S INBARAJ Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) In this writ petition, the prayer has been made for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to function as an Office Assistant in the respondent school and to regularise his service from the date of his initial appointment with all back-wages and service benefits.

(3.) It is necessary to notice the chequered history of the case. The fifth respondent is an aided Higher Secondary School. The third and fourth respondents manage such school as well as several other schools in various Districts in Tamilnadu. The petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant under the fifth respondent school with effect from 29.07.1994. At that stage, there was some internecine dispute among various persons claiming to be incharge of the management. Some other persons had also been appointed as teachers. Such appointments were challenged by the group claiming to be the validly constituted management in WP.No.2380 to 2384 of 1995 and an order of interim stay was passed on 17.02.1995. The Government authorities namely present respondents 1 and 2 were not parties to such writ petition. Similarly the present petitioner was not a party respondent in the said writ petition. Thereafter the District Educational Officer passed an order of approval approving the petitioner appointment on 02.11.1995. Even though the DEO was not a party to the writ petition and the order of stay was not directed against him and even though the proposal for approval had been sent by the management of the school prior to the date of the interim order, a contempt petition in Cont.P.No.32 of 1996 was filed on the allegation that the interim order dated 17.02.1995 had been violated. After initiation of such contempt proceeding, the DEO cancelled the approval accorded in respect of the petitioner and five others by order dated 15.02.1996. Thereafter, the writ petitions were withdrawn. At the time of the withdrawal of the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge directed the Educational authorities to go into the claim of the concerned appointees and to pass orders within four weeks. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Educational authority again passed an order dated 28.10.1997 according approval. However, the management filed Writ Appeal in WA.No.1357 of 1997 wherein the Division Bench quashed the direction given by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 17th September,1997. After the writ petition had been withdrawn, the management had appointed the present 5th respondent as an Office Assistant and five other persons as teachers on 31.05.1997 which was approved on 12.06.1998. After the 6th respondent was appointed on 31.05.1997, the petitioner without any formal order was stopped, from working with effect from 01.06.2000. On 15.06.1998, a fresh order of appointment was issued in respect of the present petitioner and other five teachers. At that stage, four of the appointees who had been appointed on 31.05.1997 and whose appointment had been approved on 12.06.1998, filed W.P.No.9853 of 1998 and other connected matters. The present petitioner was not a party to the said writ petition. However, the Government authorities were parties to such writ petition. The said writ petition was allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 10.12.1999. It was observed by the learned Single Judge that the appointment had been made on 31.05.1997 by a validly installed body and the subsequent order of approval dated 12.06.1996 had not been challenged by the rival governing group which had assumed power by then and thus the approval had become final. It was further observed that the approval granted on 28.10.1997 to the concerned teachers (the appointment of present petitioner had been approved by the very same order) was based on the order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.05.1997, and that order has been set aside in the Writ appeal and the approval stood effaced. Even though, such order of the learned single Judge was challenged by the management, it is stated that in the mean time such appeals having been withdrawn on 29.11.2001. The present 6th respondent who could not rejoin duty due to Cardiac disease subsequently filed WP.No.1526 of 2000 praying that he should be reinstated. He was allowed to rejoin and therefore such writ petition has been withdrawn on 02.07.2001. At this juncture, the present writ petition has been filed. No fresh approval had been granted in respect of the petitioner's appointment.