K.Geetha v. State of TamilNadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:22.12. 2009CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 17985 OF 2006K.Geetha .. PetitionerVs1. State of TamilNadu, Secretary to government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai.92. Director of School Education, Chennai.63. District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar.4. Hindu Girls High School, rep. by its Secretary, Watrap, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. . . . Respondents 'Prayer: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified mandamusto call for the records relating to the proceedings inMu.Mu.No.959223/D1(2)/05 dated 16.12.2005 on the file of the secondrespondent herein, quash the same and consequently, direct therespondents 1 to 3 herein to forthwith approve the appointment of thepetitioner herein as Headmistress(High School) w.e.f. 12.07.2004based on the proposal dated 23.07.2004 of the fourth respondent.For Petitioner : Mr. V.R.Rajasekaran For respondents : Mr. V.Manoharan, Govt.Advocate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R This Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash theprocedings in Mu.Mu.No.95923/D1(2)/05 dated 16.12.2005 of the secondrespondent and to direct the respondents to approve the appointmentof the petitioner as Headmistress.2. The petitioner joined the services of the fourthrespondent-School as Tamil Pandit in the year 1979. A vacancy forthe post of Headmistress arose on 23.05.2004. Considering the claimof two persons, the school selected the petitioner and promotedher to the post of Headmistress on 12.07.2004. On 23.07.2004, thefourth respondent-School sent a proposal to the third respondent,District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar to approve the appointmentof the petitioner as HeadMistress. But the said proposal wasrejected and returned. The fourth respondent-School thereaftersent a revised proposal on 15.09.2005 enclosing four certificatesin support of the appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress,which are as follows:1. B.Lit Tamil (Madurai Kamaraj University) CertificateNo.186/October 1978.2. M.A. Tamil (Madurai Kamaraj University) Certificate No.505077dated 22.11.1999.3. Pandit(Tamil) Certificate (Madras University Certificate dated30.11.1977)4. Diploma in Teaching-Tamil (Annamalai University Certificate dated02.12.1978.)In the proposal it was stated that the petitioner was working in theschool for more than 26 years and the petitioner is having therequisite qualification which is equivalent to B.Ed Degree, forbeing appointed to the post of Head Mistress. The DistrictEducational Officer, the third respondent did not accede to theproposal. Thereafter, the fourth respondent-School forwarded theproposal to the Director of School Education, the second respondent,who after considering the report of the District Educational Officerdated 10.11.2005, rejected the application for approval forappointment stating that in accordance with the Tamil Nadu RecognisedPrivate School (Regulations) Rules 1974, for the post of HeadMistressof a High School, the following qualification is required:Name of the Post Qualifications1. Head Master (High Schools)1.B.A. or B.Sc or its equivalent and B.Ed or B.T or L.T and Trained Teachers Certificate collegiate grade. 2. Should have worked as teacher in a recognized schools for a period https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of not less than five years after obtaining B.T or its equivalent degree.According to the Director of School Education, in the proposal ofthe school, reliance has been placed on the diploma certificate,namely, Diploma in Teaching (DIT) Tamil issued by the AnnamalaiUniversity, which cannot be considered as equivalent to B.Ed or B.Tdegree and since the petitioner does not hold requisite degree inB.Ed as required under the rules, the proposal was rejected.Aggrieved by the said rejection, the present writ petition has beenfiled by the school. 3. A counter has been filed by the third respondent, theDistrict Educational Officer reiterating the stand taken in theimpugned proceedings, in particular, it is pointed out that theDiploma in Teaching (Tamil) issued by the Annamalai University is notequivalent to B.Ed or B.T. 4. Heard the counsel for petitioner and GovernmentAdvocate. The impugned proceeding is required to be interfered withby this Court on a short ground, that the authority while consideringthe claim of the petitioner has failed to take into consideration thefour documents submitted along with the proposal dated 15.09.2005, inparticular, Document No.3 the Pandit Certificate issued by theMadras University dated 30.11.1997. The fact that Pandit Certificateis equivalent to B.Ed or B.T degree has not been disputed in thecounter affidavit. But, the said Certificate has not been consideredby the authority.5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for thepetitioner, relies upon Annexure V, Rule (IV)(3) wherein, in case ofappointment to the post of Post Graduate Assistant in Languages(Tamil) by transfer from the post of Tamil Pandit, the pandittraining was considered as equivalent to B.T. or B.Ed degree. It issubmitted that in the same analogy, in so far as Head Master of aHigh School is concerned, a specific clause provides for more than 5years experience in teaching after obtaining B.T or B.Ed orequivalent degree, the case of the petitioner, who is having morethan 5 year's experience, should have been considered for approvalfor the post of Head Mistress. In this case, the respondents 2 and 3have proceeded on the basis that the diploma certificate issued bythe Annamalai University cannot be termed as equivalent to B.T orB.Ed Degree. The Pandit Certificate issued by the Madras Universityhas not been considered when the recommendation of the SchoolCommittee is there in paragraph 9 of the proposal, that Pandittraining has to be taken into consideration. In this view of thematter, the impugned proceedings deserves to be set aside for notconsidering the relevant materials, particularly, the PanditCertificate issued by Madras University. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and thematter is remanded back to the second respondent for considering theproposal of the fourth respondent-School based on the PanditCertificate issued by Madras University dated 13.11.1977 and alsotaking into consideration the other factors as has been narrated inthe proposal dated 15.09.2005. The second respondent, who passed theimpugned proceeding is directed to reconsider the matter afresh afteraffording an opportunity of hearing the petitioner and the schoolcommittee either in person or through counsel to place all relevantmaterials that may be required. No order as to costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarPALTo1. The Secretary to Government, State of TamilNadu, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai.92. The Director of School Education, Chennai.63. The District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar.4. The Secretary, Hindu Girls High School, Watrap, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.+ 1 cc to Govt., Pleader, Advocate, Sr 70948+ 1 cc to Mr.V.R.Rajasekaran, Advocate, Sr 71188 W.P. No. 17985 of 2006RSI (CO)RH (1.2.10)