S NALINAKUMARI Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE, the issues involved in both the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a final order is being passed.

(2.) WITH regard to the writ petition in W.P.No.11863 of 2006, the petitioner has stated that she had passed Master of Arts degree, as well as a B.Ed., degree. Based on her qualifications, she has been appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher (Malayalam Medium), in the fourth respondent school, with effect from 2.6.1997, in the vacancy that had arisen, on 31.5.1997, due to retirement of one Thulasibai Amma. After the appointment of the petitioner, as a Secondary Grade Teacher, the Management of the fourth respondent school had sent a proposal, on 2.6.1997, for the approval of the petitioner's appointment, by the third respondent. However, the proposal had been rejected by the second respondent, on 7.11.1997, on the ground that the graduate teachers cannot be appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers, based on G.O.Ms.No.559, Education Department, dated 11.7.1995. The said Government Order had been challenged before this Court in a batch of cases. While passing the final order, in W.A.No.991 of 1999, etc., batch, this Court, by an order, dated 29.6.2001, had protected the interest of the teachers, who had been appointed, between 11.7.1995 and 19.5.1998. Accordingly, the first respondent had passed certain Government Orders, in G.O.Ms.No.155, dated 3.10.2002, G.O.Ms.No.34, dated 17.3.2003, and G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 22.3.2005, whereby the graduate teachers, who had been appointed in the secondary grade posts, had been directed to undergo child psychology training, for a period of one month. After the completion of the training, the State Government had been directed to approve the appointment of the teachers. While so, the fourth respondent school had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.1024 of 2004, praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents therein to approve the petitioner"s appointment. By an order, dated 1.4.2004, this Court had directed the authorities concerned to consider the representation made by the petitioner school and to pass appropriate orders thereon. Thereafter, the fourth respondent school had filed another writ petition, in W.P.No.4075 of 2005, seeking for a direction to send the petitioner in the present writ petition for child psychology training, so as to enable her to obtain the necessary approval for her appointment. This Court had passed an order, on 29.4.2005, issuing a direction to consider the representation of the petitioner for being sent for training in child psychology. Thereafter, pursuant to the said order, the petitioner had been sent for child psychology training, for a period of one month, commencing from 25.5.2005 to 24.6.2005. Even after the completion of the said training, the appointment of the petitioner had not been approved by the authorities concerned. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IT had also been stated that there had been certain civil proceedings, with regard to the minority status of the fourth respondent school. Finally, it had been held that the fourth respondent school does not enjoy the minority status. Therefore, it is clear that the appointment of the petitioner ought to have been done by the fourth respondent school, only after obtaining the prior permission of the educational authority. Since, the claims made by the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.