P. RANJITH KUMAR Vs. CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter is taken up through web hearing.

(2.) These petitioners were appointed as Watchman, Scavenger and Sweeper respectively against the sanctioned vacancies on 09.05.2018 in the 3 rd respondent School. Before their appointment, the 3 rd respondent school had followed the procedure contemplated under the relevant Rules governing such appointments in calling for the candidates from the Employment Exchange and also causing publication in 'Dhina Thanthi' announcing the subject recruitment. In pursuance of the above initiation, interview was conducted and these petitioners were selected as Watchman, Scavenger and Sweeper respectively and joined the post on 10.05.2018. Thereafter, the Management forwarded the proposal to the 1 st respondent through the 2 nd respondent on 12.06.2018 for approval of these appointments. Initially, the proposal was returned for certain defects to be complied with and on complying with the returns, the proposal was reforwarded to the authorities. However, there was no action forthcoming from the authorities in response to the proposal forwarded to them.

(3.) When the School, subsequently, made enquiry as to why no action was taken on the proposal, finally, the Management was informed vide proceedings of the 1 st respondent dated 05.04.2019 that the proposal for seeking approval of the appointment of the petitioners could not be acceded to, for the reason that no prior permission had been taken by the School before appointing them. The proceedings of the 1 st respondent is the subject matter of challenge in these writ petitions.