CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MADURAI Vs. J. PACKIALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ appeal is filed against the order dtd. 9/7/2024 passed in W.P. (MD)No.15063 of 2024.

(2.) The writ petition was filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.1012/ A5/2024, dtd. 13/2/2024 and consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant permission to fill up the post of Post Graduate Assistant (English) in the 3 rd respondent School and grant approval of appointment with effect from 30/1/2023 with all consequential monetary and service benefits.

(3.) The brief facts as stated in the writ petition are that the 3rd respondent in the writ petition is a private recognised non-minority aided school. In the said school, a vacancy arose in the post of Post Graduate Assistant (English), which is a sanctioned post pursuant to the retirement of the incumbent S.Uma, on 31/10/2022. There is no other post in the said school to teach the subject English except the said incumbent and the petitioner is qualified to be appointed as a P.G. Assistant (English), hence the school appointed the petitioner on temporary basis, in order to cater the immediate needs of the students, till the said vacancy is duly filled up as per law. The retirement of the incumbent was approved by the management on 31/10/2022, the school committee in its meeting on 21/11/2022 decided to fill up the said post, the proposal was forwarded on 26/11/2022 to the respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition seeking their permission to fill up the said post and through proceedings dtd. 20/12/2022 the 1st respondent had accepting the retirement of the aforesaid incumbent but did not pass any orders granting prior permission to the school to fill up the said post. Instead, the proposal sent by the management was kept without any orders. The school management considering the imminent necessity for taking classes to the students in English, gave a paper publication inviting applications for the post and pursuant to the selection procedure of selection committee, selected and appointed the petitioner as P.G. Assistant (English) vide order dtd. 30/1/2023 and the petitioner assumed office, the school had forwarded the proposal to the respondents 1 and 2 seeking approval for the appointment of the petitioner, but the respondents 1 and 2 did not consider either the proposal for the prior permission or the proposal for approval of the writ petitioner. Hence, the writ petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.8170 of 2023 seeking a Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to approve the appointment of the writ petitioner with effect from 30/1/2023. This Court, vide order, dtd. 27/11/2023 disposed the petition by recording the statement made by the Learned Additional Government Pleader that the application for approval will be considered and orders will be passed. Even thereafter, there was no response from the respondents 1 and 2, hence the petitioner issued legal notice dtd. 1/2/2024, requesting the respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith comply the orders and again vide letter dtd. 27/2/2024 requested to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and approve the appointment. While so, the writ petitioner received a phone call from the 3rd respondent that the 1st respondent vide order dtd. 13/2/2024 rejected the approval of appointment on the premise that his initial appointment on 30/1/2023 was without prior permission and also conveyed that the respondents 1 and 2 insisted the management should not permit the petitioner to continue in the school and also given the copy of the order to the petitioner on 29/6/2024. Hence, the present writ petition was filed.