THIMMY REDDY Vs. CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, dated 20.7.2000, made in I.D.No.12 of 1998.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the impugned award of the Labour Court, dated 20.7.2000, is erroneous and unsustainable. THE Labour Court had failed to see that the post in which the petitioner had been appointed is a permanent post. THE petitioner had been duly appointed by an order, dated 31.1.95, issued by the management of the second respondent school. Rule 15 of the Tamilnadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, mandates that in a regular vacancy, an incumbent shall be appointed only on a regular basis. Hence, the first respondent ought to have approved the appointment of the petitioner. It has been stated that the second respondent management did not issue a termination order, nor has the second respondent management issued a communication informing the petitioner that his appointment has not been approved by the concerned authorities. Instead the second respondent management had appointed one Maran Sadagopan, who is a relative of then Secretary, in the month of February, 1996. Such an appointment is arbitrary and illegal.