DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION Vs. P. MANIKANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal preferred by the State against the impugned judgment dated 19. 07. 2019 is primarily focussed on the ground that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in allowing the writ petition of the respondent-writ petitioner for his appointment on the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the fourth respondent School with all consequential benefits with effect from 2008, inasmuch as the respondent-petitioner is ineligible having not passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). The sum and substance of the argument is that any claim of continuance without possessing the minimum eligibility qualification is unsupported in law and therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

(2.) The background in which this dispute has arisen appears to be that two vacancies arose in the Institution, one on 31. 05. 2006 and the other on 30. 11. 2008. Under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, which was applicable at the time when the disputed appointment was made, the procedure for such appointment by direct recruitment stood governed by the provisions of Rule 15 (4) (iii) (c) thereof, which further makes a provision that in the case of appointment by direct recruitment, the School Committee "shall obtain prior permission" of the District Educational Officer. The applicability of the Rule remains undisputed by the other side in relation to the disputed appointment when it was stated to have been made, for which permission had been sought and which was not formally granted by the authority concerned.

(3.) The intimation which was given about such appointment was not accepted vide order dated 09. 03. 2009. This was followed by the proceedings dated 04. 04. 2009, that came to be challenged by the Management of the Institution in W. P. No. 26684 of 2010. The said writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, who had communicated the disapproval on 09. 03. 2009, had no jurisdiction to reject the said request and had further observed that the cadre strength was available, therefore, the order dated 04. 04. 2009 suffered from infirmity and was accordingly set aside.