S USHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition No.19845 of 1998 has been filed by the individual teacher praying to issue a WRIT of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his O.Mu.No.3164/A4/98 dated 18.11.1998 and quash the same and consequently direct respondents 1 to 4 therein to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher w.e.f. 4.3.1998 made by the 5th respondent School and grant all necessary grant for the same. WRIT Petition No.20701 of 1998 has been filed by the School praying to issue a WRIT of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his O.Mu.No.3164/A4/98 dated 18.11.1998 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to approve the appointments made in the sanctioned posts of teachers to the petitioner School and to pay the teaching grant for the same. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, W.P.No. 19845 of 1998 is hereinafter referred to as the first WRIT Petition and W.P.No. 20701 of 1998 is hereinafter be referred to as the second WRIT Petition.

(2.) THESE two writ petitions have been filed by the individual teacher and the management/School respectively, for one and the same relief of quashing the order passed by the third respondent in his O.Mu.No.3164/A4/98 dated 18.11.1998 wherein it is stated that the Management/School is not entitled to more than 13 posts of teachers thereby rejecting the appointment of the petitioner/individual. Hence these writ petitions by the individual teacher and the Management itself.

(3.) ON the contrary on the part of the learned Government Advocate representing on behalf of the respondents would submit that it is false that no inspections were conducted in the school after the proposal for the approval of appointment of the individual petitioner that the proposal was received through the Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kumbakonam which was not in a complete form but, certain omissions and insufficient informations, without the necessary and the required particulars for considering the approval of the appointment were seen; that the AAEEO, Kumbakonam, submitted the required particulars stating that during his surprise visits, it was found that the School was eligible only for 13 posts as against the sanctioned strength of 16 as per G.O.No. 525; that on his surprise visit dated 1-12-1997, he was able to find the roll was 560 and the attendance was marked for 528 students, whereas, on head count there were only 420 students present. Likewise, on his surprise visit dated 8-12-1997, the roll was 557 and the attendance was marked for 515 students, whereas, on head count the number available was 383; that to appoint fresh teachers and to get the aid from the Government, such imaginary and false entries have been effected deliberately by the petitioner in the second Writ Petition above; that they issued a notice to the Management as to, 'why the appointment of the petitioner in the first Writ Petition should not be rejected' and since, the explanation submitted by the Management was not acceptable, rejecting the plea of the petitioner in the first Writ Petition and that of the Institution/the petitioner in the second Writ Petition, the impugned order was passed. ON such grounds, the learned Government Advocate on the Writ Side would pray to dismiss both the above Writ Petitions.