A PERIASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is as follows: ?For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon?ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorarified mandamus by calling for the records from the file of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.534, dated 4.4.1988 and to quash the same and directing the 4th respondent to give effect to the order of the 3rd respondent passed in Mu.Mu.No.371308/(SE/E3/G8/82, dated 29.10.1983 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon?ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.?

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is as follows: THE petitioner is working as a Tamil Pandit in the 4th respondent-school which was a High School and when the Higher Secondary pattern of education was introduced in the State of Tamil Nadu in the year 1978, the 4th respondent-school was allowed to open Higher Secondary course. In 1978 after the introduction of the Higher Secondary course in the 4th respondent-school, the petitioner was not promoted as Post Graduate Assistant in Tamil to take classes for the Higher Secondary course for want of vacancy. For the academic year 1979-80 the additional post of P.G.Assistant in Tamil was sanctioned by the Chief Educational Officer, Salem by his order dated 5.7.1979 for the 4th respondent-school. THEn the management of the 4th respondent-school promoted the petitioner as P.G.Assistant in Tamil and the petitioner held that post from 5.7.1979 to 31.10.1979. After 31.10.1979 the petitioner was not allowed to continue in the Higher Secondary section as P.G.Assistant as he did not possess the necessary qualification to hold the post of P.G.Assistant viz. M.A.Degree in Tamil. THE qualifications prescribed for the P.G.Assistant for the Higher Secondary course are M.ADegree in Tamil with B.Ed, degree. On 8.2.1980 the management of the 4th respondent-school appointed the 5th respondent as P.G.Assistant in Tamil directly from the open market. On 8.2.1980 the 5th respondent also did not possess the prescribed qualification. Though he was having P.G.Degree in Tamil he was not having the B.Ed, degree and the 5th respondent acquired the B.Ed. Degree on 13.12.1981. On 30.5.1981 the petitioner became fully qualified for the post of P.G.Assistant by acquiring M.A. Degree in Tamil. THE management of the 4th respondent-school after appointing the 5th respondent-as P.G.Assistant for the Higher Secondary Course on 8.2.1980 applied to the District Educational Officer for approval of the appointment of the 5th respondent. This request of the 4th respondent was rejected by the District Educational Officer on 11.8.1980. Again, the management of the 4th respondent applied to the District Educational Officer, Sankagiri for approving the appointment of the 5th respondent as P.G.Assistant in the 4th respondent-school on 31.10.1981 and the same was also rejected by the District Educational Officer on 7.12.1981. THE 5th respondent acquired the B.Ed. Degree on 13.12.1981 and thereafter in 1982, the management of the 4th respondent school again moved the District Educational Officer, for approving the appointment of the 5th respondent and the third request of the management of the 4th respondent-school was also rejected by the District Educational Officer, Sankagiri on 8.9.1982. Against the said order dated 8.9.1982 the management of the 4th respondent-school filed an appeal before the Director of School Education. THE Director of School Education dismissed the appeal filed by the management of the 4th respondent-school on 1.10.1983. Against the order of the Director of School Education dated 1.10.1983 a further appeal was filed by the management of the 4th respondent-school before the first respondent on 3.11.1983. THE first respondent by the order dated 4.4.1988 allowed the appeal filed by the management of the 4th respondent-school and regularised the appointment of the 5th respondent as P.G.Assistant in the 4th respondent-school. THE order of the first respondent dated 4.4.1988 is challenged in the present writ petition. In the meantime the petitioner acquired the Post-graduate qualification in Tamil on 30.5.1981 and he gave a representation on 30.11.1981 to the management of the 4th respondent-school requesting the management to promote the petitioner as P.G.Assistant in Tamil in the post sanctioned by the order of the Chief Educational Officer, Salem dated 5.7.1979. THE application of the petitioner dated 30.11.1981 was rejected by the management of the 4th respondent-school and against the said order of rejection the petitioner filed an appeal on 1.1.1983 before the Joint Director of School Education. On 29.10,1983 the Joint Director of School Education allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and directed the management of the 4th respondent-school to promote the petitioner to the post of P.G.Assistant in the place of the 5th respondent within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order.

(3.) AS rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents the relevant Rules viz., 1974 Rules were amended suitably making them applicable to Higher Secondary Schools only by G.O.No.1502, dated 23.9.1988. Under these circumstances, it has to beheld that in view of para 2 of G.O.Ms.No.720, dated 28.4.1981 the qualifications and other service conditions prescribed in the Special Rules for the posts of Headmasters and teachers of Higher Secondary Schools have to be followed by private aided Schools also during the period from 1.7.1978 when G.O.Ms.No.720 is deemed to have come into force till 23.9.1988 when G.O.Ms.No,1502 came into force amending the 1974 Rules making them applicable to the Higher Secondary Schools. The decisions of this Court in Senthilnathan v. The Chief Educational Officer, South Arcot District Senthilnathan v. The Chief Educational Officer, South Arcot District Senthilnathan v. The Chief Educational Officer, South Arcot District 1985 Writ L.R. 533 and S.K.V.Selvaraj, Secretaiy, S.K.V.Higher Secondary School Committee v. The District Educational Officer, Cuddalore and others, W.A.No.392 of 1981 and W.P.No.6925 of 1981 are not helpful to the petitioner because, this Court while disposing of those cases has not considered the effect of the statutory special rules contained in G.O.No.720 particularly para 2 of the said G.O. Further in the above decisions this Court has no occasion to consider the effect of the amendment of the Act by the Tamil Nadu Act 39 of 1987 extending the provisions of the Act to Higher Secondary Schools and G.O.No.1592 extending the 1974 Rules to the Higher Secondary Schools, for the obvious reason that they came into existence long after the decisions were rendered in the above cases by this Court. From the above discussion it follows that the Special rules have to be followed in the present case in filling the post of P.G.ASsistant sanctioned by the Chief Educational Officer, Salem by order dated 5.7.1979.