G DAISY KIRUBAVATHY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order passed by the third respondent / the District Educational Officer, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District, in rejecting her appointment, vide proceedings dated 28.12.2012, with a consequential direction to the respondents to approve her appointment s B.T. Assistant (Science) in the fourth respondent school from 02.04.2012 and confer all the consequential benefits.

(2.) Mr.P.Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner joined in C.S.I. Diocese School in 1988 as Management staff and her name was also registered in the register maintained by the Diocese. Her turn came up for consideration when one post of B.T. Assistant (Science) became vacant in 2008 and she was appointed as B.T. Assistant (Science) on 08.09.2008 by the Management and posted at C.S.I. Girls Higher Secondary School, Coimbatore. However, since the post happened to be surplus, the proposal for approval of her appointment was not forwarded and thereafter, one post of B.T. Assistant (Science) became vacant in C.S.I. Boys Higher Secondary School, Coimbatore in 2009 and the Management directed her to appear for interview on 14.12.2009. Accordingly, she took part in the interview held on 14.12.2009. Since there was some dispute between the Management and Moderator, she was selected and appointed as B.T. Assistant (Science) only on 06.01.2012 at C.S.I. Boys Higher Secondary School Erode. Since she was interviewed, selected and appointed for a vacant post at Coimbatore, she brought the matter to the Moderator and the Moderator instructed the Committee to modify the appointment order. Accordingly, the appointment order was modified and she was posted at C.S.I. Boys Higher Secondary School, Coimbatore, on 30.03.2012 and she joined duty on 02.04.2012. Subsequent to her appointment, the School Management has forwarded the proposal to the third respondent for approval on 22.11.2012. However, without considering the same, the third respondent rejected the approval by way of passing the impugned order.

(3.) It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in a similar circumstances, this Court, in W.P.No.32314 of 2015, dated 12.10.2015, by taking note of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in holding that the teachers who were appointed prior to G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education Department, dated 15.11.2011, will remain protected, gave interim direction to the respondents to temporarily approve the appointment of the petitioner therein as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.