T SIVAKUMAR Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.4.2004 passed in Writ Petition No.9914 of 2004 confirming the order of the third respondent dated 24.4.2001 and of the first respondent dated 16.3.2004.

(2.) THE appellant came to be appointed by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 24.1.2001 as B.T.Assistant in the fourth respondent School. When the fourth respondent School sought for the approval of the said appointment, by proceedings dated 24.4.2001, the third respondent returned the application. As against the said proceedings, when the fourth respondent approached the first respondent, by the impugned proceedings dated 16.3.2004, the first respondent held that inasmuch as the second respondent was not competent to reallocate the surplus teachers, the very appointment of the appellant was not valid and therefore, no approval can be accorded. THE first respondent, therefore, permitted the fourth respondent school to go in for an appointment on consolidated pay from the academic year 2003-2004 as per the existing rules and regulations. THErefore, when the correctness of the order of the first respondent dated 16.3.2004 is examined, the core question that remains for consideration is as to whether the second respondent's sanction in the proceedings dated 24.1.2001 was valid in order to validate the appointment of the appellant, which came to be made as per Form II annexed to the said order. In this context, there was a reference to the proceedings dated 29.7.2000 of the first respondent himself in the order of the second respondent dated 24.1.2001. A direction contained in the said proceedings dated 29.7.2000 is to the following effect: In the said proceedings, the first respondent, while giving guidelines to the subordinates, has made it clear that the concerned Chief Educational Officers can make such reallocation of the surplus teachers for handling classes of Standard VI to XII.