DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION Vs. AIDED PRIMARY SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review application has been filed to review the order dated 9.1.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.259 of 2018, in and by which this Court, having held that the respondent/writ petitioner school is entitled to have one more teacher on account of the retirement of the previous Secondary Grade Teacher Tmt.Lakshmi, who attained the age of superannuation on 31.5.2017, directed the review applicants/respondents to grant permission to the respondent/writ petitioner school to fill up the vacant Secondary Grade Teacher post with a qualified Secondary Grade Teacher with TET, on the basis of the proposal dated 5.7.2017 and 30.11.2017 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

(2.) Learned Government Advocate for the review applicants stated that when the respondent/writ petitioner school, for the first time, sent a letter on 5.7.2017 requesting the District Elementary Educational Officer, Namakkal to fill up the post of Secondary Grade Teacher which had fallen vacant on 31.5.2017 on account of the retirement of Tmt.Lakshmi, in response to the said request, the District Elementary Educational Officer, Namakkal, vide his proceedings Na.Ka.No.3493/A4/2017 dated 18.8.2017 rightly furnished a list of 81 qualified Secondary Grade Teachers to be chosen for appointment in the respondent/writ petitioner school, as they were all found surplus. While so, the respondent/writ petitioner school cannot refuse to choose any one of the surplus teachers from the said list. If every non-minority school declines to accept the list of surplus teachers sent by the office of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Namakkal, no surplus teacher can be re-deployed to any school. Only in the interest of the surplus teachers from being sent out of employment, the School Department had prepared a detailed list of 81 eligible and qualified Secondary Grade Teachers. But only for the purpose of appointing their own teacher, the respondent/writ petitioner school refused to accept any one of the teachers from amongst the list of 81 qualified teachers. In view of the stubborn refusal made by the respondent/writ petitioner school, the District Elementary Educational Officer, Namakkal thought it fit to reject the proposal dated 5.7.2017 seeking permission. In the light of these facts, the order has to be reviewed, he pleaded.

(3.) However, the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner submitted that when the Secretary of the Aided Primary School, Thazhambadi Puduchathiram Union, Namakkal District sought for permission to fill up the vacant Secondary Grade Teacher post that arose on 31.5.2017 due to the retirement of one Tmt.Lakshmi, on the basis of the proposal submitted by the school dated 5.7.2017 and 30.11.2017, the review applicants have not come forward to consider the said proposal, as a result, the students were not able to gain their studies from the only Headmaster. Taking note of the fact that the respondent/writ petitioner school is having only one teacher and every school is entitled to have a minimum of two teacher, this Court, accepting the case of the school, has directed the Department to grant permission to the writ petitioner school to fill up the vacant post with a qualified Secondary Grade Teacher with TET. But even before the order was passed by this Court, the review applicants had sent the list of 81 qualified Secondary Grade Teachers who were found surplus asking the writ petitioner to select any one of them to be appointed in the vacant post. But the writ petitioner school, after perusing their qualification, came to the conclusion that none of the teachers sponsored by the office of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Namakkal had passed the TET. Therefore, rejecting the list sent by the office of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Namakkal, the writ petitioner expressed their willingness to recruit a teacher with the requisite qualification including a pass in TET. In the meanwhile, since the writ petitioner has already appointed one teacher, the review applicants, as per the order passed by this Court, should consider the request and grant the approval and also release the salary. Hence, there is no need to review the order. In support of his submissions, he has also produced an order passed by me in W.P.No.15358 of 2017 dated 20.2.2018, wherein I had directed the District Elementary Educational Officer, Nagapattinam to approve the appointment of the petitioner Tmt.J.Prince Mary in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in St.Arulanandar Primary School, Keelamathur with effect from 7.7.2015 with all monetary benefits.