THIRU KAILASAM MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL THIRUNELVELI DISTRICT Vs. KABALINATHAN DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is Kailasam Memorial High School, Thirumalaiappapuram. A vacancy to the post of Secondly Grade Teacher arose in the petitioner's School on 31.05. 1999 due to the retirement of one Thiru. Chellappa. In terms of Rule 15(4) of the Private School Regulation Act, prior permission was asked from the Chief Education Officer to fill up the said post and the approval was accorded on 16. 04. 2001 followed by a further communication dated 24. 01.2002. After the approval was obtained, one Mr. R. Mangala Kannan was selected and appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 05. 06. 2002.

(2.) A proposal was forwarded to the District Educational Officer, Cheranmadevi for approval of the appointment of said R. Mangala Kannan as Secondary Grade Teacher. The said proposal was rejected by order dated 03. 11.2003 on the ground that the appointment was irregular because the petitioner who is qualified for the post of B.T. Assistant Teacher cannot be appointed in the Secondary Grade Teacher post. The said order was questioned by the petitioner in W.P.No.8017 of 2004. By order dated 4. 11.2004, this Court had directed as follows:- "The petitioner is a School. The issue relates to approval of appointment of one Mr. R. Mangala Kannan, as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the petitioner School. The said R. Mangala Kannan was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 05. 06. 2002.

(3.) I have gone through the said order of approval. By issuance of the said order, the petitioner followed the inapplicable Government Order rather than the Court order and willfully disobeyed the orders of this Court. Even on the applicability of the said Government Order, it must be stated that the said Government Order is applicable to vacancies arose after 01.06. 2003 or subsequent appointments made after said date only. For an appointment made prior to the said date on existing vacancy, the Government Order cannot be applied. Only to away from the order of this Court, the respondent had devised a method to follow the said Government Order and there is no justification in the order of the respondent dated 29. 07. 2005, in approving the appointment of the petitioner from 01.06. 2003 only and that too on consolidated pay, As already referred, the vacancy in this case arose on 31.05. 1999 and to fill up the said vacancy, prior approval was also accorded by the Chief Educational Officer, who is the superior officer to the respondent, on 16. 04. 2001 followed by a further communication dated 24. 01.2002. Only after the permission was accorded, the appointment was made on 05. 06. 2002.