K.NAZEEMA BANU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 28.02.2012 passed by the third respondent and for a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner from 09.02.1988 and confer all the consequential benefits.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Headmistress in the sanctioned post of the 5th respondent aided school on 09.02.1998. The appointment of the petitioner was not approved by the official respondents stating that the petitioner has not possessed five years of teaching experience as Secondary Grade Teacher. The Government has issued orders stating that a person appointed as Headmaster/Headmistress, without the requisite five years teaching experience, would be paid salary equal to be that of Secondary Grade Teacher for the first five years and on completion of five years and Child Psychology Course for one month, he/she will get salary of the Headmaster of the Primary School and their services will be regularized. He would further submit that in this case, though the 2nd respondent issued order on 02.05.2003 directing all the District Level Subordinate Officers to sponsor the candidates for Child Psychology Course for one month with effect from 02.05.2003, the name of the petitioner was not sponsored by the 3rd respondent. On 27.05.2005 only the 3rd respondent sponsored the petitioner's name for the said course and after completion of the course, the 3rd respondent regularized the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 25.06.2005. As the appointment of the petitioner was not regularised from the date of her appointment as Headmistress, the petitioner has approached this Court and this Court has directed the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner submitted by the petitioner in that regard. In the meanwhile, the Government has issued G.O.(3D).No.117, School Education Department, dated 11.09.2012, approving the similar claim made by similarly placed person based on the orders of this Court. But, the third respondent, without considering the same, has passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner and stating that the five years period of Secondary Grade Teacher Salary will be commenced only on completion of the Child Psychology Course and thereafter only, she will be given Headmistress salary. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that when the similarly placed persons have been given benefits, the rejection of the claim in respect of the petitioner amounts to discrimination. Due to the delay on the part of the respondents in sending the petitioner for Child Psychology Course, the petitioner should not be made to suffer. Thus, he prayed to allow this writ petition.