Y SAMUVEL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, while seeking to challenge the orders of the fourth respondent dated 14. 10. 1998 in Na. Ka. No. 1909/a3/94 and the confirmation of the same by the third respondent in his order dated 21. 10. 2003 in Na. Ka. No. 8259/a3/2003 also seeks to challenge G. O. Ms. No. 752, Education, Science and Technology, dated 18. 10. 1996.

(2.) THE brief facts, which are required to be stated are that the sixth respondent school is an aided school. There was a part-time pre-vocational instructor in the said school by name Selvi. Mercy Stella. She was promoted as a full-time vocational instructor to one other school under the very same management of C. S. I. Schools, functioning at Ahoor and her promotion to the said post was also approved by the fourth respondent by his proceedings dated 15. 12. 1995. The petitioner came to be appointed in the place of the said Selvi. Mercy Stella as a part-time pre-vocational instructor in the sixth respondent school by order dated 3. 1. 1997. The said appointment of the petitioner was also approved by the fourth respondent by his order dated 15. 9. 1998. However, by a subsequent order dated 14. 10. 1998, which has been impugned in this writ petition, the fourth respondent cancelled the approval granted earlier on the ground that the predecessor of the petitioner having been promoted as a full-time craft instructor, the said post could not have been filled up by the sixth respondent. When the petitioner filed an appeal, the same came to be rejected by the third respondent in his order dated 21. 10. 2003 stating that under G. O. Ms. No. 752, E. S. T. Dept. , dated 18. 10. 1996, there was a ban to the effect that no part-time craft instructors should be appointed in the Government, Panchayat Union as well as aided middle schools and inasmuch as the petitioner's appointment came to be made after the issuance of the said G. O. , viz. , on 3. 1. 1997, the said appointment cannot be approved.

(3.) ASSAILING the said order, Mr. Saseetharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the ban imposed in the above referred to G. O. Ms. No. 752 dated 18. 10. 1996 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner and that in any event, if such a ban is construed to act as a general ban, any appointments to be made in an aided school for the post of part-time craft instructor, the same is not valid inasmuch as it will result in non-availability of craft instructor in the school, where the course of vocational craft instructors was in vogue from the date of its inception. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that the rejection of the approval of the petitioner's appointment is liable to be set aside.