M.S.S.JEYAVELGANDHAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the Secretary of Sri Mukthivinayakar Middle School, seeking a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment made by the petitioner/school in favour of one Senthilkumar for the post of B.T. (English) with effect from 22.11.2011 with all benefits.

(2.) It is seen from the records that the petitioner/school is an aided private school. In their school, the post of Graduate Assistant for English fell vacant due to the resignation of one Satish and they obtained prior approval from the District Elementary Education Officer, Theni for filling up the post. It was claimed that the post, as per the communal roster, comes under Point No.4 and an interview was conducted in respect of persons who are sponsored by employment exchange and through newspaper advertisement. According to the petitioner, the said Senthilkumar was fully qualified both for his ability and merit and hence, the School Committee unanimously decided to appoint him as Graduate Assistant (English). Thereafter, an order of appointment was given to the said teacher stating that he should pass the Teacher Entrance Test within five years as per the NCTE Norms. It was thereafter the petitioner sent a proposal for approving the appointment of the said teacher with a requisition letter dated 19.12.2011.

(3.) The said request of the petitioner/school was examined by the Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Cumbum and by proceeding dated 5.7.2012, the said authority, namely the fourth respondent, returned the proposal stating that already the High Court had given direction that while verifying the candidature of the candidates appearing for counselling for any post, it has to be seen whether they are having three year degree or double degree with one year course certificate and in case the candidates are having one year degree certificate, they are not entitled to be considered for the said post. It is in that view of the matter the proposal sent by the petitioner was returned. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the return of the proposal. On the contrary, the petitioner/ school sought a direction to approve the appointment of Senthilkumar.