THE CORRESPONDENT, TDTA MIDDLE SCHOOL, KURUMBALAPERI, KEELAPAVOOR, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT AND M. PAUL SINGH, PRE-VOCATIONAL INSTRUCTOR, TDTA MIDDLE SCHOOL, KURUMBALAPERI Vs. THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, MADRAS,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to pay the salary of the second petitioner from 1.5.1995 to 31.12.1996, to pay the withheld salary from 1.1.1998 to 31.12.1998, to pay the monthly salary from 1.1.1999 and consequently to direct the third respondent to issue certificate, enabling the second petitioner to continue to undergo the training of Pre -vocational Instructor which is conducted in the District Teacher Training Institute, Munainchipatti, which was started on 5.4.1999.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners would submit that the TDTA Middle School is a minority school; that originally, there were classes upto V Std.; that the first respondent granted recognition for VI Std. in the year 1988 -89, VII Std. in the year 1989 -90 and VIII Std. in the year 1990 -91 by his order dated 20.2.1991, which recognition was confirmed by the second respondent and continued till 31.5.1994 as per the order of the Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, dated 14.6.1993; that again the recognition was granted upto 30.11.2000 by the Chief Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli by order dated 3.2.1999 and now the School has sufficient strength in VI to VIII Std.; that since the petitioner School was in need of a part -time Carpentry Vocational Teacher, the second petitioner was appointed in leave vacancy from 7.7.1987 to 20.8.1987; that subsequently, he was appointed as Temporary substitute in TDTA Middle School, Madathuachampadi from 13.10.1987 to 30.11.1987 and after that, he was appointed as Probationary part -time Carpentry Pre -vocational Instructor in TDTA Middle School, Kurumbalaperi on 1.6.1988 till 31.5.1990; that these appointments were approved by the authorities concerned and that subsequently, the second petitioner was appointed as a permanent Carpentry Pre -Vocational Instructor, on and from 1.6.1988, which was approved by the third respondent on 23.3.1995.

(3.) The petitioners would further submit that the second petitioner was paid salary upto 30.4.1995 and he was not paid salary from 01.5.1995 to 31.12.1995, even though he worked in the first petitioner school during that period; that no notice was given to the second petitioner regarding the stoppage of salary, nor was he informed the reasons as to why the salary was stopped for the above said period, which is violative of the principles of natural justice; that he was appointed on a monthly salary of Rs.190/= and now the salary got enhanced to Rs.375/ - p.m; that the School was deprived of the benefit of having a teacher being paid by the Government; that when the appointment of the second petitioner had been sanctioned and approved by the District Educational Officer, Tenkasi by order dated 24.7.1991, there is no justification in stopping his salary by the respondents; that on a communication made by the first petitioner to the Assistant Primary Educational Officer, Keelapavoor on 15.4.1997 requesting to pay the salary of the second petitioner and to convert his post into a full time job, the salary was paid from 1.1.1997 to 31.12.l997; that subsequently, he was paid salary from 1.1.1998 to 31.12.1998, but when annual grant was paid to the petitioner's school, the salary paid to the second petitioner from 1.1.1998 to 31.12.1998 was recovered from the maintenance grant, without any prior notice, which is illegal; that in this regard, the second petitioner sent a communication to the Additional Assistant Educational Officer, Pavoorchathram, for which there was no reply; that thereafter, the second petitioner participated in the training held by the Government for Pre -vocational teachers, for a period of three months on and from 5.4.1999; that while so, the Principal, District Educational Teacher Training Institute sent a letter dated 22.4.1999 to the second petitioner, asking him to submit a report from the Assistant Educational Officer as to who was paying his salary, whether the Government or the Management, and only then he would be permitted to continue his training; but, since the authority concerned refused to give such a certificate to the second petitioner, his salary was not paid by the Government and as a result, he was not able to continue his training and on such grounds, the petitioners would seek to allow the writ petition.