G. AROCKIA MARY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order, dated 06.03.2006 on the file of the third respondent, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 4 to continue to pay the salary with all attendant benefits to the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the writ petitioner herein, having passed S.S.L.C in the year 1982 and Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1984, subsequently, joined Pre-school Teacher Training course, and did two year Diploma course from 1988 to 1990 in Brindhavan training school and passed the same under Registration No. 038/98, as approved by the Department of Government Examinations. As per the order, dated 12.08.1996 in Na.Ka. No. 18310/ED3/96, the Director of Elementary Education, the second respondent herein, appointed the petitioner as secondary grade teacher on 20.03.1998 in the fifth respondent school, which is a minority educational Institution, declared under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, as the management was run by Roman Catholic Diocese of Thanjavur.

(2.) The second respondent has recognised Pre-school Teacher Training certificate as a qualifying certificate for the said post. The third respondent, by his proceeding dated 24.06.1998 in M.M. No. 2668/A2/98, accorded approval to the said appointment subject to certain other conditions that the same would be liable to be cancelled, if the certificate was not found to be equivalent to the secondary grade teacher training certificate. The petitioner was fixed on the pay scale of Rs. 1200-30-1560-40-2040 as that of a Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 20.03.1998, accordingly, the petitioner was receiving salary and other attendant benefits for about 8 years. Subsequently, the petitioner passed the Secondary Grade Teacher Training course also during September, 2003 and got the Diploma Certificate on 19.11.2003. However, the third respondent stopped two increments, by orders, dated 01.01.2005 and 01.01.2006 for the petitioner, on the ground that complaint was received and which caused an enquiry. The petitioner has further stated that her service register was also returned by the respondents 3 and 4 and the said respondents, withhold the attendant benefits in respect of Medical Leave, E.L., etc.

(3.) The fifth respondent; Correspondent of the School, wrote a letter, dated 06.01.2006 to the fourth respondent, explaining the circumstances. under which the petitioner was accorded approval. Though the second respondent has not disposed of the representation of the petitioner, dated 14.07.2005, the third respondent, by his proceedings, dated 06.03.2006 in Na.Ka. No. 337/A2/03, has cancelled approval, dated 21.03.1998 accorded for the petitioner, after eight years and accorded approval only from 31.10.2002 as a junior grade teacher. The third respondent also ordered that the petitioner can be accorded approval as a secondary grade teacher only with effect from 20.11.2003, the date of acquiring qualification as secondary grade teacher and ordered for the recovery of salary already paid to the petitioner from 20.03.1998 to 31.10.2002.