K NARAYANA PERUMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the fourth respondent in No. 18/04, dated 16. 8. 2004 quash the same and direct the fourth respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant and other benefits.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is as follows:

(3.) THE fourth respondent has filed a counter as follows: the fourth respondent denied the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner. He further stated that the petitioner is a retired teacher from Kerala; he approached him for appointment as Headmaster of the School. The Management expressed its inability as there is no provision in the Rules to appoint a retired person as Headmaster. But, he interpreted two G. Os and said that he was eligible to be appointed. The Management made it clear that it would not be in a position to pay the salary in case department refuses approval for his appointment. The petitioner also made a declaration that he will not claim any salary from the management if his appointment was not approved by the department. The Management, by way of abundant caution, wrote a letter on 30. 1. 2003 to the Director of School Education seeking prior permission for appointing the petitioner as Headmaster; but, the prior approval was not given. Since the petitioner emphasised the solemn promise, the Correspondent issued a formal appointment Order on 31. 5. 2003. While so, on 2. 6. 2003, the petitioner gave a letter in writing that "he will not claim any salary from the management for performing duty, if his appointment is not approved by the Department". The Director of School Education rejected the request for approval on the ground that the request of the Secretary of the School cannot be accepted as there is no provision in the Rules for appointment of a person, who retired on attaining the age of super-annuation. Therefore, he was relieved. Onceagain, at the request of the petitioner, the Correspondent sent another representation to the second respondent to reconsider his decision. But, again it was rejected by the second respondent by his Proceedings dt. 6. 1. 2004. In that letter it has been clearly stated that as there is no provision in the Rules for appointment of persons in the aided High/higher Secondary School, who retired after service in other States, the request of the Correspondent was rejected. " The request of the petitioner, in formal appeal, was sent to the Government on 19. 5. 2004. In the interest of the Institution, he was relieved on 16. 8. 2004. Thereafter, the seniormost P. G. Assistant was appointed as Headmaster. Hence, the claim of the petitioner is not legal and the petition is liable to be dismissed.