✦ Madras High Court

I.Mohan v. The Director

4 min read

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 17.06.2010 CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMANW.P.No.7122 of 2009I.Mohan... PetitionerVersus1. The Director, The Directorate of School Education, (Higher Secondary) DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

2.

The District Educational Officer, Palani, Dindigul District... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to paysalary to the petitioner for the period from 05.06.2002 to 09.01.2004and regularise the petitioner service from 05.06.2002 to 09.01.2004 inthe petitioner service register by considering the petitioner'srepresentation dated 28.04.2005.For Petitioner: Mr.I.Arockia SelvarajFor Respondents: Mrs. Geetha TahamaraiselvanGovernment AdvocateO R D E RThe petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste. He is a Post-Graduateand also obtained M.Ed., He was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacherat Guruvappa Higher Secondary School, Neikkarapatti, S.K.C.Nagar, Periyakalayamputhur Post, Palani, Dindigul District, by an orderdated 04.06.2002. He was appointed in the vacancy caused due to theretirement of one Mr.S.Varadharajan. The said school is an aidedschool getting 100% aid from the Government of Tamil Nadu.2. The graduate teachers could not be appointed against secondarygrade teacher vacancy. Since, there are no SC/ST candidates with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Diploma in Teachers Education for appointment to the post of SecondaryGrade Teacher, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.113, School EducationDepartment dated 14.03.1997, permitting the recruitment of graduateteachers belonging to SC/ST categories in secondary grade post. However, a condition was stipulated that those persons should undergoone month "Child Psychology" training before the appointment.

3.

The said G.O.Ms.No.113 was extended to the schools under theSC & ST Welfare Department by G.O.Ms.No.63, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes Welfare Department dated 01.04.1997. The personswithout undergoing "Child Psychology" training, were appointed assecondary grade teachers under the control of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes Welfare Department, since, there was no possibility ofgetting training immediately and the posts were remaining vacant for along time. In these circumstances, the Government issuedG.O.Ms.No.122, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Welfare Department, dated 02.08.2005, wherein the persons who were appointed without"Child Psychology" training were sought to be regularised from theinitial date of appointment.

4.

The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.301, School EducationDepartment, dated 09.11.1999, permitting the aided schools to appointgraduate schedule caste candidates in the secondary grade post ifthere are no persons available from SC/ST candidates with secondarygrade qualification. A condition is stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.301, thatsuch a graduate person from schedule caste category should undergo onemonth "Child Psychology" training before his appointment.

5.

In this case, the petitioner underwent training from09.12.2003 to 09.01.2004. According to him, though the petitioner andthe school repeatedly requested the authorities to sponsor his namefor taking training in "Child Psychology", he was sent for trainingonly in December 2003. In these circumstances, his services wereregularised by the second respondent only from 10.01.2004.

6.

The petitioner has now come with this writ petition seekingfor a direction to the first respondent to regularise his servicesfrom his date of initial appointment i.e., 05.06.2002 and also to paysalary payable to the secondary grade teachers for the period from05.06.2002 to 09.01.2004.

7.

Notice of motion was ordered. The first respondent filedcounter affidavit.

8.

Heard Mr.I.Arockia Selvaraj, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Mrs. Geetha Tahamaraiselvan, learned Government Advocatefor the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9.

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.122, Schedule Caste and Schedule TribeWelfare Department, dated 02.08.2005 regularising the services of thegraduate Schedule Caste candidate, who were appointed againstsecondary grade vacancy from the date of their appointment, eventhough they underwent "Child Psychology" training later, the firstrespondent shall not deny the similar benefit to Schedule Casteteachers recruited in aided schools.

10.

The learned Government Advocate states that the petitionerunderwent "Child Psychology" only in December 2003 and completed thesame on 09.01.2004 and therefore, he was regularised with effect from10.01.2004 as per G.O.Ms.No.301 (referred to above).

11.

In my view, since the Government regularised the graduateSchedule Caste teachers under the control of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes Welfare Department from the date of initialappointment, though they underwent "Child Psychology" at a later date, the respondents could not deny the same benefit to the Schedule Casteteachers who were appointed in the aided school and in the GovernmentSchools.

12.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not refuse to gofor the training. The reason given in the G.O.Ms.No.122(referred toabove) that immediate training was not possible applies to aidedschool also. Though the petitioner joined in duty on 05.06.2002, hewas sent for training only on 09.12.2003, for which he could not beblamed. It is also not in dispute that he served as secondary gradeteacher from 05.06.2002.

13.

In these circumstances, the respondents are directed toregularise the petitioner's services from 05.06.2002 and pay hissalary applicable to the secondary grade teacher post for the periodfrom 05.06.2002 to 09.01.2004 also within a period of six weeks fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition isallowed on the above terms. No costs. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ r n sTo1. The Director, The Directorate of School Education, (Higher Secondary) DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.2. The District Educational Officer, Palani, Dindigul District+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 43479+1cc to Mr.I.Arockia Selvaraj, Advocate Sr 43388PKB(CO)km/21.6.W.P.No.7122 of 2009

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Madras High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments