S.SHANMUGAPRIYA Vs. DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the correctness of the impugned Proceedings issued by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.2615/A2/2016 dated 01.08.2017, thereby refusing to approve the appointment of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant (Maths) in 3rd respondent School w.e.f. 30.5.2011 and to quash the same with a consequential direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the post of B.T. Assistant (Maths) in 3rd respondent School w.e.f. 30.5.2011 with all consequential benefits including payment of arrears of salary.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 3rd respondent school is an aided school governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulations) Act. While so, in the 3rd respondent school, a vacancy arose to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher due to the retirement of one incumbent on 31.05.2010. As per G.O.Ms.No.241, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (K) Department dated 29.10.2007, the vacancy which has arisen in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher for taking classes VI to VIII Standard, the same to be upgraded as B.T. Assistant post automatically. Accordingly, as and when a vacancy arose in the 3rd respondent school for the post of B.T. Assistant, the school has forwarded a proposal to the 1st respondent seeking for up gradation of Selection Grade Teacher as B.T. Assistant and to fill up the post with qualified person. Accepting the proposal made by the 3rd respondent school, the District Elementary Educational Officer, Nagapattinam District, the 1st respondent herein in his Proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.1532/B2/2011 dated 17.5.2011 upgraded the post of Secondary Grade Teacher as B.T. Assistant and granted permission to fill up the same with qualified person for the academic year 2010- 2011.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that by virtue of the Proceedings dated 17.5.2011 issued by the 1 st respondent, the 3rd respondent has conducted an interview and finally, the petitioner was selected and she was also issued with an appointment order bearing Proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.12/2011 dated 30.5.2011. The petitioner also joined duty on the same date as B.T. Assistant (Maths) and she has been continuing to work in the 3rd respondent school till date. Thereafter, a proposal has been forwarded to the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent by the 3rd respondent seeking approval of her appointment w.e.f. 01.06.2011. The said proposal was returned by the 2nd respondent, namely, Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kuthalam, Nagapattinam District, calling upon the 3rd respondent school to submit records relating to roster in order to ascertain the compliance of rule of reservation for appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.55, P&AR Department dated 08.04.2010. The said impugned order returning the proposal of the 3rd respondent school refusing to grant approval for the appointment of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant (Maths) has been questioned, since the petitioner has already followed the 200 point roster prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.241, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (K) Department dated 29.10.2007. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the case of the petitioner is also covered under Explanation provided under G.O.Ms.No.55 dated 08.04.2010.