R BALAVADIVEL Vs. CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. Balavadivel, petitioner herein, has filed this Writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the District Educational Officer, Dindigul, dindigul District, second respondent, in his proceedings Rc. No. 2434/b1/2004, dated 30. 06. 2004, and quash the same.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are summarised as follows: " (a) Petitioner was appointed as a Laboratory assistant in the year 1991 in N. S. V. V. Higher Secondary School , pattiveeranpatti, third respondent herein. He is having the qualification of b. Com. ,b. A. (English), and B. Ed. As such, he is fully qualified to be appointed as B. T. Assistant. One post of Tamil Pandit and one post of B. T. Assistant became vacant. Since he is qualified to the post of B. T. Assistant, he made a representation to the management, requesting to consider him for promotion to the post of B. T. Assistant, as there were no qualified hands working in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher or any other teaching category. After receipt of his representation, the management, without considering the same, gave an advertisement in the newspaper on 10. 05. 2004, calling for applications for the post of B. T. Assistant. Since his representation was not taken into consideration as per the rules provided, he filed W. P. No. 14383 of 2004, challenging the said advertisement. When the writ petition was taken up for admission on 19. 05. 2004, it was represented on behalf of the management that the post had already been filled up on 17. 05. 2004 and the fourth respondent was appointed. THErefore, this Court dismissed the writ petition, recording the said statement made by the management, but giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the appointment order of the fourth respondent as B. T. Assistant. (b) On coming to know that the fourth respondent was appointed by the management, which is an aided school, in violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and the rules framed thereunder, the petitioner filed another W. P. No. 18516 of 2004, seeking for a mandamus to cancel the appointment of the fourth respondent. When the said writ petition was taken up by a learned single Judge of this Court on 14. 07. 2004, it was represented on behalf of the management that though the appointment order was issued on 17. 05. 2004, the same was not yet approved by the Government. On the basis of the said representation, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge, giving liberty to challenge the order of approval, in the event of the approval being given by the Government. (c) As against that order of the learned single Judge, the petitioner filed W. A. No. 3273 of 2004; the same was entertained and notice issued. In the meantime, the second respondent, namely, District Educational officer, Dindigul, approved the appointment of the fourth respondent on 30. 06. 2004. (d) In order to avoid any technicality, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, challenging and seeking for quashing of the order of approval of the second respondent, dated 30. 06. 2004. (e) When the W. A. No. 3273 of 2004, challenging the order passed in W. P. No. 18516 of 2004, was pending before this Court, it was brought to the notice that the present Writ Petition No. 3605 of 2004 was connected. This Writ Petition was pending in the Madurai Bench of this Court. THErefore, on the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, this Writ Petition was directed to be posted along with the Writ Appeal. (f) Accordingly, the Writ Appeal as well as the Writ petition came up before this Bench. When we found that the main question relating to the violation of Rule 15 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private schools (Regulation) Rules,1974, was common in both the matters, we dismissed the Writ Appeal No. 3273 of 2003, which was filed against the mere appointment order, for having become infructuous, as the comprehensive question, relating to the appointment and the approval, could be considered in the Writ Petition itself. "

(3.) WE have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records.