A SHAHJAHAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner being the Secretary of an Aided Elementary School, has challenged an order passed by the third respondent, dated 30.01.2009, and the consequential order of the fourth respondent dated 05.03.2009, directing surrender of one Secondary Grade Teacher post as surplus from the petitioner"s school.

(2.) THE petitioner"s school which was established in the year 1946 initially as a primary school is an aided institution and governed by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act and the rules framed thereunder. THE post of Head Master in the school fell vacant on account of the retirement of an incumbent on 31.05.2006. Since, there was no Secondary Grade Teacher with five year teaching experience available, the post of Head Master was not filled up. In the meantime, a vacancy arose in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher on 01.06.2008, due to retirement of an incumbent. THE third respondent by proceedings dated 31.07.2008, granted permission to fill up the post and accordingly, one Tmt. V. Vijayalakshmi was selected and appointed pursuant to the resolution passed by the School Committee on 20.08.2008. THE said appointment was forwarded to the Department for approval. Whileso, on 27.08.2008, the fourth respondent inspected the school and certified that this school has sufficient strength to accommodate the said Tmt. V. Vijayalakshmi as Secondary Grade Teacher and forwarded the proposal to the third respondent for approval. However, the third respondent by order dated 31.12.2008, rejected the proposal and declined to approve the appointment of Tmt. V. Vijayalakshmi as Secondary Grade Teacher. It appears that the basis of rejection was no account of his surprise inspection conducted on 11.12.2009 and that there was no sufficient students strength. Consequent upon the rejection of approval, the third respondent by the impugned proceedings, directed one post of Secondary Grade Teacher to be surrendered to the common pool for being allotted to a needy school. This order is impugned in this writ petition.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the impugned order in this writ petition was a consequence to the rejection of the approval of the appointment of Tmt. V. Vijayalakshmi which has been quashed by this Court in the aforementioned order.