MRS. R. SUJATHA ELIZABETH Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 26.11.2014 passed by the District Educational Officer, Vellore.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had acquired SSLC in April, 1991, HSC in March, 1993, B.Sc.(Zoology) in March, 1996, M.Sc.(Zoology) in April, 1998, B.Ed., in April, 2000. With these qualifications, the petitioner aspired to become a teacher. The Church of South India Diocese of Vellore has appointed the petitioner as B.T.Assistant (Science) on 17.9.2007 in the secondary grade vacant post in M.D.Middle School, Balaiyankuppam. While the petitioner was working in the said post till 8.5.2012, by order dated 8.5.2012, the Church of South India has issued an order of transfer transferring Ms. A. Padmavathi, who was working as Secondary Grade Assistant in the sixth respondent school, to M.D.Elementary School, Ariyur and the petitioner, who was working in M.D.Middle School, Balaiyankuppam, was transferred and posted in the place of Ms. A. Padmavathi. On receipt of the said transfer order, the petitioner joined the sixth respondent school on 11.6.2012 without any delay, as it is a regular vacancy caused by the transfer of Ms. A. Padmavathi. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that till the date of joining the sixth respondent school as B.T.Science/Graduate Teacher, the petitioner was working in M.D. Middle School, Balaiyankuppam. Adding further, he submitted that as per the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the transfer of Ms. A. Padmavathi was approved and consented by the District Educational Officer without any demur, whereas the respondents did not approve the transfer of the petitioner to the sixth respondent school. On enquiry, the petitioner was informed that the post in which she was transferred being surplus, the respondents are not approving her transfer. The impugned order further shows that she has been posted in an unapproved post.

(3.) Assailing the impugned order, it is stated that the third respondent before passing the impugned order has forgotten the fact that the first respondent in G.O. Ms. No. 100, School Education Department dated 27.6.2003, taking note of the fact that the secondary grade teachers who are taking classes between 6 and 8 standards are unable to teach the subjects such as English, Math's and Science, considering their inability, has issued orders that whenever permanent vacancy arises in the post of secondary grade teacher, it is open to the school to appoint B.T.Assistant in such of the post. Moreover, G.O. Ms. No. 239 School Education Department dated 22.9.2007 also gives a direction that whenever the post of Secondary Grade teacher fell vacant in classes 6th to 8th, the same can be considered for the post of B.T.Assistant. Hence the transfer and appointment of the petitioner as Graduate Teacher in the sixth respondent school is in accordance with the rules. Since the respondents have not approved the transfer of the petitioner, she is not paid with the salary for nearly two years, which is illegal. Moreover, the petitioner has been working in the sixth respondent school as B.T.Assistant from 11.6.2012 to 2.6.2014 without any break in service. Besides, during the relevant period, the petitioner was also directed to attend the various training programmes conducted by the respondents 1 and 2 in the interest of the students. Therefore, a request was made to the management to consider her case for transfer to any other school governed and controlled by the Church of South India Diocese of Vellore. Accordingly, she was transferred from the sixth respondent school and posted as B.T.Assistant (Science) in Annegar Ashram Girls Higher Secondary School from 2.6.2014 and the said transfer also was approved in paragraph-1 of the impugned order. However, in paragraph-2 of the impugned proceedings, the fourth respondent refused and denied salary to the petitioner from 11.6.2012 to 2.6.2014, where the petitioner served as Graduate Teacher in the sixth respondent school, which is an approved and sanctioned post. Concluding his arguments, it is stated that when the petitioner has been working in the sixth respondent school from 11.6.2012 to 2.6.2014, the respondents should have paid the salary. Therefore, a direction should be issued to pay the salary to the petitioner by quashing the second paragraph of the impugned proceedings, he pleaded.