DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION Vs. UMA MAHESWARA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2009 in W.P.(MD)No.11554 of 2008 quashing the Proceedings of the 3rd Appellant in A.Thi.Mu.No.768/A1/2008 dated Nil.06.2008 and directing the Appellants to approve the appointment of 2nd Respondent - T.Govindaraj as Watchman of the 1st Respondent School with effect from 16.3.2002 and pay all monetary benefits, the Appellants have preferred this appeal.

(2.) CASE of Respondents is that 2nd Respondent - T.Govindaraj was appointed on 16.3.2002 as Watchman in the 1st Respondent School in a sanctioned vacancy. 1st Respondent sent a proposal to the 3rd Appellant - District Educational Officer, Thanjavur to approve the appointment of 2nd Respondent. The proposal was returned by 2nd Appellant by Proceedings dated 17.7.2002. 1st Respondent made a representation dated 16.6.2003 to the 1st Appellant and the same was rejected by the order dated 12.8.2003 stating that as per G.O.Ms.No.212, Personal and Administrative Reforms (P) Department dated 29.11.2001, there was a ban for appointment/filling up vacancies. The School Management filed W.P.(MD) No.11554 of 2008 to quash the Proceedings of the 3rd Appellant in A.Thi.Mu.No.768/A1/2008 dated Nil.06.2008 and also seeking direction to approve the appointment of 2nd Respondent as Watchman.

(3.) CHALLENGING the impugned order, learned Government Advocate Mr.K.P.Krishna Doss appearing for the Appellants contended that the 2nd Respondent was appointed during ban period and the same cannot be approved. It was further contended that in G.O.Ms.No.115, School Education (D2) Department dated 30.5.2007, Government permitted to fill up vacancies only in certain categories like (i) Junior Assistant, (ii) 50% of existing vacancies of Watchman posts through Private Agency (out sourcing), TEXCO, (iii) scavengers and sweepers through Private Agency by out sourcing and (iv) 50% of the vacant posts of Office Assistants and there is no mention of appointment of Watchman in G.O.Ms.No.115, School Education (D2) Department dated 30.5.2007 and while so, Writ Court erred in issuing direction to approve the appointment of 2nd Respondent with effect from 16.03.2002. It was further submitted that there was ban on recruitment of any post was the policy decision of the Government and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court have upheld that policy decision of the Government, the same cannot be contravened unless found to be arbitrary and while so, the Writ Court erred in allowing the Writ Petition directing the Appellants to approve the appointment of 2nd Respondent.