ARUMAIRAJ Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The salary of the petitioner was not paid due to issue of G.O.Ms.No.394, Education, dated 12.09.1997 and the fifth respondent challenged the said G.O, by filing a writ petition and the same has been dismissed. Subsequently, a writ appeal was filed and an interim stay of termination was obtained. The Division Bench, by order dated 29.06.2001, partly allowed the writ petition and directed to approve the appointment made upto 19.05.1998, the date on which, the writ petitions were dismissed by the learned single judge. The first respondent issued a G.O.Ms.No.155, School Education (D2) Department, dated 03.10.2002, in which the Government ordered that B.Ed., qualified candidates appointed upto 19.05.1998 in regularly sanctioned posts can be approved and they have to undergo one month training in Child Psychology in the concerned District Institute of Education and Training. The Government further ordered that they have been given relaxation for not having the required qualifications fixed in annexure (VI) (iii) under Rule 15 (6) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Regulation Rule, 1974. In the said Government Order, it is further stated that the salary will be paid to the said teachers after their completion of one month training through DIET. It is further stated in the G.O. that in so far as the teachers appointed in the non-minority schools are concerned, they should have been appointed following the Rule of reservation and through Employment Exchange. It is further ordered in the said G.O., that the salary paid to such of those teachers shall be stopped immediately and steps would be taken to recover the salary already paid. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to challenge the said G.O. in the writ petition.

(3.) The petitioner further submits that the order of the first respondent issued in G.O.Ms.No.559, dated 11.07.1995 and 394 dated 12.09.1997 were challenged in a batch of cases. During the pendency of the writ petition, this Court granted stay of the operation of the G.O. and several Managements including the Management in which the petitioner is working appointed B.Ed., teachers in secondary grade vacancies including that of the petitioner herein and the respondents approved and paid salary. On 19.05.1998, the said writ petitions were dismissed by the learned single judge as against which writ appeals were filed in a batch of cases. The Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 29.06.2001, held that while upholding the Government Order as valid, the teachers appointed upto date of dismissal of the writ petition on 19.05.1998 are to be given an approval and an undertaking to that effect was given by the learned Additional Advocate General that the graduate teachers who are inducted prior to the disposal of the writ petition shall be saved and a direction can be given to that effect, they should undergo training on the same lines as it was done in the past. The undertaking was recorded by this Court and this Court directed the Government to grant practical training. The first respondent, even though giving an undertaking before this Court and which was recorded in the order dated 29.06.2001, failed to take any decision in this respect and only after the contempt notice was issued and the matter was moved, the first respondent has chosen to issue Government Order dated 03.10.2002 in which the said conditions are imposed.