consequential order on 1.3.2004 relieving the petitioner from the Post of Waterman. Aggrieved by the order of the 1st respondent dated 27.2.2004, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.7715 of 2004 on 24.3.2004. This Court has granted an order of status quo on 26.7.2004 and on 8.11.2005 interim stay was granted and by virtue of the said interim orders, the petitioner continued to work as Waterman. THE petition filed by the respondents to vacate the order of stay in W.V.M.P.No.1710 of 2005 came to be dismissed by this Court on 9.12.2005.

(2.) THE short question to be decided is, as to whether during the period of ban, which was effected by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.212 Personal and Administrative Reforms (P) Department dated 29.11.2001, which is challenged by the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.19381 of 2004, any appointment made within the sanctioned strength of non-teaching staff in a private school can be held to be illegal. It is also not in dispute that by virtue of subsequent Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.14 Personal and Administrative Reforms Department dated 7.2.2006, the ban on recruitment came to be lifted. In view of the fact that the ban on recruitment which was effected by G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 29.11.2001 came to be lifted by the subsequent Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 7.2.2006, the Writ Petition in W.P.No.19381 of 2004 becomes infructuous and accordingly the said Writ Petition stands dismissed.