RV THEVAR MEMORIAL GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL CHOLAPURAM 625 139 KAMARAJAR DISTRICT Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION COLLEGE ROAD MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Writ Appeals are directed against the order of the learned Judge passed in W.P.Nos.3451, 6716 and 6187 of 1996, dated 7.3.2002.

(2.) THE appellant-management appointed Tmt. M.Chinnathai, the 4th respondent in W.A.Nos.2630 and 2632 of 2002 as B.Ed. Assistant in and by an order dated 4.6.1987. Subsequently, she was removed from service on the basis of inefficiency and disobedience as per the proceedings dated 7.11.1988. THE said order has been revoked at the request of the 4th respondent-teacher in the proceedings dated 9.3.1989. Her appointment in the order dated 4.6.1987 was approved by the 2nd respondent in the proceedings dated 31.7.1989, and consequently an order was also passed by the Inspectress of School Education in the proceedings dated 16.9.1989. Subsequently, the appellant-management sent a letter on 9.11.1989 to regularise their order passed on 9.3.1989. THE 2nd respondent in the proceedings dated 3.2.1990 rejected the same on the basis that the earlier order of termination was not with the prior permission of the authorities concerned. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant filed an Appeal to the State Government on 3.4.1990. Meanwhile, according to the appellant-management , the 4th respondent did not turn up for duty without assigning any reason. On that basis the Appeal filed by the appellant-management dated 3.4.1990 to the Secretary to the Government, Education Department was withdrawn and the appellant appointed one Selvasundari in the said place and made a request to the 1st respondent, the Director of School Education to approve the said appointment. Since the 1st respondent-director has not passed any order, the appellant-management approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No. 10994 of 1995 and the learned Judge in the order dated 21.9.1995 directed the 1st respondent-Director of School Education to consider the representation and pass orders within four months from the date of receipt of the order. THE Director, in the order dated 28.2.1996 considered the case of the appellant-management and rejected the request on the basis that the order of termination of Chinnathai was illegal and so it cannot be said that her place had fallen vacant so as to enable the appellant-management to appoint Selvasundari for the said post. Against the rejection of the appellant's request, the appellant-management filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3451 of 1996 seeking to quash the order of the 1st respondent-Director of School Education dated 28.2.1996 and to direct the 1st respondent to approve the appointment of Selvasundari as B.T. Assistant.

(3.) THE issue to be decided in these cases is common, namely, whether the orders of the 1st respondent issuing direction to the appellant to allow the 4th respondent in the respective Writ Appeals to continue the work, as the orders of termination passed against them without prior approval of the competent authority, could not be sustained in law.