R.V. THEVAR MEMORIAL GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, KAMARAJARDISTRICT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY V. RAMAR, CHOLAPURAM Vs. THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION COLLEGE ROAD, MADRAS,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions, questions raised are identical and hence all the writ petitions are taken up for disposal by this common order.

(2.) The fourth respondents in W.P.Nos.6187,6716,6950 and 7009 of 1996 were appointed in the writ petitioner -school either as teacher or as junior assistant. The fourth respondent in W.P.No.6187 of 1996 viz., Tmt.M.Chinnathai was initially appointed on 5.6.1987 and thereafter she was removed from service on 12.10.1988. She was again appointed on 09.03.1989. The proposal forwarded by the writ petitioner -management for re -appointment of the said teacher was refused by the second respondent, Chief Educational Officer by his order dated 03.02.1990 on the ground that the dismissal of the fourth respondent on 12.10.1988 was without prior approval. While that being so, the petitioner appointed one Selvasundari in the place of the fourth respondent viz., Tmt.M.Chinnathai and approval also was sought for the said appointment by the petitioner by its letter dated 3.4.1995. The request for approval was refused by the first respondent on 28.2.1996. As against the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3451 of 1996. Subsequently, by an order dated 24.4.1996, the Director of School Education, the first respondent while cancelling the earlier order of the Chief Educational Officer dated 03.02.1990, directed the petitioner to take back the fourth respondent into service on the ground that the original order of removal was without any prior approval.

(3.) The fourth respondents in the other writ petitions viz., 6716,6950 and 7009 of 1996 were also removed from the school by the petitioner -management, for which approval was sought from the Chief Educational Officer by the petitioner -management. However, no orders were passed on the said request. Pursuant to their removal, the fourth respondent in each of the writ petitions made representations to the Director of School Education on the ground that, they were terminated from services without prior approval and were not allowed to perform their duties in the petitioner school. By separate impugned orders dated 30.5.1996, the Director of School Education, accepting the representations made by the fourth respondent in each of the writ petitions, directed the school management to reinstate them into service. These orders have been challenged by the management in the above writ petitions.