B. BHUVANESWARI Vs. DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are as follows:-

(2.) The petitioner was appointed by the fourth respondent/correspondent in exercise of its minority rights under Article 26 and 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is fully qualified for being appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the fourth respondent-management. It is further submitted that on 22.01.2000, the fourth respondent-management submitted proposals for approval to the second respondent, viz., the District Elementary Educational Officer, Thanjavur District along with all the required particulars including the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.No.19419 of 1990. The request was submitted through the third respondent and the third respondent did not forward the said proposals to the second respondent even after the expiry of several months. The said proposal was written by the third respondent through his proceedings in O.M.No.123/A2/2000, dated 31.08.2001, by stating that the appointment is made without following communal rotation and the issue of whether or not the fourth respondent-school can be treated as non-minority school or minority school is to be clarified by the first respondent and the clarification to that effect was sought from the first respondent i.e, the Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai. It is further submitted that the fourth respondent after the said order of the third respondent, dated 31.08.2001, submitted a detailed representation on 03.10.2001 and pointed out that the fourth respondent-school is already declared as a minority school which is accepted by the Educational Department and therefore, a communal roster need not be followed and consequently requested the second respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner and the said request was submitted through the third respondent. The copy of the said representation was submitted to the second respondent. The Management also submitted a representation to the first respondent on 28.12.2000 and explained the position and requested him to issue suitable direction to the second respondent to approve the petitioner's appointment and a reminder was also sent to the first respondent on 30.06.2001 and in spite of the same, no action was taken by the first respondent and consequently, the third respondent in his proceedings O.M.No.2006/A2/2001, dated 24.10.2001 stated that he has requested the clarification from the second respondent and returned the proposals for the approval of the petitioner's appointment. The above narrated fact clearly reveals that the respondents 1 to 3 are not taking any action for the approval of the petitioner's appointment in spite of the same being furnished by the fourth respondent as early as on 22.01.2000 and therefore, the petitioner was unable to receive her salary even though she is appointed in a sanctioned and approved post, fully qualified for being appointed as a secondary grade teacher in the fourth respondent's educational institution.

(3.) It is submitted that since the petitioner could not receive her salary pursuant to the order of the third respondent dated 24.10.2001, the same was challenged in W.P.No.6533 of 2002, on various grounds including the declaration given by the Sub Court, Kumbakkonam and District Court, Thanjavur to the fourth respondent as a minority institution and the judgment of this Court, reported in 1999(1) CTC 121, 2001 (4) CTC 641, 1997 AIR(Mad) 94 This Court taking note of the said decision by order dated 28.02.2002 directed the second respondent to follow the said judgment and pass orders on merits based on the representation dated 28.12.2000 followed by the reminder dated 30.06.2001 within a period of four weeks. The second respondent has chosen to pass order on 07.05.2002, without considering the direction contained in the judgment and therefore, the petitioner issued a legal notice and called upon the second respondent to pass orders in accordance with the directions issued.